Bush Sucks.

[catmeow]

Frank

That's all rather reassuring to hear at the moment.  However it's therefore also all the more guiling to hear of people carrying and using guns as they do now, often it seems, without any repercussions.  They just seem to get away with it.  Also, in this country a 5 year sentence actually means a 2.5 year sentence, with our standard policy of remission for "good behaviour".

I think that is for people 21 years and over and there is a lower term for juveniles.

This annoys me too.  What the vast majority of people in the UK don't realise is that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10. Yes that's 10 years of age.  There used to be a grey area between the ages of 10 and 14 years, but that was changed recently (in the past few years) by legislation.  There is no distinction in law in criminal responsibility between a 10 year old and a 21 year old.  If you're old enough to commit the crime, you're old enough to take the punishment. I don't see why the law doesn't prosecute teenagers in the same way as it prosecutes older people.  That would stop the little b****rs...

Frank, you sound like you used to be a member of a gun club!

catmeow

[knightlight]

Stepping back a page...

I would agree that revolution in the US is impossible by its citizens.  I live in a city of 80k and all the police here either have shotguns or AR-15's in their squad cars and carry mace, spring loaded clubs and Glocks.  Thats just the local cops!!!!  I am actually considering buying a gun simply in the event of a social meltdown situation atleast I will stand a remote chance of survival.  Being unarmed in the US is starting to seem like a bad idea.  I dont like guns and I dont like killing people, but I'm not going to get caught with my pants down.

I used to be horribly anti-gun for a long long time, but this country is all out gun crazy!

[Leyla]

For every 1 time a person uses a gun to defend themselves or a family member from a criminal,  43 people have used a gun to kill themselves or a family member, either deliberatly or just on accident.

You have better odds playing Russian Roulette.

[Makaveli]

For every 1 time a person uses a gun to defend themselves or a family member from a criminal, 43 people have used a gun to kill themselves or a family member, either deliberatly or just on accident.

You have better odds playing Russian Roulette.

It looks like that statistic is flawed and guns are used far more in self-defense then they are used maliciously.  

From: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
3 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt.

From: http://www.gunfacts.info
Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal
Fact: Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).85
Fact: Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members include felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault, and other criminal activities.86
Fact: Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.87 This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member.
85 Arthur L. Kellerman, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60 1986. Kellerman admits that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case of a "study" conducted to achieve a desired result. In his critique of this "study", Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates were "inaccurate" , and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities. 87 Dr. Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America." New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991

[Leyla]

firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

OMG man!  Just use your common sense! How many people do you know of who have been shot? And of those people, how many of them shot the criminal in self defense?

[Makaveli]

firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

OMG man!  Just use your common sense! How many people do you know of who have been shot? And of those people, how many of them shot the criminal in self defense?

I can't think of anyone that I've met that has been shot and most of the people I know own guns.  I have heard of a few people using guns in self defense without it ending violently.  But that 43:1 statistic is a popular but extremely flawed antigun myth.  The number of times guns are used in defense may seem surprising but it's probably because most instances of self defense with guns end nonviolently and don't get much attention compared to homicides with guns in the media.  There are around 30,000 deaths a year from gunshots but there is good evidence that guns are used in self defense 1.5-2.5 million times a year which is a pretty big difference.  

If we're going to blame inanimate objects like guns for crime we might as well blame cars for drunk drivers and traffic accidents.  Trying to ban objects of fear like guns won't make things safer and does not address the problem of violence there are many examples of how much worse crime gets with gun control.

[Frank]

Catmeow:

No, I was never a member of a gun club but I was a person who was politically active in calling for their banning.

Personally, I detest firearms though I can appreciate the arguments from both sides. American people appear all in favour of firearms, but that is America and it is for the American people to decide what takes place in their country. Just as it is for English people to decide what takes place in England.

In England we are generally against firearms and continue to vote for their banning and seek even higher mandatory minimum prison sentences for anyone carrying a firearm. I'm not sure what the statistics are in America, but in the UK, reassuringly, firearms are involved in less than half a percent of crimes as a whole. But still, that is less than half a percent too much in many people's opinion and the only acceptable figure is zero.

The 5-year minimum means a person would actually serve two-thirds of that sentence before qualifying for parole, not half.

The 50% minimum only applies for prison sentences of up to 4 years. Up to 4 years a person can also qualify for what is called Home Detention Curfew or "tagging" as it is called. They are released on licence and are subject to a continuous minimum 9 hour, and maximum of 12 hour, home curfew in any 24 hour period.

So a person receiving a 2 year sentence, for example, would generally serve 12 months less HDC. On two years HDC qualification is currently 4.5 months, so they would actually serve only 7.5 months in prison and the rest in the community. However, HDC is not allowed with certain types of offences and firearms offences is one of them.

So a person sentenced to 5 years, they would serve 3 years and 4 months actual prison time before qualifying for parole. Now, qualifying for parole does not mean they are released. Their prison record will be taken into consideration, in particular the parole board will be looking at how the person has addressed their offending behaviour. Note: these days there are a number of courses that a person can take while in prison that seek to help people come to terms with the problems that may have led up to their conviction. For example, drug addictions, behavioural problems, anger management, etc.

Plus, as it is a firearms offence they cannot generally qualify for Category D prison status (open prison). The most lenient regime they can qualify for is Category C only. They would typically spend the first year as a Category B prisoner if they were convicted of actually using the firearm. But that would depend on circumstances.

So, on the whole, it's far from a walk in the park.

Yours,
Frank

[RT]

A couple stats, articles, and a forum I was sent by a friend in the UK.

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2005/06/28/crime_in_britain_part_1_dunblane_gun_laws_and_violence.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1312280,00.html

http://www.ukexpert.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=887

http://www.ukexpert.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=887

[catmeow]

Thanks, Frank for the info. You seem to know your stuff regarding our criminal justice system.  None the less, I think, and it seems to be an observation that many of us have made, and a fair approximation, that criminals tend to be released after serving approximately half their sentence.  It is in my opinion absolutely ludicrous.  The real reason for this, and for the tagging system being introduced is not one of social welfare, but simply that our prisons are full and need to be emptied as quickly as possible.  I'm afraid you will never convince me otherwise.  It is a fact, we don't have sufficient prison space and that is why our government is finding all sorts of reasons to release offenders early, tag them (an absolute joke) etc.  It's pathetic.  I for one would be willing to pay an additional "prison tax" which would be used solely for building more prisons.  I am absolutely 100% against the death penalty, but I am in favour of a credible deterrent system which involves removing antisocial people from society.  Call me a phillistine but I believe the cause of crime is criminals, not how tough your life was as a teenager.  I've had a tough life.  My parents came into this country after the war and worked like dogs to earn a pittance, and give me an education and a chance in life. One passed over now, one still alive, but fantastic people.  None of us ever committed a crime, whilst we knew a couple of families of yobs nearby who were regularly involved in crime and also defrauding the welfare state.  Their central heating bills, were paid for by the welfare state whilst they stole from building yards and beat people up in the local pub.  I'm not exaggerating one bit. In the meantime our house was cold.  The cause of crime is criminals, nothing else.  As you can tell, I'm pretty fed up with our namby-pamby criminal justice system.  It's run by politicians, who talk and live in a well-paid fantasy world and do b**gger all other than line their own pockets and lie to us about everything.  5 years should mean 5 years.  we all know it doesn't.  Sorry Frank, I had a rant, I know you have the correct facts but I'm fed up with slime pond-life getting away with it all the time....

catmeow

[catmeow]

Frank, by the way, I do agree you with as do most intelligent people I have talked to about it, that we should continue to legislate and resist the introduction of firearms into this country for as long as absolutley possible....

catmeow

[Frank]

Catmeow:

I appreciate your concerns. Much the same grates on me too. Thing is, if you do provide an incentive for "good behaviour" so to speak, then that must surely create a less potentially violent atmosphere in prisons and gives inmates an incentive to cooperate with the day-to-day regime. But I appreciate there are good arguments on both sides. It's just that I tend to fall on the more lenient side of the fence while appreciating all the arguments.

On the subject of the guns thing, while crimes involving firearms is still a very small percentage of crimes overall, it is a rising percentage. Looking at the figures and the reports it would appear the rises are mainly due to gangland-style practices surrounding the illegal supply of hard drugs. Quite an insidious practice and it is hardly surprising that firearms are also wrapped up in the equation.

Yours,
Frank

[Makaveli]

It looks like there are many people who are into spirituality that are antigun.  Many spiritualists or whatever they are called believe that we create our reality with our beliefs and thought patterns and I would agree.  To me it seems like projecting blame and fear onto external inanimate weapons takes away from the idea that we create and are responsibly for our realities.  I think guns are neither good nor bad they are just like any inanimate object or tool where their usefulness depends on the person using it.  

I think most people from both sides of the debate have good intentions of getting rid of violence and I understand why people don't like guns.  In opinion gun control tends to make crime much worse since prohibition doesn't work and it does not address the real issues surrounding violence.  

I just found an interesting article about guns and spirituality that explains what I'm trying to get at about spirituality and guns better:
http://www.consciouscreation.com/journal/articles/F11-TaoGun.htm
From the article: "Making the world a better place comes through the personal transformation of consciousness, not through external State control."

[Leyla]

If we're going to blame inanimate objects like guns for crime we might as well blame cars for drunk drivers and traffic accidents.

Cars are designed for transportaion, and only result in a death when an accident occurs. Guns are meant to kill.

(I know, it made sense when Rush Limbaugh said it.)

I live in Texas and there is plenty of gun play around here. In my very pro-gun state the news media is all over it when there's a self-defense story. They milk it for all it's worth.

Still, you almost never hear of one.

Personally, I can name off at least a dozen people I know who have been held at gun point, been shot at, and have been shot. (By ex lovers, criminals, drunken neighbors, ect.)

I can't say I know a single person who's defended themselves with a gun. According to your (laughably silly) "eighty to one" statistic I should know plenty.

Look, the truth is Makaveli, you like guns because they're big and phallic and make you feel powerful. You get a sexual type rush when you hold one in your hand.

You think "I have power over life and death!!!! I am GOD!!!!"

You imagine every bully you ever knew in school standing in front of you, begging for mercy.

And you're not willing to give that adrenaline rush no matter how innocents die.

Maybe you should take up sky diving.

[Makaveli]

Cars are designed for transportaion, and only result in a death when an accident occurs. Guns are meant to kill.

That's not true. You're forgetting about vehicular homicide.  So how can deaths involving cars only be accidents?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide  Cars mostly cause death from accidents but they can cause deaths from misuse like drunk driving and can be used as a weapon to do something like run someone over.  I'm not attacking cars but they kill many more people than guns.  I was also going to suggest that we blame spoons for making Rosie O'donnell fat and that is not by accident.  Guns have other uses besides for killing like self defense, target shooting, hunting, and there are many other legitimate hobbies with guns.  

I live in Texas and there is plenty of gun play around here. In my very pro-gun state the news media is all over it when there's a self-defense story. They milk it for all it's worth.

Stories like this:
http://www.tsra.com/true/sd07_10c.htm

How dare people defend themselves with firearms!  

Most self defense stories get little attention because they end without any violence and it's not as interesting for people to see on the news.  

Personally, I can name off at least a dozen people I know who have been held at gun point, been shot at, and have been shot. (By ex lovers, criminals, drunken neighbors, ect.)

I can't say I know a single person who's defended themselves with a gun. According to your (laughably silly) "eighty to one" statistic I should know plenty.

Even antigun Clinton researchers found that there were around 1.5 million instances of self defense with guns a year and the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found 2.5 million cases a year.  If either of those studies is even remotely accurate it's a much bigger difference than the approximate 30,000 deaths from guns a year.  

Look, the truth is Makaveli, you like guns because they're big and phallic and make you feel powerful. You get a sexual type rush when you hold one in your hand.

What a compelling argument!  I'm not going to bother trying to present facts and research anymore when you are able to use this sort of brilliant logic!  

Its true target shooting can be very fun and a bit of a rush but I can't say that I've ever gotten a hardon from shooting or handling a gun.  

You think "I have power over life and death!!!! I am GOD!!!!"

That is an interesting theory or maybe I have power to take some personal responsibility for myself instead of looking to blame external objects for the world's problems.  Adopting a victim mentality and looking to blame inanimate objects rather than people sounds appealing but it's not for me.  This might sound crazy but there is a lot of violence that people get threatened with everyday so I like the idea of taking some responsibility for my own protection.  That just might be better than only relying on police who usually get to the scene after crimes occur.

You imagine every bully you ever knew in school standing in front of you, begging for mercy.

Are you a psychic?  You seem to have us crazy "gun nuts" all figured out!    Maybe you shouldn't handle a gun if that's the sort of images your mind would conjure up from merely being around a firearm.  But I'm happy to say that inanimate objects like guns don't give me twisted violent fantasies like this.  I have more control over my thoughts than that.    

And you're not willing to give that adrenaline rush no matter how innocents die.

Assuming that gun control works.  If that were so it wouldn't explain why crime seems to go way up in areas where stricter gun laws are enforced and crime seems to decline with less restrictive gun laws.  Just look at what happened in Washington D.C.  By taking guns away you're mostly empowering criminals over citizens.  

If we want to blame something maybe we should blame people instead of guns.  It's not like guns have some mystical ability to go around killing people.  Although that may not be true because my 9mm just snuck out and did a drive by and robbed a gas station.      

Leyla, do you really have to be so insulting?  This is a spiritual forum and you might hurt my feelings.    Are you not able to have a civil discussion without insults and accusing me of getting boners from firearms, thinking I'm God, and having homicidal fantasies as a result of handling guns?

[Frank]

Makaveli:

This "guns" debate that forever appears to be raging in the USA is a bit of an emotive one it would appear. In England there is no such argument as guns have never been legal to carry for self-defence anyway. Most people in England have simply agreed with the prevailing policy and arguing over it has never held any significance amongst the general populace.

I'm sorry you appear to be getting upset but I think Leyla was being rather tongue in cheek. Plus, I (for one) think she made a good point. What she is looking at, and I too think this is a valid approach, is the actual specific primary purpose of a handgun, as compared to some other device or thing.

For example, I enjoy preparing fresh food and have a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife that I use to chop all manner of fresh foods in the preparation of my dishes. This knife is more than capable of slicing someone to pieces, but its primary purpose is as I describe.

Now, taking the example of a handgun, what is the primary purpose of a handgun? It is to kill people plain and simple. It has no other use. It's not like a car, where it is possible to lose control due to some very unfortunate circumstance and end up injuring or even killing someone. A handgun is simply designed to kill people, full stop.

As such, I think it is only natural in contemporary society that people are beginning to seriously question the efficacy of continuing to create and promote the sale of devices, the sole primary purpose of which is to kill other human beings.

Yours,
Frank

[RT]

Makaveli:

For example, I enjoy preparing fresh food and have a large, razor-sharp kitchen knife that I use to chop all manner of fresh foods in the preparation of my dishes. This knife is more than capable of slicing someone to pieces, but its primary purpose is as I describe.

Yours,
Frank

Where does the UK draw the line??? Or any government for that matter??

Maybe they should start with a ban on all alcoholic beverages if they appear to be the cause.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing. A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon. The research is published in the British Medical Journal. The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all. They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives. The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth. A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses. The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

Government response Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.  "The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place. "The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

[Makaveli]

Frank,  

There is no doubt that guns were designed for the purpose of war but what is more important is that they serve many practical purposes in the hands of civilians.  Unfortunately using a gun can be an effective way of killing someone but they can be just as effective for defending life and are used that way more often.  In America guns are more often used for practical purposes like self defense than they are misused.  Like I mentioned before there are practical uses that don't involve murder like self defense, target shooting, plinking, hunting, and there are many hobbies that involve guns like collecting and reloading.  If guns are only used to kill people I wonder why mine have only been used for target practice so far.    

Guns are really just a tool and like any other tool how useful they are depends on the person using it.  They are inanimate hunks of metal, plastic, and wood and are hardly to blame for the misuses of humans.  With your example of the knife it may not be designed for purposes of war like guns were but it can be used to kill, and when that happens the knife is hardly to blame.    

Violence is a social problem not a weapons problem.  The problem is that there are so many people willing to hurt others and gun control does not address the underlying issue of violence.  Criminals will still find ways to get guns when they are banned and even without guns they will find other ways to kill.  

The main thing that we should consider when deciding whether or not to enact gun control, is whether or not it actually reduces crime.  But there seems to be a very strong correlation between enacting gun control and rising crime rates.  If gun control actually worked then it wouldn't make sense in America why states that have allowed concealed weapons permits have then seen significant drops in crime.  It also wouldn't make sense that the safest states in America tend to have the least amount of gun control while the opposite is true of states with stricter gun laws.  It looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.    

Gun control may have good intentions and sound nice but it appears to make the problem worse because prohibition of guns and drugs doesn't work.  Criminals will always have guns despite what laws we have and if citizens can't have them then that makes it easier for criminals to prey on them.  It would be easier to get away with a mass shooting in a gun free zone then it would be to get away with robbing a gun show.  

I'm not getting upset with Leyla if she keeps up the sexual rush from guns type argument this could get quite entertaining.   It's just that the way she responded didn't warrant that serious of a response from me so I used a lot of sarcasm.    

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on guns and reality creation.  What I was trying to get at is if we create and are responsible for our reality how can external guns be blamed?  I think rather the world's problems stem from internal issues not external objects.

[Leyla]

Criminals will always have guns despite what laws we have and if citizens can't have them then that makes it easier for criminals to prey on them.

Where do you think criminals get their guns?  Off a foggy dock, like in some movie???

They steal them from law abiding, flag-waving, citizens who bought them for home protection, then they re-sell them to other criminals.  

It looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.

Oh for gods sake. The crime rate goes up as the population goes up. Simply b/c there are more people.

But their shooting deaths are nearly non existant.

No guns = no gun crime

[Frank]

Makaveli:

Much of what you say is a moot point as far as I am concerned as I live on a continent where is has always been illegal to carry a handgun for the purposes of self defence. What happens in America happens in America. American gun-control legislation has no bearing whatsoever in Europe.

What I mean is, people in Europe are not somehow "clamouring" to carry handguns because people in America have them. We all live very happily without the need to carry handguns. Crime, of course, does happen here. But most people accept that more handguns are not the solution.

It is an interesting statistic that crime, generally, is largely the same in Europe and America. It's just a fallacy that guns protect you against crime. If I knew you had a gun I'd come up behind you and smash you over the head with something hard and heavy. You wouldn't stand a chance. By the time you came to reach for your gun you'd be unconscious, lol. How can that "protect" you. The crime protection element is pure fallacy. To me it's just ego tripping.

I've noted your comments regarding the uses of guns, but what Leyla and myself were questioning was the efficacy of continuing to create and promote the use of a device the primary purpose of which was to kill another human being. Taking your examples, it may well be the case that people enjoy collecting these devices. However, that does not detract from the fact that their primary purpose is to kill. I may enjoy collecting cars, but that does not change the primary purpose of a car. In my view, what you are doing is confusing an object's common use with its primary purpose.

I would agree, however, on your point that guns are but a tool. Yep, they are a tool that are specifically designed to kill people. Unlike other tools that have a different primary pupose but, in the wrong hands, they can kill, such as a knife, for example. But the primary purpose of a gun is simply to kill. It has no other purpose. I cannot drive to work in a gun. I cannot chop vegetables with a gun, I cannot fly to America in a gun. There is only one thing a handgun can do and that is to kill.

Again, it is only natural that in contemporary society that people are begining to question the efficacy of continuing to create and promote the sale of devices, the sole primary purpose of which is to kill other human beings.

Yours,
Frank

[Makaveli]

Where do you think criminals get their guns? Off a foggy dock, like in some movie???

They steal them from law abiding, flag-waving, citizens who bought them for home protection, then they re-sell them to other criminals.

They get guns like that sometimes but banning guns isn't going to make them go away.  Even though guns are legal in America most criminals get their guns from illegal sources anyways so little will change with a gun ban.  

Oh for gods sake. The crime rate goes up as the population goes up. Simply b/c there are more people.

That is false.  Crime has been decreasing in America despite the growing population and growing amount of guns.  So why does crime go down with things such as concealed weapons permits?  Is it because the population goes down?  In Washington D.C. in the years after guns were banned the murder rate went up 51 percent while the national murder rate went down 36 percent despite the increasing population.  

You are clearly mistaken here because the increasing population doesn't explain the increase with the stats since it's looked at in terms like deaths per 100,000 people.  For example Washington D.C. has a murder rate of 59.6 per 100,000.  Yet in a place like pro-gun Arlington Virginia they have murder rate of 1.6 per 100,00.  

From: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

No guns = no gun crime

That would be true if we were able to get rid of guns.  But that is unlikely since guns are already very widely available and there will always be a black market for selling and producing firearms.  If guns were gone there would still be killing with other weapons and the world's social problems wouldn't go away.  There was a lot of war and murder way before the invention of guns.

[Frank]

It looks like gun control isn't going very well in other countries like England if crime rates are going up after they are banned.

Hi:

You have to please realise that it was NEVER LEGAL to carry a handgun in England for the purposes of self defence. Carrying a gun or a weapon or anything that could be constituted as a weapon for self defence in England has ALWAYS BEEN A SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

There is NO SUCH THING that crime is suddenly going up because guns have been banned. In the sense that we all once had guns and we were defending ourselves and now we can't... so criminals have free reign. It simply is not the case. IT WAS NEVER LEGAL to carry a weapon for use in self defence. Whether that weapon be a firearm, a knife, a stick, a whatever.

Yours,
Frank

[Makaveli]

Frank,

In my opinion gun prohibition does make crime worse but if the people in Europe don't want guns then that's their choice and they shouldn't do it just because America has the second amendment.  

Guns are used to protect against crime it obviously happens.  Sometimes when there is a violent attack people respond using a gun by shooting the attacker and that's one type of self defense.  The more common type of defense ends with no violence.  Pointing a gun at someone can be a very good way to scare them off or make them surrender and stop the threat without violence.  

If I knew you had a gun I'd come up behind you and smash you over the head with something hard and heavy. You wouldn't stand a chance. By the time you came to reach for your gun you'd be unconscious, lol. How can that "protect" you. The crime protection element is pure fallacy. To me it's just ego tripping.

You probably wouldn't be able to find out if I had a gun.  That's why most people who carry a gun get a permit to carry concealed instead of open carry since they have the element of surprise and can avoid something like that.  I don't have a carry permit now but I do have a concealed holster and nobody can tell that I have a gun when I'm wearing it.  A lot of houses have guns and burglars have no way of knowing which houses they could get shot in unless if they have some inside information.  

I remember posting in another topic about a survey that found criminals are more likely to avoid messing with people that they know have guns.  It's not just cases of self defense that decreases crime it's the public perception that a criminal risks being shot if civilians are allowed to have guns.  

I'm more interested in the common purpose and the way guns are used and how they impact crime.  Since guns have practical purposes such as self defense and target shooting which is far more common then malicious use I prefer to have them around even though the original purpose was for war.  How guns are used is more important to me than the original or primary purpose.  Although the primary purpose in the hands of civilians shouldn't be to kill people.  

I understand that people in England couldn't carry guns so the way it was before is still very different from America.  But couldn't guns still be used for home defense?  I don't know much about England there could be other factors but at least in America there is the strong correlation between more guns and less crime.  Whether or not gun control is partly responsible for the increase of crime in England it still looks like it hasn't improved England's crime rates.

[Mick]

I understand that people in England couldn't carry guns so the way it was before is still very different from America.  But couldn't guns still be used for home defense?  I don't know much about England there could be other factors but at least in America there is the strong correlation between more guns and less crime.  Whether or not gun control is partly responsible for the increase of crime in England it still looks like it hasn't improved England's crime rates.

Gun usage is on the increase here in the UK
A recent survey amongst the UK youth claims that one in 16 carry a firearm for protection when in their cars. These weapons range from fully functional firearms through BB guns to imitation firearms. The same survey indicates that one in ten carries a weapon such as a knife.
Legally UK citizens cannot carry self defence weapons including Mace etc. There was historically a fuller right of armed self defence based upon Magna Carta and our long forgotten Bill of Rights, carrying of swords etc. The modern era is largely shaped in the 1960s when a law was passed essentially transferring that role to the Police. The law I paraphrase says that 'reasonable' force only may be used to protect self, family and property in the case of genuine self defence, prosecutors will look to see if there is deemed to  have been excessive force used in which case the person may be prosecuted. This is sometimes considered too ambiguous and has been the subject of much debate recently especially following the shooting dead of a teenager said to have been trying to run out of a house that he had been in the process of robbing.

[Leyla]

The theory is that "if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns!"

This is totaly crap.

I have been to England, and it is not overrun by criminals, honest citizens are not  forced to baracade themselves inside their homes!

This is not the case in Japan, or in any countery where guns are banned.

As for "crime" going up- it's all in how you define "crime."

J-walking? Spitting on the sidewalk? Speeding?

It's the MURDER rate I'm interested it.

[Leyla]

I have an challenge for all you gun nuts

Forget the internet propaganda.  Watch the news.

Since this discussion has been going on there have been about four shooting deaths in my city.

Not ONE of them was an honset citizen defending themselves.

I thought it was 80 to 1 ?

I can see with my own two eyes that's a bare-faced lie.

I CHALLENGE EVERYONE OF YOU:

Here's what I'm going to do:

I'm going to watch the news every night for the next week- and I'm going to write down every gun killing.

Then, I'm going to report back here how many were in "self-defense." (I think we all know what the results will be.)

I dare you to do the same!