Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1.    #1  
    Ten years on from the Dunblane massacre, a good time to put serious limitations on the arms trade. Join the campaign at http://www.controlarms.org/
    In case you don't know about the tragedy here's a story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4801092.stm

    I know this is a largely american forum, and that there are plenty of you who will try to use all sorts of arguments in favour of guns, but since we imposed restrictions here in the UK there hasn't been another massacre like this.

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys, if they have guns."
    Animo et Fide
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys, if they have guns."
    INSERTION: Exactly where were you when JFK was assassinated...hmmmmm...
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Ten years on from the Dunblane massacre, a good time to put serious limitations on the arms trade. Join the campaign at http://www.controlarms.org/
    In case you don't know about the tragedy here's a story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4801092.stm

    I know this is a largely american forum, and that there are plenty of you who will try to use all sorts of arguments in favour of guns, but since we imposed restrictions here in the UK there hasn't been another massacre like this.

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys, if they have guns."
    Yes. And there's been no acts of self defense, either. In fact, your lovely "justice" system routinely sends people who defend themselves from violent criminals to jail.

    I would have thought you guys learned a lesson the last time you advocated disarming us
  4.    #4  
    I'm advocating control of the international arms trade. Control of internal arms trade is a different matter.

    And apart from one man who shot a boy in the back with an illegally owned shotgun while he was running away, I don't know who you mean.
    Animo et Fide
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I know this is a largely american forum, and that there are plenty of you who will try to use all sorts of arguments in favour of guns, but since we imposed restrictions here in the UK there hasn't been another massacre like this.

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and so do monkeys, if they have guns."
    Why Britain needs more guns


    Would break-ins fall for fear of armed resistance?



    By Joyce L Malcolm
    Author and academic


    As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says a US academic.

    "If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
    For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

    JOYCE L MALCOLM
    Professor of history, Bentley College, US

    Author of Guns & Violence: the English Experience

    Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program

    Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

    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.

    But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?


    The 'wild west' image is out of date
    Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. 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.


    Concealed weapon can be carried in 33 states [edited...since this article was written, the US now has 38 RTC states (right to carry)]
    Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

    A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

    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.


    Gun crime rates between UK and US are narrowing
    The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

    First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

    According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

    Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.

    Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, is author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in June 2002.
    Last edited by RicoM; 03/14/2006 at 06:47 AM.
  6.    #6  
    On the same page as that story you copied from was a link to a story about how gun crime was dropping in London, in 2003! And according to official statistics firearms offences are dropping generally, although imitation firearm offences are on the increase. Hopefully increased control on imitation firearms will help bring this down.
    Home Office report

    The Dunblane massacre was carried out by a normally law-abiding bloke who was a member of a gun club. He owned the weapons legally, as far as I remember. There is now no chance of a similar incident happening because he wouldn't be able to get the guns legally. For similar reasons there are restrictions on knives and other offensive weapons.

    The way I view it is this: if there is more drug crime do you try to make drugs more available or less? Druggies are always going to be able to get their hands on drugs, but by restricting them as much as possible you do save most of the population from exposure to them.
    Animo et Fide
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    ...The way I view it is this: if there is more drug crime do you try to make drugs more available or less? Druggies are always going to be able to get their hands on drugs, but by restricting them as much as possible you do save most of the population from exposure to them.
    That is an understandable position. However, it may over-simplify the matter as it fails to account for a key difference between drugs and guns. People who use drugs illegally primarily have themselves as the immediate victim of the crime, whereas those who use guns illegally primarily victimize others in their crime.

    Likewise, your knowledge of others' access to drugs would likely have no impact on your drug usage patterns. Whereas, your knowledge of others' access to guns would likely interrupt your usage pattern.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    That is an understandable position. However, it may over-simplify the matter as it fails to account for a key difference between drugs and guns. People who use drugs illegally primarily have themselves as the immediate victim of the crime, whereas those who use guns illegally primarily victimize others in their crime.
    Isn't that a reason to try to control guns more strongly than drugs?
    Animo et Fide

Posting Permissions