British police calling for knife ban

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: luthier

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: b14warrior

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: b14warrior
a reply to: Skid Mark

For a start, this wasn't a knife ban but an amnesty.
Secondly, guns aren't banned in the UK. Most people could get a shotgun licence as long as they have a place to hunt and a clean criminal record.

And lastly, comparing knife crime to gun crime is daft.
Just look at the figures. How many people masacres with guns in the US are there and how many knife massacres are there in the UK?
The chances of a burglar having guns in the UK is very very slim. They may have a bat or a knife and I may have the same but that narrows the chances of either of us dying.
Plus then you've got the police running round shooting anything that moves.

To be fair banning guns wouldn't work in the USA as there are already too many guns there and of course the criminals will be the last people to surrender them.
I wouldn't want them banned if I was American but there is no way I would relax UK laws on ownership.

First off murder is murder. If you stab someone and they die that's the same as shooting someone and them dying.

Massacres in the us are less then 1 percent of gun crimes. Most are suicides which would happen anyway. The rest are gang related which is directly related to poverty.

Guns are in fact banned. In 88 and 97 you banned semi auto rifles (again an absolutely marginal percentage of gun deaths in the us) and hand guns.

You have always had gun control at least since the 20's.

Second its the homicide rate per capita that matters. In the UK you keep homicides classified until you have a trial. So any unsolved murder goes unreported unless it goes to trial and the accused gets off. Most criminal justice scholars think the UK pads its numbers.

Lastly homicide and violent crime are down in the us despite what the media misleads you to believe.


When you severely restricted guns in 88 and 97 after your massacres the rate of decline in homicides didn't change.

Did gun control stop the Norwegian massacre? You can't have automatic weapons in Norway yet the psycho got them.some how.

Yes murder is murder.
But suggesting that having so many people owning a handheld device that makes murder really really easy and can be used at distance doesn't increase murders rates then that's crazy.

America's murder rate is 5 times that of the UK so I very much doubt unsolved cases are going to pad the figures to get them even close.

Murder rate didn't decrease much after tighter gun control laws in 88 or 97 because guns were already so very rare anyway. Murders were almost never done with guns already we just wanted to stop massacres.

You really can't be serious with that Norway argument can you. That's ridiculous!
So if something bad/dangerous that is band gets into somebody's hands that should have it and they cause damage with it then we should just make it easier for everybody to get hold of it.
You are also talking about a country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I am serious. There was no way for anyone to defend themselves.
Hand guns are the cause of the us murder rate. They are a close range weapon.

Why is the us so different than switzerland where nearly every household has guns? Or canada?

You are honestly telling me culture and economics have nothing to do with the murder rate?

The us murder rate is not even in the top 100 but we have the most guns per person so there goes your theory.

I suppose texas should have the highest gun crimes in the us too by that logic but turns out not even close. Its cities like detroit, new orleans, la (most strict gun laws in country). If you took these destitute cities out we would be less than the uk.

At absolutely no point did I say that culture and economics don't play a huge role. I don't think a single person in their right mind would suggest such a thing.
What I am saying is that in America, so many people having guns will cause the murder rates to be higher than in a country that has similar economic and social unrest yet barely anybody has access to firearms.

Also, you have the most LEGAL guns per capita, look at the countries in the top 100 murder rate list and many may possibly to be full of illegal firearms or even zero records on gun ownership, the vast majority are undeveloped nations after all.

Again, I'm not saying that America should outlaw firearms or even that guns are the only issue. The only thing I and many others have said is that having so many guns in a country that has certain issues causes more murders.
In the UK it is harder to kill people, therefore despite having similar issues and problems (although perhaps not as extreme) we have less murders.

The fact that we don't have guns also mean that the police don't need to carry guns and that is why police in the USA kill more people in a matter of days that other countries do in years.

Unfortunately cities like detroit are like the developing world. Their crime statistics are higher than some. We have the largest amount of gang violence in the world which is a socioeconomic problem.

If you took away the gang warfare the US would be right along side with Europe.

Take vermont. You can carry a gun legally anywhere without a permit. Yet they have the uk murder rate. Many states even ones with modest cities are similar. If your theory was correct this would not be true.

A huge amount of crime and homicide in the uk comes from london and I suspect over the next 10 years it will be much worse. Why? Socioeconomics. When you have that many poor refugees this is what happens. Look at the homicide spikes in Europe in refugee areas.

This is a much more complicated problem then gun control and its a sham to use gun control to tie the homicide rate to firearms.

If you had afghanistan next to england instead of ireland how much worse would the homicide rate be? Would you have drugs and refugees sneaking over the border making crime much worse. Yes.

The us has one of the homicide, organized crime, and drug capitals of the world bordering it.

Next thing to be banned ..Sharp sticks and chipped rocks

Vermont has a murder rate much higher that of the UK.
We have area similar to Detroit and we have areas similar to Vermont, just smaller as everything is smaller in the UK and if there were guns easily available in those areas, I would expect the murder rate to rise slightly.
You seem to be completely missing that we are saying the same thing. I have already said that social and economic issues are a root cause along with many other causes and having easier access to guns makes the rate even higher.
Gangs in London use knives for robbery and gang violence and if they had guns the rate would be higher.
Gun control is a factor in lowering the murder rate. It doesn't get to the root cause but it is a help at least.

You seem to be missing that we are in fact saying the same thing about the root causes of murder........ it's just that I see the lack of guns in the UK as a factor that helps keep our murder rate lower than yours.
What we do with weapons has some success. We still have issues but we are doing things like KNIFE AMNESTY'S to try and lower the rate further, so maybe don't make threads that are factually incorrect and laughing at the weapon control of another country when on some levels at least, for most it seems to work.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The issue is guns are a Right, not a privilege, in this country, so it is rather hard to limit a right as crazy as it may seem to you

This might "seem crazy to you", but the UK/England had rights long before your nation even existed. We have, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights 1689 (the one you based your own on), the right to bear arms as allowed by the Law and status.

originally posted by: luthier

The us has one of the homicide, organized crime, and drug capitals of the world bordering it.

Is Montreal really that bad?

a reply to: luthier

If you took away the gang warfare the US would be right along side with Europe.

Hmmm, well let's use Texas as an example then. They have a population about the same size as Australia and are also a very wealthy state. Texas gdp is approximately the same as Australia, which if they where a country would make them the 12th most wealthiest country by gdp (ppp) per capita and the 5th most wealthiest by gdp (nominal) per capita. So you can't blame poverty there.

Yet, Texas has over 800 gun related homicides every year and a murder rate 3 times higher than the UK.

a reply to: stumason

Just to add that people have the "right" to change the way things are organised in their country. The fact that the UK laws around e.g. gun ownership, are supported by the people seems to demonstrate that people in the UK do have rights.

I know some Americans, and the unchangeable "rights", as in the "right to arm yourself to the teeth" often goes against what people think should happen. Guns in the US are now seen as necessary for personal protection, rather than hunting (for example) and only a tiny minority of people would buy guns on the off-chance that the US is invaded or became a dictatorship.

Arguably, the original purpose of the right to bear arms as laid out in the US Constitution has passed. However, the US citizenry has no rights to change the Rights.

However, I would say that the above is slightly off topic and please don't shoot the messenger (no pun intended).

originally posted by: paraphi
Arguably, the original purpose of the right to bear arms as laid out in the US Constitution has passed. However, the US citizenry has no rights to change the Rights.

This always makes me chuckle, because when you think about it, they bang about their "rights" and constitution like it's the inviolable word of God, but the part of it that gives them the right to own guns is an amendment. Just like how it has been amended for a variety of different things, including banning alcohol! (there are 27 of them - with thousands having been proposed)

So, it can and does get changed, so them getting their panties in a bunch over their "inviolable" rights is just a joke, because with the stroke of a pen, these "rights" can be taken away.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: luthier

If you took away the gang warfare the US would be right along side with Europe.

Hmmm, well let's use Texas as an example then. They have a population about the same size as Australia and are also a very wealthy state. Texas gdp is approximately the same as Australia, which if they where a country would make them the 12th most wealthiest country by gdp (ppp) per capita and the 5th most wealthiest by gdp (nominal) per capita. So you can't blame poverty there.

Yet, Texas has over 800 gun related homicides every year and a murder rate 3 times higher than the UK.

Texas population wise is one of the poorest states so try again. Its actually the 47th most impoverished state in the US. Besides most criminologists know the UK has twice the number of homicides then they cite do to the nature of classifying homicides only after they go to trial.
You can't compare apples and oranges.

Try again

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: paraphi
Arguably, the original purpose of the right to bear arms as laid out in the US Constitution has passed. However, the US citizenry has no rights to change the Rights.

This always makes me chuckle, because when you think about it, they bang about their "rights" and constitution like it's the inviolable word of God, but the part of it that gives them the right to own guns is an amendment. Just like how it has been amended for a variety of different things, including banning alcohol! (there are 27 of them - with thousands having been proposed)

So, it can and does get changed, so them getting their panties in a bunch over their "inviolable" rights is just a joke, because with the stroke of a pen, these "rights" can be taken away.

That isn't the problem. The problem is when the politicians try and pass legislation without a constitutional amendment which has a very different procedure than passing a bill.

A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote.

originally posted by: b14warrior
Vermont has a murder rate much higher that of the UK.
We have area similar to Detroit and we have areas similar to Vermont, just smaller as everything is smaller in the UK and if there were guns easily available in those areas, I would expect the murder rate to rise slightly.
You seem to be completely missing that we are saying the same thing. I have already said that social and economic issues are a root cause along with many other causes and having easier access to guns makes the rate even higher.
Gangs in London use knives for robbery and gang violence and if they had guns the rate would be higher.
Gun control is a factor in lowering the murder rate. It doesn't get to the root cause but it is a help at least.

You seem to be missing that we are in fact saying the same thing about the root causes of murder........ it's just that I see the lack of guns in the UK as a factor that helps keep our murder rate lower than yours.
What we do with weapons has some success. We still have issues but we are doing things like KNIFE AMNESTY'S to try and lower the rate further, so maybe don't make threads that are factually incorrect and laughing at the weapon control of another country when on some levels at least, for most it seems to work.

The murder rate in Vermont is 1.7. The murder rate in the UK is between 1.2 and 2.2 since you don't classify a murder until it goes to trial.

originally posted by: b14warrior
Vermont has a murder rate much higher that of the UK.
We have area similar to Detroit and we have areas similar to Vermont, just smaller as everything is smaller in the UK and if there were guns easily available in those areas, I would expect the murder rate to rise slightly.
You seem to be completely missing that we are saying the same thing. I have already said that social and economic issues are a root cause along with many other causes and having easier access to guns makes the rate even higher.
Gangs in London use knives for robbery and gang violence and if they had guns the rate would be higher.
Gun control is a factor in lowering the murder rate. It doesn't get to the root cause but it is a help at least.

You seem to be missing that we are in fact saying the same thing about the root causes of murder........ it's just that I see the lack of guns in the UK as a factor that helps keep our murder rate lower than yours.
What we do with weapons has some success. We still have issues but we are doing things like KNIFE AMNESTY'S to try and lower the rate further, so maybe don't make threads that are factually incorrect and laughing at the weapon control of another country when on some levels at least, for most it seems to work.

You already admitted that gun control didn't lower your murder rate.

Second there are 67,000 self defenses with use of a firearm in the us per year as reported by the new York times (not the 2 million the nra claims). What would happen to those people if guns were restricted or banned? Is it safe to da the criminals would not turn in their guns?

a reply to: luthier

Yeah, I know that - but the point still stands, the Constitution can and has been changed. So much for "inalienable rights". With a 2/3rds Congress vote, your gun "rights" can be stripped away.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: luthier

If you took away the gang warfare the US would be right along side with Europe.

Hmmm, well let's use Texas as an example then. They have a population about the same size as Australia and are also a very wealthy state. Texas gdp is approximately the same as Australia, which if they where a country would make them the 12th most wealthiest country by gdp (ppp) per capita and the 5th most wealthiest by gdp (nominal) per capita. So you can't blame poverty there.

Yet, Texas has over 800 gun related homicides every year and a murder rate 3 times higher than the UK.

Texas population wise is one of the poorest states so try again. Its actually the 47th most impoverished state in the US.

Texas is actually the second wealthiest state in the US and the 14th most wealthiest per capita. So no, you should probably try again, lol.

List of states by GDP per capita

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: luthier

If you took away the gang warfare the US would be right along side with Europe.

Hmmm, well let's use Texas as an example then. They have a population about the same size as Australia and are also a very wealthy state. Texas gdp is approximately the same as Australia, which if they where a country would make them the 12th most wealthiest country by gdp (ppp) per capita and the 5th most wealthiest by gdp (nominal) per capita. So you can't blame poverty there.

Yet, Texas has over 800 gun related homicides every year and a murder rate 3 times higher than the UK.

Texas population wise is one of the poorest states so try again. Its actually the 47th most impoverished state in the US.

Texas is actually the second wealthiest state in the US and the 14th most wealthiest per capita. So no, you should probably try again, lol.

List of states by GDP per capita

Lol so you think gdp per capita is a way to judge poverty? So what you are saying is texas is a communist state where wealth is equally shared?

Texas is very poor. I live here. We have the 47th poorest population in the us.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.burntorangereport.com...

talkpoverty.org...

www.texastribune.org...

originally posted by: luthier
The murder rate in Vermont is 1.7. The murder rate in the UK is between 1.2 and 2.2 since you don't classify a murder until it goes to trial.

I am curious how you say the UK has two different murder rates and what authoritative source you have to back this up.

The UK unsolved murders are so low as to be statistically insignificant when looking at wider statistics. Does the figures you cite include manslaughter?

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: luthier

Yeah, I know that - but the point still stands, the Constitution can and has been changed. So much for "inalienable rights". With a 2/3rds Congress vote, your gun "rights" can be stripped away.

Yes which is fine. You wont hear me complain if they get a 2/3 vote.

a reply to: luthier

So murder rates tend to be lower in states with less poverty and minorities, so what? You could probably say the same thing about any developed country.

It doesn't change the fact that the US has at least a 4x higher murder rate than the UK, you gotta own that mate!

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: luthier

Yeah, I know that - but the point still stands, the Constitution can and has been changed. So much for "inalienable rights". With a 2/3rds Congress vote, your gun "rights" can be stripped away.

Yes which is fine. You wont hear me complain if they get a 2/3 vote.

You should complain, because it would mean that Congress has overstepped its authority. Congress can only propose an amendment. It requires a 3/4 majority of state legislatures (or state ratifying conventions) to ratify a Constitutional amendment.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: luthier
The murder rate in Vermont is 1.7. The murder rate in the UK is between 1.2 and 2.2 since you don't classify a murder until it goes to trial.

I am curious how you say the UK has two different murder rates and what authoritative source you have to back this up.

The UK unsolved murders are so low as to be statistically insignificant when looking at wider statistics. Does the figures you cite include manslaughter?

No the unsolved murder cases you speak of are ones that have gone to trial without conviction. The uk classifies or makes unavailable knowledge of a homicide case until a suspect is found and brought to trial. The two countries have very different ways of recording crime. Not better or worse but it makes it hard to draw conclusions from the data.

The us obviously has hire violent crimw and i am not argueing against that.

I am argueing the cases for why that is.