The British have something to say to us Americans!

Originally posted by THELONIO

to wake up in the morning knowing that some 41 people wouldnt die that day through gun related homicide or accident, yep 41 per day, 82 per day if you include gun related suicide, you watch your fellow americans die just so that you can retain the right to own a gun,

I hate to break up a sentence in a quote, but since you do not use periods I felt it ok to make an exception.

On suicide.

www.guncite.com...

The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.

Of thirteen studies, nine found a significant association between gun levels and rates of gun suicide, but only one found a significant association between gun levels and rates of total suicides. The only study to find a measure of "gun availability" significantly associated with total suicide...used a measure of gun availability known to be invalid.

This pattern of results supports the view that where guns are less common, there is complete substitution of other methods of suicide, and that, while gun levels influence the choice of suicide method, they have no effect on the number of people who die in suicides.

Those extra 41 people a day you quote as taking their lives with guns in suicide would not necessarily be alive if guns were banned. They would have chosen a different method. Like my brother did. He had no gun. He hung himself. What could we have banned that would have saved him from his suicidal thoughts and impulse?

The other 41 you quote as dying per day due to guns being in our society legally, can you be certain they would not have been killed another way? Stabbed or beaten to death perhaps? How many of those 41 non-suicides who die per day were engaged in a crime when they died or led a life of crime? Gang violence? Home intrusion? Armed robbery? Do you think that violent murderous gangs will stop killing one another if guns are made illegal? No one denies the fact that criminals will always have access to guns, so are you saving their lives by banning guns?

Could the reason America has a higher murder rate be unrelated to legal gun ownership and reflect some other thing about our culture? Perhaps that we have less mental health care for the poor? That we are a more mobile society and that people who need help fall through the cracks of our system? That we value money and power more than ethics? And, if the reason we have a high murder rate is something other than legal gun ownership, how will banning guns fix that? Mind you I am not saying those ARE the factors that cause our murder rate to be high, but they could be. No one is looking to see the real reason why what happens happens, because it is so much easier to jump to the simple solution.

reply to post by ConservativeJack


you should listen to yourself, you sound like an idiot, i am not saying you are an idiot, you are just sounding like one, america sounds like a lovely place to live, i wish you well, over and out

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


in 1995 there were in total gun related deaths 30,000, 55% of which were suicide, 15% of the remaining 45% were accidental with the rest being homicide, however you look at the figures they are way to high, and yes they were beaten to death with bullets, its scary when you step back and see how safe guns make you, every 3minutes and 40 seconds another american dies from a bullet, i'm english what do i care if you all want to run around killing each other, seem to me that the biggest threat in your lives is not terrorism but yourselves, and apparently deadly swimming pools (sarcasm)

guns are legal in america, high gun death. not legal elsewhere, low gun death

[edit on 27-1-2009 by THELONIO]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tensetek

 

On another tack....How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?

pretty accurate!

Originally posted by THELONIO
guns are legal in america, high gun death. not legal elsewhere, low gun death

Utter twaddle. Shows how much you know about firearms and firearm laws...

Every male over the age of 25 has to have an assault rife by law on his premises in Switzerland. Where is the gun crime/high murder rate there?

Have you ever been to Switzerland? Have you ever even been outside the UK?

reply to post by THELONIO

Gotta agree with C.H.U.D.. The swiss are loaded with high power weapons and they have one of the most crime-free societies in the world (I may not agree with many of their animal laws and such like but that is beside the point).

anyone who thinks guns should be banned from law abiding citizens should be took outside and hung in public, this includes obama's stupid notion that local governments should be able to restrain essentially the constitution as he so bluntly put it in that video. He's such a sell-out

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


the swiss also have the highest suicide rate in europe, but dont you think that it is the americans who should be asking themselves why the swiss can do it and they cant?, i think that the european ways are just more civilised, we all respect life.

anyway it is not twaddle, the americans have a higher gun death statistic than any country with strict gun laws, fact

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.Utter twaddle. Shows how much you know about firearms and firearm laws...

Every male over the age of 25 has to have an assault rife by law on his premises in Switzerland. Where is the gun crime/high murder rate there?

Have you ever been to Switzerland? Have you ever even been outside the UK?

I'm pretty sure that it's anyone who's ever been called up for military service rather than "those of 25 or over". There's also an enormous difference between weapons being owned by those who feel like it, and a government-mandated armed populace.

The murder rate in the US is generally between 2 to 3 times higher than that in the UK. That might well be down to more poverty and the like, but guns do play a role in this statistic - when it's easy for violence to escalate very quickly, more people get killed.

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

 

the swiss also have the highest suicide rate in europe

Thats because euthanasia and suicide isn't illegal out there. It is well known that people from other European countries go there to die and end their suffering because they are not allowed to in their own country.

The UK is not quite as bad as some would make out but it isn't that good either.

To be honest, the Police don't seem to harrass anyone where we live. They simply drive by once in a blue moon and the normal lives of most people....good or bad go on as normal.

We don't really have a very functional police force anymore...don't know where they disappeared to but we used to have Police patrolling the streets, chatting and being friendly.

But one thing for sure in the UK is that it is dangerous to defend yourself when attacked as the Police will prosecute you and protect your assailant who lies through his teeth swearing his innocence.

A young girl at a local college was attacked, in school by a bunch of boys who cornered her in a corridor. They tried to take her clothes off, knocked her to the floor and tried to remove her trousers. She fought them off bravely and punched one of them on the nose which broke his nose.

The Police were called and the girl admitted defending herself and the boys claimed an unprovoked attack.

The end result. The girl was expelled from school and received a Police Caution to stay on her file until she is 18 or 21, (I'm not sure what it is)

The boys got away with their sex attack on this girl and nothing at all was done to them as they stuck together and lied.

The moral of this story to everyone in the UK is NEVER EVER admit to hitting someone who is attacking you. Lie, Lie, Lie because our police just want to wind up the case quickly and blame the 'easiest' person to push into the corner

Policing in the UK is not about protecting people but just getting the paper work done.....nothing else!

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

 

the swiss also have the highest suicide rate in europe, but dont you think that it is the americans who should be asking themselves why the swiss can do it and they cant?, i think that the european ways are just more civilised, we all respect life.

I'm pretty sure that the highest suicide rate in Europe is held by Moldova or one of the other ex-Soviet states.

anyway it is not twaddle, the americans have a higher gun death statistic than any country with strict gun laws, fact

What about Brazil?

reply to post by Elliot


Your so right. In this country is is a greater crime to defend yourself than to be the assailant. And if you plead guilty (yes it is pleading guilty here) to self-defence you might as well attack the judge in the process it probably won't make your sentence any worse.

The police won't protect us because a) they spend most their lives behind desks being held back by the bureaucracy and b) they don't want to lose their jobs because someone files a complaint against you. It is better for them to not notice than to take action. That is in the areas where the police are yet to become yet another gang.

reply to post by jBrereton


glad you mentioned brazil, an introduction of gun control has reduced the amount of deaths

source

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by jBrereton

 

glad you mentioned brazil, an introduction of gun control has reduced the amount of deaths

source

I'll be honest, I'm all for gun control and would like a weaponless Britain, but it's not a panacea as regards crime. The fact that Brazil has gained a properly working economy is going to have had a massive effect on the crime rate there.

Originally posted by BAZ752
Malcr:

I echo your statement exactly and furthermore...

...It's baffling me no end. I CANNOT believe I've trudged through 12 pages of this utter nonsense, when the video embedded into the OP was about fox hunting! I mean, honestly, are some contributors to this thread having a laugh. It's almost inconceivable that this video would lead to SOME U.S. posters sporting on about fire-arms, and ''their rights to have fire-arms''....do me a favour chum, put the erectus-genetalia egos aside, it's primitive behaviour at best, and darn right insulting to some of civilised folk.

Allow me to have my say in response to SOME of the posters here. SOME have cleverly interpreted the OP video for what it is, a video about a ban on fox hunting (which, to that end, my opinion is neither here or there - I have friends/acquaintences that were on both sides of that argument). Others, however, clearly have digested the subtle tones of propaganda and have been led astray to what can only be described as an irrational perception on how, we as Britons, are somehow ripped clean of our rights!

Ludicrous, would be one choice word at this moment in time.

I'm not going to mull over the stats on gun crimes, our civil liberties (or lack thereof - as apparent in some instances), here in the UK. Frankly, I won't waste my time on such tangental discussions that are entirely irrelevant to the ACTUAL content of that video either. But it needs to be pointed out to those FEW of you over the pond, attempting to convince us that we'd need a gun in a sticky situation.

I live in a part of the country in Midlands, UK, somewhat rural middle-class by general description and to suggest for one moment that a fire-arm is necessary a) for protection from criminals, and b) in case the government ceases my ''liberties''...is, by and large utterly ludicrous.

Oh look, that word again.

I have no illusions to the generalised violence that we experience here in the UK, nor do I percieve that we live entirely crime free, but the areas that incidents of knife ( and in VERY rare instances - guns) occur, they are so few and far between and usually dealt with accordingly.

You ask your everyday Briton on the street, ethinical origin included and the answer to a typical question like ''Do you think UK citizens should own fire-arms?'' for any of the above posted reasons the answer would probably be: ''Not on your life mate!''

PEACE

I can understand your perspective, and give you a hearty pat on the back for your opinion. But I do respectfully disagree with your stance on this.

First, if people are talking here about the subtle undertones of a gun ban here in the US, coming from the video that the OP posted, it is a valid topic that has everything to do with the intent of this thread. The video made it pretty clear that the catalyst was the ban on fox hunting, and was then taken to the next level.

No one here, that Ive read, is telling you that you are daft if you dont own a gun. Simply put, it is the responsibility of any free man or woman to be their own first line of defense, in an attack on their person or property. You can call the police when your attacked, but it's likely that they wont reach you in time. You can bust out a can of Kung Fu on your attacker, but that wouldnt do you much good if the criminal was pointing a gun at you.

You mentioned that you wouldnt mull over stats on gun crimes, and I believe you skipped that topic because it would not support your opinion. So far as Ive heard, Briton, as well as Australia, have seen a huge increase in crime with guns since the ban took place.

Those FEW of us that are trying to convince you that youd need a gun in a stick situation, are merely doing so because we believe that a free, upstanding, law abiding citizen from any country should have the right to protect themself with a gun is they choose to do so.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


sorry had to look into it

Rise in gun crime forces Swiss to reconsider right to bear arms By Peter Popham Tuesday, 1 May 2007 * Print Print * Email Email Search Search Go Independent.co.uk Web Bookmark & Share * Digg It * del.icio.us * Facebook * Reddit What are these? Change font size: A | A | A Switzerland, an island of gun culture at the heart of Europe, is agonising over whether to introduce controls on possessing guns and ammunition as alarm spreads about the number of gun deaths in the country. The latest incident occurred on the evening of Friday 13 April in the restaurant of a hotel in the northern city of Baden - three days before Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in the United States. In the Baden eruption one man was killed and four wounded. A 26-year-old bank employee who is, like all Swiss men between 20 and 30, a member of the state militia, walked into the hotel and opened fire. Two brothers aged 15 and 16, sitting with their parents, were the first to be struck. The 16-year-old was critically wounded with two bullets in the stomach. The gunman then swung round and took aim at the bar, killing a 71-year-old man and wounding two others. He only stopped firing when he had used up all 20 rounds. Apart from the number of rounds fired - Cho shot at least 170 times - the other difference is that the Swiss killer was armed by the state. His right to keep arms and ammunition at home, and to carry them freely, is defended as a key civil liberty and guarantee of the nation's independence. But that argument, used for decades to justify the fact that more than two million arms are in private possession in this nation of 7.5 million people, is now under siege. Last month a senate committee voted overwhelmingly against the holding of ammunition at home. The issue must now be decided in parliament. The worst massacre in recent Swiss history occurred in September 2001 when a man opened fire during a local government meeting in the town of Zug, south of Zurich, killing 15 people including himself. Switzerland has no standing army, but all young men are obliged to train as soldiers and are called up for three or four weeks a year for abouta decade. Throughout this time they keep a rifle plus maybe a pistol at home, with ammunition. Once the call-up period ends they are not required to surrender them. The rationale is that the entire population is ready to spring to the nation's defence in the event of the French, Germans or Italians deciding to invade. They call it the porcupine approach - millions of individuals ready to stiffen like spines if the motherland is threatened. The fact that all Switzerland's neighbours have been at peace for 60 years cuts no ice with the upholders of the policy. "An army should be ready ... so soldiers should have weapons and ammunition at home," declares Ulrich Schluer, an MP who sits on a committee on security. But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy. Annabelle, a women's magazine, was enlisted in the campaign to ban the gun. "We don't know any women who want a weapon in the house," says Lisa Feldmann, the editor. "Women and the younger generation think this is crazy."

reply to post by THELONIO


Exactly, and if you check what I've been saying in my previous posts here, I've been saying all along that firearms should be strictly controlled here in the UK.


There is no one-size fits all solution. Each country is different, and depending on the society/culture, various degrees of legislation could be appropriate.

Here in the UK, the vast majority of people are law abiding and generally good people that can be trusted with at least some form of responsibility. If a small number of those want to shoot for sport, and can be trusted to keep up their end of the bargain, why should they be denied the right to participate in an activity that harms no one, brings people together, and generally helps cement society and social values? Not to mention it teaches people responsibility, perseverance, hones hand to eye coordination, and is fun to do.

The people who want to do stupid things with any weapons should be locked up/and or prevented from getting their hands on firearms... but that does not equate to legitimate sporting firearms certificate holders.

If this can be done to everybody's satisfaction in other countries (and previously here in the UK before the banns), then how is that so terrible as you make out it will be?

Guns are dangerous weapons, and there is little else one can compare them to (which is why I've being bringing up pool analogies), and life is not perfect, which is why we have laws in place to make sure the wrong people don't end up with guns.

However, laws are never 100% perfect either, or they may not be properly implemented 100% of the time, so there is always a chance an oddball will slip the net, and when that does happen the laws and safety nets should be re-examined to stop it happening again. There are other ways to solve problems like this, without having blanket banns, and countries like Switzerland show this to be true.

There is also another aspect to all of this:

Just like you don't give a box of matches to young kid, but instead wait till they are grown up and responsible enough to be able to use them, there is a similar parallel that can be drawn between that and the government not wanting to give guns to the people.

If society is not grown up enough to be trusted with firearms, don't ban all of them from having firearms, instead, limit use to those who can be trusted, and teach the 'kids' to be responsible by gradually giving them greater and greater responsibility, just as you would a kid.

How can we as a human race evolve (grow up) if we are never given responsibility? How can we learn to handle responsibility when our governments do not trust us enough to give us any at all (or very little)?

We may as well be shoved into big pens and told our "duties" for the coming days/weeks/months/years, and just let the government take on all our "responsibilities", with a big plasma-screen of course, to keep driving home the message about how people should never take responsibility...

Originally posted by THELONIO
sorry had to look into it

No problem, and it proves the point I'm making...

Here we have a population that's practically armed to the teeth LEGALLY, and they have only the same number of killings (according to your article) as the UK which has had most firearms banned for years. Think about it - if what you were proposing were true, then Switzerland's gun crime statistics should be off the chart compared to the UK!

It shows how the laws in Switzerland are probably a bit too lax and badly enforced, and also how ineffectual a ban on firearms has been with concern to illegal weapons on the streets.

No two counties are the same (as I said in my previous post), and all I'm proposing is a a balance between the two extremes, that has proven very successful here in the past, and there is no reason to suppose it would not do again in future, perhaps with a few slight modifications. IMHO

wow, this topic shows that a civil war in the US would seriously bang in! all these gunowners who fantasize about using their powerful guns that they love so much. imagine numerous citizens each with their favourite guns, intimidating and robbing people that have no guns.. (i guess not everyone in the US has one).