Dunblane School Massacre....ended handgun rights in UK

IF you realized that Lanza killed the gun owner to illegally gain access to the guns, you might have a point. IF we knew for sure that's what actually happened, you'd have no point whatsoever. IF he owned them legally, what was stopping him from doing the same thing ? Nothing. IF B or D were true, things could be a whole lot worse than they are today. and on the flip side, IF one of the adults had been armed, perhaps all of those kids would be alive, today. (whether they had presents or not) xt

reply to post by Honor93


NO, Laza shot his mother, therefore he had access to the guns. Anyway, he had guns, therefore he had access to guns. DUH.

A gun owning society gives criminals access to guns. One of the reasons criminals are not typically gun wielding in the UK is that they can't accquire them by theft from legit owners, which I read is a major source of the guns used in American crimes. Even if you are lucky enough to burgle a house with guns, they are securely locked away, usually in sodding heavy metal cabinets that are a pig to break into. Also, rifles and shotguns are not easy to conceal on your person. Walk down the street with them in the UK and the cops will stop you before you reach the end of the street. So, they are of limited use for crime.

The Australians altered their gun laws after the port arthur massacre. The murder rate/armed robbery rate etc dropped, as did others as some crimes like home invasion which are much harder without a concealable firearm. Criminals, generally, couldn't find them to steal to use anymore. Ther was no increase in crimes against the citizenry who didn't own guns.

This is sobering reading. You should read it

In all other high-income democracies, it would have been very difficult for Loughner legally to have obtained his weapon. Some of these countries have very few private guns (e.g., Japan, United Kingdom), while others have fairly many (e.g., Canada, Australia, Israel, Switzerland, Finland), but have more restrictive gun laws than the United States.

Every one of these countries has been more successful than we have at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

In Canada, for example, to legally buy a handgun requires a license, training, proof of legitimate purpose, a four-week waiting period, and two references, who must sign the application. Handgun ammunition magazines are restricted to 10 rounds or less.

I have been studying injury and violence prevention for more than 40 years. What is known is that all injuries follow generally predictable patterns, and most are preventable.

While we cannot predict at the individual level which specific people will be shot, we can predict fairly accurately at the population level about how many people will be shot.

Thus I can predict with complete confidence that in the next decade, the United States will have many more homicides than the other high-income democracies, and many more mass shootings.

As a benchmark, in 2003, the United States homicide rate was seven times higher than that of these countries, largely because our firearm homicide rate was 20 times higher.

Why do these other countries have such low homicide rates?

Their children watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games as our children. They have as much bullying in schools. They have oppressed minorities, and similar rates of non-firearm crime and violence (assaults, robbery, burglary, rape). And they all have crazy people.

But these other countries have stricter gun policies than the United States. And when disaster happens, they typically respond.

Following the 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania, massacre of 35 people, Australia acted quickly to effectively ban assault weapons. A mandatory buyback obtained more than 650,000 of these guns from existing owners. Australia also tightened requirements for licensing, registration and safe gun storage of firearms.

The result? In the 18 years before the intervention, Australia had 13 mass shootings. In the dozen years since, there has not been a single one. The laws also helped reduce firearm suicide and non-mass shooting firearm homicide.

Written by Dr David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Finally...

IF one of the adults had been armed, perhaps all of those kids would be alive, today.

You think we should all carry around guns 24/7? That's tragic. A substantial proportion of the adult population is mentally ill, or just nasty. They'd get guns too. The murder rate would be appalling. You know,like America's is..

reply to post by Heresy


Results are seen here. However gun crime is still at about 50% pre ban numbers.

Originally posted by OOOOOOSo the question must be asked: is this yet more proof that gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey laws in the first place?

No, the question we must ask is why Breivik's intelligence connections were not investigated:

en.rian.ru...
Norway’s twin terror suspect Anders Behring Breivik trained at a secret paramilitary field camp in Belarus earlier this year, a Belarusian opposition politician said on Thursday, citing security sources.
“Breivik visited Belarus several times. This spring, as part of his preparations for his twin attacks, he visited Minsk, where he underwent training at a secret paramilitary field camp,” Mikhail Reshetnikov, the head of the opposition Belarusian Party of Patriots, told the Gazeta.ru online newspaper. ...
Reshetnikov also claimed Breivik had participated in “sabotage-terrorism drills” under a former Belarusian special service officer and that he had used a fake passport to enter Belarus.
“His codename in Belarus’s KGB was Viking,” he added.  ....

Originally posted by Heresy

You think we should all carry around guns 24/7? That's tragic. A substantial proportion of the adult population is mentally ill, or just nasty. They'd get guns too. The murder rate would be appalling. You know,like America's is..

No it wouldn't. Your murder rate in 1960, before all of these gun control laws was 0.62 per 100K. It is now 1.2 per 100k, almost double. It appears that your gun control laws did not keep you safer one bit does it?

Liscensed conceal carry permit holders rarely commit crime in the US. Think about it logically: if one is responsible to go through the liscensing process and law abiding enough to pass the criminal and mental background checks, then one is responsible and law-abiding enough not to misuse their firearms.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Defense of the Constitution and living by its entitlements... are conservative actions.

It always amazes me that Americans on this site rant about constitutional values and conservatism (another European political ideology, not American) they go on about the defence of freedoms yet as soon as it is pointed out that what they are supporting is classical liberalism they deny it. All you are doing is arguing semantics, the American constitution is a liberal document the bill of rights is a liberal document the idea of “rights” is a liberal ideal.

Well, the problem that you are seeing is that in the US, the current definitions are that "liberals" are more politically leftist and more aligned with the principles of the nanny state and big government, whereas "conservatives" are more aligned with the classical liberalism of our founders and the philosophy of John Locke. The meanings of such lables on your side of the pond differ somewhat.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I know that, that is why I chose my language carefully and use the term “classical liberalism” a couple of times in that post.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


you just don't understand... We've apparently learned by your accounts all the British have to offer, therefore there is nothing nothing more to be learned from your population. In case you haven't noticed... we're the leaders.

I can't keep going into it with you in this topic, I've already been warned by the moderator and just don't want to risk a post ban for a Briton. The rest of the world are your "natives" you folks have alot of healing to do.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I know that, that is why I chose my language carefully and use the term “classical liberalism” a couple of times in that post.

Yes. I consider myself a classical liberal as well. "Conservative" in the US also implies a support of some social policy issues that I do not agree with. A gay marriage ban on the federal level would not be in keeping with the principles of limited government, for example.

Originally posted by Heresy
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

if I am not mistaken England's population is 55 million with 20 million of them being non natives.

60 million, about 10% ethnic minority or foreign born. In London, more immigrants and ethnics than locals though.

cool thanks for the update... the demographics card is a bit confusing on wiki. That's alot of people for the landmass!

reply to post by SisyphusRide

We've apparently learned by your accounts all the British have to offer, therefore there is nothing nothing more to be learned from your population. In case you haven't noticed... we're the leaders.

WOW! Just WOW!

I think you may be the one who doesn’t understand

You have nothing more to learn for our population; again this is indicative of a problem I see time and time again on ATS, an inability to admit when you are wrong. Rather than just say “yeah actually you’re right, liberalism was a British idea and it is a massive influence on the constitution of the United States” you have gone with the line above.

America is a baby in terms of its age, 237 years old, our act of union is older than that, as a nation we are older than that as is most of Europe. To claim that you have nothing left to learn from us Europeans because we taught you about liberalism, capitalism, the republic and democracy is arrogance at its highest, it only promotes ignorance.

If you are worried about getting a ban then why dong you stick to the terms and conditions and debate like an adult by contributing to the debate and learning form it.

This idea of America as the “leaders” that again is wrong, leaders of what exactly?

A question for you, do you accept that the Constitution of the United States of America is a classical liberal document and John Locke a British man is the father of classical liberalism and had a big influence on your founding fathers when writing the constitution as much of it was based on his work or the work of those he influenced.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Richard Dawkins and 'Modern' Liberalism is all the British represent in this day and age...

evolution time with tea and biscuits gets old real quick, not mentioning Brits are seemingly a Godless society. Figure its one of the reasons Islam is rampaging thru your streets with hate speech.

know what 'Kafir' properly translates into English as in the context it is used? you may not know it but it means coward... afraid of God, afraid to believe in God... so one can sin and do their evil ways without repercussion

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Asheliate

 

so, let me get this straight ... i'm told to use the BCS cause they're right.
and i link the BCS and Logos says, they're wrong.

you come along and add ... maybe there's some truth here, but then discredit the BCS report yourself.

so, which is it ladies ... does the BCS have it right, or not ?

btw, the BCS report only covers the 5 yrs, post-ban from 1999-2003 ... not the before years or the continuing increases through 2011.

so then, let's look at some of what the BCS report contains ... then you can debunk it rather hurl insults and personal attacks at me.

from the only links provided from the BCS thus far:

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk...://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf
The BCS shows an increase in the proportion of violent crimes that are reported to the police, from 35 per cent in 1999 to 41 per cent in 2002/03. In the same period the BCS estimates that the recording of reported crime increased from 36 per cent to 52 per cent.

- snip -

Recorded crimes involving firearms - Post Gun Ban / 02-03 only
• In 2002/03 firearms were used in 0.9 per cent of all violence against the person crimes and 4.4 per cent of all robberies. Together these comprise 49 per cent of all firearm offences.

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 7,133 violence against the person crimes in 2002/03. This was a twenty-two per cent increase over the previous year.

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 4,776 robbery offences in 2002/03. This was a 13 per cent decrease over the previous year, following a 33 per cent increase in 2001/02.
(which is still a 20% increase from 2000)

• About two per cent of all firearm crime resulted in a serious injury. There were 572 serious injuries resulting from crimes that involved firearms (including air weapons) in 2002/03, up three per cent from 2001/02.

and, i linked a US govt comparison for a similar time period.
no paranoia of Wiki, i just prefer solid sources and that isn't Wiki.

i would guess neither of you read the above or care to but you're both right, the truth is available for those interested

When was I supposed to have said they were wrong? I made a claim that actual violent crime here had seen a downward spiral since 95...i offered you the BCS for these statistics. You then went on to post a link that for some unkown reason you felt furthered your argument not mine....when in actual fact the information backed up the claims I had made and quite clearly spoke about the reduction in violent crime and showed a graph for the period of 1981 - 2008 clearly showing the drop since 1995 which I had already told you about.That link supported my argument not yours.

You have quoted the BCS AGAIN in your last post believing it furthers your argument again.
Lets look at it again but without omitting the last sentence to that paragraph like YOU DID

The BCS shows an increase in the proportion of violent crimes that are reported to the police, from 35 per cent in 1999 to 41 per cent in 2002/03. In the same period the BCS estimates that the recording of reported crime increased from 36 per cent to 52 per cent. These increases in both reporting and recording of violent crime help explain the contrasting trends in BCS and recorded violent crime.

maybe you didn't understand it's key relevance or maybe you do and that's why you chose to omit it.....if you genuinely don't understand how this supports MY claims then I can only gather that you don't understand exactly what it is you are quoting and how it fits into the debate on whether there is a real increase in actual violent crime or not.
Again you have posted something that supports what I have been saying all along.

And by the way the BCS hasn't reported crime statistics for 5 years...it's been doing this for 30+ years.....the graph in a link YOU posted quite clearly showed statistics from 1981 - 2008

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 7,133 violence against the person crimes in 2002/03. This was a twenty-two per cent increase over the previous year.

The original paragraph in that document read's

• Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 7,133 violence against the person crimes in 2002/03. This was a twenty-two per cent increase over the previous year. The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced on 1/4/02. This may have inflated figures for some crime categories.

You omitted the key sentence, it seems to be an habit.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Again, you are wrong, Kafir in a world actually means “unbeliever” its literal translation if memory serves is along the lines of one who covers up, conceals, or denies the truth or at least words to that effect. It does not however literally mean “coward”, that is just a factual inaccuracy to claim that the world “Kafir” is Arabic for “coward”.

Also what you are saying about the proliferation of Islam in the UK is flat out wrong, the fastest growing “faith” is that of Atheism. There is no demand by any significant group in the UK for sharia law, it’s just not happening.

I am very aware that many of my posts responding to you have a “your wrong” message. Please do not take this personally. ATS is a fantastic learning tool, I learn something every day on this site rather than fight this embrace it and you will learn loads and enjoy it much more.

PS: we also gave you capitalism, the idea of a free market came from the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Kafir -- Cattle -- Coward

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Where are you getting this information?

The English translation of Kafir is wildly accepted as being “unbeliever”.

I just actually doubled checked and the Arabic word for “Coward” is actually “Jabaan”

Why are you so reluctant to learn.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


preservation of the favored races and survival of the fittest applies to many aspects of life and species when you look at it. Take the Wolf for example... you have an alfa, the pack and then the shy runt or whatever we call it, (the one at who is last in line)

Atheism and Richard Dawkins philosophy have been around a long time, some even claim longer than Christianity... You can apply this principal to the Kafir too, as their numbers seem to have stayed the same while other philosophies have increased. This not only can be applied to philosophies but also entire cultures too... take a look at England, which at one time the sun never set on it's empire... now seemingly reduced to a 60 million persons population, with 10% of that being resident aliens.

I live in NoVa, I have worked with many Muslims from various parts of the muslim world... and still do.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Why can you not admit to being wrong about the meaning of kafir?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


with homosexuality it is the same thing... see homosexuals think that they are increasing in numbers and they are getting more acceptance when in fact this is not the case. What homosexuals are getting is sympathy.

Homosexuals say they are "born this way" their number percentage stays the same in proportion to the population of the earth... there is nothing new under the sun.

indeed if they are born that way when looking at it from a scientific perspective being it is in our species nature to propagate, afterall it is what man and female are made for... as with most all species who do not gestate on their own.

Indeed the scientific outlook would view it as a defect of otherwise normally healthy genes... and you can run that one by the master mr Dawkins if you want to

if it is something that can be changed and a mental condition... well that's another story.

yeah zoology rules when you're armed with the knowledge

reply to post by SisyphusRide


No stop going of topic, man up and admit to being wrong.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

No stop going of topic, man up and admit to being wrong.

I am not going off topic... I am replying to you. and in my last post I made somewhat of my grand follow up.

But my hand are full of brake dust and DOT4 synthetic fluid at the moment... I'll be home in a few hours.