Piers Morgan: murder is fine. Gun related murder is wrong...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint
I didn't even mention Piers and I don't know what he said, I was referring to what you said in the OP. In regard to what you just posted, read my last comment, other countries are irrelevant. They had low rates and not many guns to begin with, it's totally different.

edit on 3-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

No, they are completely relevant. I know I've pointed out to you "cause and effect" as well as "correlation does not equal causation" before. You had low murder rate before your gun bans, but after the murder rate is doubled. The US had a low murder rate before gun laws (in 1910 it was equal to that of the UK) and after gun laws they are higher.

Originally posted by SpearMint
It's quite simple. A country drowned in guns isn't comparable to a country with few guns that had a very low murder rate BEFORE the ban. It's totally opposite situations, you cannot assume the US will see this very minimal changes in crime rate that other countries have.

How can you not see this? What happened in other countries is not relevant, and there are reasons besides the gun bans for these slight increases, I think this was already addressed by someone else.

I just watched it and I agree with PM, The congressman was right also it is because of the NRA and the power they have why it will not happen.
The thing is you have to have a debate and come to a compromise because obviously something is wrong with the laws in the USA but many people are too stubborn to even entertain the idea of change.
I'm not saying get rid of your guns but you have to look at the way people can get them so easy and carry out horrid things like what has happened.
We all have our own views on the subject but what an intelligent society does when 2 groups have opposing views is compromise...try it maybe.
BTW the title of this OT is BS>

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by tdk84
These issues have little to do with guns. In fact our gun crimes are pretty low as its easier to police, anti social, the ruling thug under class, fuelled by unemployment and immigration issues with Europe will take a little more time to fix.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

So let me get this straight. When violent crime in the UK goes up, it has nothing to do with guns but violent crime in the US guns are the cause?

I've personally never said such things, but I get where your coming from.

But... I think your confused. There are two different issues here, crime and gun crime. Crime in general is on the rise in the UK for all fore-mentioned factors, population, immigration, over populated prison's, soft policing etc. Gun crime has been proportionally as low as ever, one of the lowest in the world?

As mentioned... its easier to police over here then the other factors that are going to need major overhauls & massive amount of money during a time where unemployment is high and government spending low.

If the US hasn't learnt already.....Piers Morgan is all for the attention. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Worked for us.

CX.

Originally posted by CX
If the US hasn't learnt already.....Piers Morgan is all for the attention. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Worked for us.

CX.

haha yeah, you got to love his spats with footy players on twitter who promptly put him in place.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Just for a comparison:

Denmark got 5,57 milion inhabitants, guns are banned here, 44 murders (total gun or not) in 2011.
US got roughly 311 million inhabitants, lets use the 8300 murders mentioned in the initial post (guns only).

311/5,57 = 55,8 times as many people in US compared to denmark

44*55,8 = 2455,2 (to show the total number of murders in Denmark if it's population was the size of the US)

8300/2455,2 = 3,38 So.....US got 3,38 times as many people killed with guns pr. citizen compared with all murders in Denmark.

The big diffrence is most likely because US got a lot more urban areas which also makes the comparison a little biased, but it does show that it is possible to have a peacful society without guns.

Just for the note, Yes im european, but I dont care if you got a gun or not - not my job to decide that.

Edit: .....Expanding a little.....
In Denmark only a very small percentage got licence for guns at home, and then the way you have to keep its ammo is very restricted. This means that "any" lawabiding citizen is gunless, at the same time the criminals continously is armoring up and becomming more violent. There is no way to protect yourself if 2-3 armed ppl kicks your door, which is'nt fair in my view, especially because the rate of violent homerobberies done by immigrants or eastern european criminals has "exploded" compared to 15-20 years ago. Personally I dont have a gun....but I do have a licence and knowledge to use my razorsharp Katana that lies under the bed as a last way of selfdefence. If it is necessary to cut "off?" an arm to end the assault thats what will happen.....and it would be legal in selfdefence......even thou it most likely would be incredible gory compared to a few beans to the leg.

If you'r "caught" here with an illigal firearm you get a "instance-sentece" 1 year in jail.

The media needs to report more on the estimated (because it is crime prevention is not always reported) number of gun related crimes that were prevented by someone responsible having and either using or brandishing a firearm. I am sure that some of those crimes would have led to murder as well.

Originally posted by SpearMint
How can you not see this? What happened in other countries is not relevant, and there are reasons besides the gun bans for these slight increases, I think this was already addressed by someone else.

Yes, and you are obfuscating. You had no gun bans. After your gun bans, your murder rate went up. Gun bans did not help you. You excuse is "well these things have other causal factors than gun ownership" and I respond with "no # that's what we've been saying all along." In the US, guns do not cause crime either. In fact, if you look at the two major spikes in murder in the US, you see a spike around the criminal activity during prohibition and a spike with the beginning of the war on drugs. Most of our violence is caused by our creating large demand for black market substances and the criminal cartels that come along with them.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

UK 1997 Firearms Act: outlawed handguns.

Murders committed in 1996: 584. Murders committed in 1998: 629. 1999: 760. 2000: 792...

These are just murders.

Looking at overall gun crime:

Gun crime doubles in a decade.

There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SpearMint
How can you not see this? What happened in other countries is not relevant, and there are reasons besides the gun bans for these slight increases, I think this was already addressed by someone else.

Yes, and you are obfuscating. You had no gun bans. After your gun bans, your murder rate went up. Gun bans did not help you.

Of course the murder rate with guns will go up, as new avenues to bring them in are made and not yet policed. Gun crime is as low as ever with the added benefit in a distinct lack of mass shootings. Its works in the UK simple as that.

You could look at the gun crime figures which have increased in recent decades but there is a mass of contributing factors. The obvious factor being the way the UK has evolved from decades past, increases in population, unemployment, prisons, immigration within the E.U. but the fact remains despite the massive contributing factors the UK has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Lets also not forget the main reason the rule was brought in wasn't to remove gun crime, you will always have gun crime, gang on gang violence etc. The laws were brought in to prevent another Dunblane, has there been one since? nope.

At the end of the day its up to you what you want to do, but the fact is strict gun laws work.

The best example is Japan and their modern laws, if you want a model to copy they have done a fine job.

The only types of firearms which a Japanese citizen may acquire are rifles or shotguns.
* Sportsmen are permitted to possess rifles or shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.
* Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.
* Shotguns and rifles for hunting or sports may be possessed upon completion of a licensing procedure that requires a police background check, successful completion of a safety course, passing of shooting, written, and psychological tests, and police verification of secure storage, prior to approval being granted by the police to purchase a firearm.
* Fully automatic weapons are restricted to military and police. Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test.

its obviously upto you, but I see no wrong with those laws and as it stands harder to pass for a driving licence then a gun licence.

Originally posted by tdk84
I've personally never said such things, but I get where your coming from.

But... I think your confused. There are two different issues here, crime and gun crime. Crime in general is on the rise in the UK for all fore-mentioned factors, population, immigration, over populated prison's, soft policing etc. Gun crime has been proportionally as low as ever, one of the lowest in the world?

As mentioned... its easier to police over here then the other factors that are going to need major overhauls & massive amount of money during a time where unemployment is high and government spending low.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Well, just trying make a point, didn't mean to direct it at you personally, so I hope we're still mates.

I never like the phrase "gun crime" as a differentation because I think it a tad bit disingenuous. IMHO, TPTB use the stat "gun crime" so they can point to a "success" without having to admit the overall failures. Does it really matter, honestly, if your loved one is killed with a knife or a bat or a gun? The true measure of success is reduction of all violent crime, not just one particular object. Are you really any further along if "cricket bat crime " goes down but "cast iron frying pan crime" goes up?

I'm a bit of an anglophile and have worked with the military of the UK quite closely. I enjoy visiting my friends who live there as well. Now, they are veterans so their views on firearms may be a bit different than the average Brit, but they all agree that your firearms laws are a bunch of useless bollocks, so even people in the UK are not all in agreement on the subject.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by tdk84
I've personally never said such things, but I get where your coming from.

But... I think your confused. There are two different issues here, crime and gun crime. Crime in general is on the rise in the UK for all fore-mentioned factors, population, immigration, over populated prison's, soft policing etc. Gun crime has been proportionally as low as ever, one of the lowest in the world?

As mentioned... its easier to police over here then the other factors that are going to need major overhauls & massive amount of money during a time where unemployment is high and government spending low.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

Well, just trying make a point, didn't mean to direct it at you personally, so I hope we're still mates.

I never like the phrase "gun crime" as a differentation because I think it a tad bit disingenuous. IMHO, TPTB use the stat "gun crime" so they can point to a "success" without having to admit the overall failures. Does it really matter, honestly, if your loved one is killed with a knife or a bat or a gun? The true measure of success is reduction of all violent crime, not just one particular object. Are you really any further along if "cricket bat crime " goes down but "cast iron frying pan crime" goes up?

I'm a bit of an anglophile and have worked with the military of the UK quite closely. I enjoy visiting my friends who live there as well. Now, they are veterans so their views on firearms may be a bit different than the average Brit, but they all agree that your firearms laws are a bunch of useless bollocks, so even people in the UK are not all in agreement on the subject.

I agree it matters not how the crime happens, but we also have a decent homicide rate. But that's another discussion.

As I mentioned in the previous post people forget the gun law was brought up to standard to stop another nutter rampaging a school, and its worked.

My opinion is keep the gun just have strict laws to acquire them, problem solved. lot less wack robs running around.

Originally posted by tdk84
Of course the murder rate with guns will go up, as new avenues to bring them in are made and not yet policed. Gun crime is as low as ever with the added benefit in a distinct lack of mass shootings. Its works in the UK simple as that.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

That's the point isn't it? Even on an island, gun control laws have not prevented criminals from getting firearms from elsewhere.

As for Dunblaine, how many mass school shootings were done in the 1930's? 1950's? All without any sort of gun control? I don't see how the law has stopped any further ones. Beleive it or not, you can actually own a semi-automatic Ar-15 in the UK, along with a 30 round mag and with a silencer even and keep them in your house--as long as they are chambered in .22 LR. I've shot my mate's at his club on a few occasions. One could easily do another massacre with that, but no-one has. Perhaps the gun is not the issue but other factors.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by tdk84
Of course the murder rate with guns will go up, as new avenues to bring them in are made and not yet policed. Gun crime is as low as ever with the added benefit in a distinct lack of mass shootings. Its works in the UK simple as that.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

That's the point isn't it? Even on an island, gun control laws have not prevented criminals from getting firearms from elsewhere.

As for Dunblaine, how many mass school shootings were done in the 1930's? 1950's? All without any sort of gun control? I don't see how the law has stopped any further ones. Beleive it or not, you can actually own a semi-automatic Ar-15 in the UK, along with a 30 round mag and with a silencer even and keep them in your house--as long as they are chambered in .22 LR. I've shot my mate's at his club on a few occasions. One could easily do another massacre with that, but no-one has. Perhaps the gun is not the issue but other factors.

As I said its not the guns that are the issue, its the licencing. By all means guns can be fun etc but it shouldn't be harder to order a pizza then to get a gun.

There has always been gun control in the UK evolving since the crossbow, it took dunblaine to make them stricter. There was the Hungerford massacre before that and others. Can we compare 2013 to the 1930's, kids could play out without fear and you would have local 'bobbys' everywhere.

The world has changed, more violently at that.

So im looking at the murder rate with Guns involved in the US

I noticed that the rate is broken up into several categories


1)Homicide (Rate 3.7)

2)Suicide (Rate 6.1)

3)Unintentional (Rate .2)

4)Undetermined (Rate .1)

Total 10.2 Year 2009

en.wikipedia.org...


So to me it seems like we really should be focused on the actual Homicide rate and not the grand total. I dont like how Suicides, people defending themselves, or police related homicides are lumped into the grand total. Makes the rate look worse then it really is in my opinion.

I had no idea that there are more suicides with guns involved than homicides. But hey, if someone is looking to off themselves, they will find a way...Guns just happen to be quick and painless ( well...most of the time).

Some of the poster here amaze me with t5heir responses. Claiming that crime vs gun crime is two separate issues is completely naive. There is not two different issues here. Crime is crime.

Question: Does it matter if I rob you with a knife, a gun, or if I punch you in the mouth repeatedly when I do it? Either way- I'm robbing you.

One of the number one reason we carry guns is for protection from people who would want to harm us. That's the bottom line. It is the same line of thinking when people, such as my self, say "Arm Teachers!". Why? Because Teachers can then defend themselves and the students against "school shooters".

So just because Britain has less "gun crime" does not mean that crime itself is down. If you want an accurate description of what happens when guns are banned, you must look at the things people protect themselves from as a better indicator of weather or not a gun ban would work. If you remove the bad things that can happen to you, the things you feel the need to protect yourself from, then you can say there is no need for guns in society.

So what are these things?

Rape
Burglary
Home Invasion
Assault

These are examples of what people feel the need to protect themselves from and in each example those crimes increase in every Country that has a gun ban.

So naturally with a gun ban you would have less gun related crime, but all that means is the crime was committed without using a gun. It did nothing to stop the actual crime itself.

Blaming other issues like immigration in nonsense. The issue is crime, that's it. I will end this post with a simple question....

Which matters to you most?

A) Your wife is raped by a man with a gun

B) Your wife is raped by a man with a knife

C) Your wife is forcibly raped by an unarmed man

D) Your wife was raped

The tool used to commit the crime makes no difference. The issue really is the crime. That is what people want to defend themselves against and this is why Americans want to be armed.

Originally posted by tdk84
The world has changed, more violently at that.

edit on 3-1-2013 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)

That it has, which is why I support honest citizens having the means of self defense.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Piers is a no-talent assclown. What's he even doing here? Get him a ticket home and pack his stuff. Remove him from public view. Doesn't he have a dance-off to judge somewhere?

He has the same right to be there and voice his opinion as anyone else. How about a logical argument instead of low quality personal attacks, it reflects badly on you. I bet you'd be praising him if he was pro-gun.

edit on 3-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

I believe those wanting to take away my right to defend myself have the burden of logical argument.

Taking my means of defense because crazy people are on the loose is not logical.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Some of the poster here amaze me with t5heir responses. Claiming that crime vs gun crime is two separate issues is completely naive. There is not two different issues here. Crime is crime.

Question: Does it matter if I rob you with a knife, a gun, or if I punch you in the mouth repeatedly when I do it? Either way- I'm robbing you.

One of the number one reason we carry guns is for protection from people who would want to harm us. That's the bottom line. It is the same line of thinking when people, such as my self, say "Arm Teachers!". Why? Because Teachers can then defend themselves and the students against "school shooters".

So just because Britain has less "gun crime" does not mean that crime itself is down. If you want an accurate description of what happens when guns are banned, you must look at the things people protect themselves from as a better indicator of weather or not a gun ban would work. If you remove the bad things that can happen to you, the things you feel the need to protect yourself from, then you can say there is no need for guns in society.

Its compleatly different. You got to remember there are many forms of offensive. One of the biggest in the UK are due to social disorder perhaps its due to our drinking culture, I'm not sure. Fights erupting from drink, vandalism, feral kids. You only have to look at the recent riots/looting in the UK.

You can hardly compare Burglary to gun crime, organised gangs from Europe raiding our houses for gold. My cousins house was recently stripped of gold, leaving behind ipads etc. Home burglary are hardly bother some whatever the type these days with today's statutory home/content insurance. You don't get burglary in the UK from armed men, its very rare. My friends mum woke in the middle of the night to find a burglar on her landing. She kindly told him "You best leave now" and escorted him to the front door lol

Even Homicide can be broken down... the majority in the UK are from gang and youth violence. There trying to tackle this right now especially the gun violence. As of January 2012 they have a power for "gang injunctions".

The aim of a gang injunction is to prevent a person from engaging in, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence and may also serve to protect them from gang-related violence. Over the medium and longer term, gang injunctions aim to prevent serious violence from occurring, break down violent gang culture and engage gang members in positive activities to help them leave the gang.

Thats helping towards a solution, a bit soft, granted, but its helping and will evolve.

But your still missing the point, keep your guns, you have your right/tradition. They are even Fun to use in the right ways. I trained to shoot in my young teens which highly amused me as it was after dunblane. The irony of training young kids but ban everyone else.

But anyway I digress, keep your guns just employee stricter laws for acquiring them. As mentioned the Japanese system is very good, if a little strict, but you get the idea. Heavy police checks and testing. I bet it would put an end to the majority of massacre incidents.

I don't understand why anyone would object too tighter laws? I'm sure it will also improve accidents from happening.

reply to post by MrWendal




Well said.