England proves it: Fewer guns = more deaths

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Fewer guns, more death
Posted: October 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35019)

Gun-control enthusiasts in the United States and western Europe have a lot to answer for on the heels of two reports last week that prove, beyond a doubt, the barbaric lunacy of ensuring citizens are defenseless against armed criminal threats.

In the first, a British paper reported authorities have seen a 35 percent increase in gun violence in 2002 – not so ironically, in the sixth year since Parliament passed a law banning personal ownership of most firearms.

So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread like a cancer" across the whole of the country, the Observer reported. To put the level of violence in perspective, more British subjects are dying from gun violence now than before idiots in Parliament banned virtually all firearms.

"Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town," the paper reported.

"It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. Now handgun crime is at its highest since 1993," said the Observer. "New laws that make carrying a firearm an offence with a mandatory five-year sentence have won little favor with officers on the street. 'It changes nothing,' said one drug squad detective who asked to remain anonymous."

Meanwhile, here in the States, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released last week found no conclusive evidence gun-control laws curb violent crime, suicides by firearms or firearms-related accidents. [note: this CDC study is already mentioned in Gun Newz] . . .

[DesertFox]

Libs will never figure out that words -- laws, judgely lectures, Lefty opinion pieces in newspapers -- do not impress criminals.

Physical force impresses criminals.

[TheIrishman]

The officials KNOW that it makes the law abiding citizen defenseless.

It was reported, some time back, one British official said the law banning guns wasn't meant to disarm criminals.

Guess who it is meant to disarm.

[Rink]

But why for should they disarm the entire populace for?

what good does it serve these politicians?

[DesertFox]

Fearful people often trade freedom for security.

[Beowulf]

Australia did the same thing years back and crime went up. Then, gun ownership was restored to law abiding citizens and the crime rate dropped. Sums it up I think.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
(W)hat good does it serve these politicians?

[/ QUOTE ]

RANT MODE ON

Liberalism is about power and control. It is about self-important elitists imposing their will on the people and damn the consequences. It is about believing they know what's best for everyone, and that it justifies enforcing their views via the law and the courts.

Liberty and liberalism are antithetical, mutually exclusive. One cannot have liberty under liberalism other than what freedoms they choose to mete out to those whom they favor. And, above all, it is about destroying everything that has held civilization together for millenia. Ergo, queers and atheists are given free reign under liberalism while people of faith, especially Christians, are persecuted at every turn.

As such, it is logical that whereas liberals vociferously defend the "right" to murder one's unborn child, which has no justification other than a bizarre perversion of the Constitution, they with equal vigor oppose the clearly defined right of the people to keep and bear arms. Abortion is immoral and destructive, which fits nicely into the liberal agenda. Gun ownership, however, endangers the totality of liberal control over the people.

Dictators invariably disarm the populace as the first step to solidifying their power, and liberals are nothing but dictators in waiting. As long as the people are armed, it will be difficult if not impossible for liberals to enforce their lunatic vision of utopia (the people irrevocably under their control and "guidance"). Revolutions don't start at the top. They begin in the streets and the homes. And, an armed populace always poses the threat of revolution, especially when the founding documents of the country specifically support it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-- Declaration of Independence

The libs lust for some way to dispense with the precious documents that announced and established the birth of the greatest nation in history. The courts are ample proof of that. The liberal quest for total power will not cease, and whatever they have to do to obtain it is justified, whether it is legal or not, ethical or not, moral or not, rational or not. Those documents stand in their way, and they must therefore be minimized or eliminated.

Liberals crave absolute control over the people. They will not rest until they achieve it. The only thing that impedes their agenda is an informed, aroused and armed populace. Get rid of the arms and the people will still be informed and aroused, but they will be powerless.

That is the "good" in the minds of the anti-gun politicians.

RANT MODE OFF

[Timberwolf]

Well said, Doc...well said indeed.

[Timberwolf]

My letter to the Premiere of Victoria, Australia (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=83425&page=1& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=#83481) on December 6, 2002.

The reponse sent back to me (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=83425&page=1& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=#101307) a month and a half later. It's basically a "bugger off" non-answer.

So, of course, I re-inquired... (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=83425&page=1& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=#104857)and the following is the response I received THREE MONTHS LATER (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB11&Number=83425&page=1& view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=#143167).

Wonder what they think "down under" now?? I've been tossing around the idea of "resubmitting" my inquiries and see what they say. http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif Mind you, to this day, I have NOT received an answer as to WHY this was a good thing for Victoria and/or Australia and HOW Victoria/Australia is safer b/c of these restrictions upon the general populace.

[mh8782]

Verry funny string? The US has a higher murder rate than the UK. A small blip in the UK statistics doesn't change the fact that America's gun laws lead to ridiculously high murder rates.

I know where I'd rather live

[Timberwolf]

I see...you'd rather cower and hide from someone invading your home.

So sorry, I'd rather confront the criminal with force and make him sorry he ever laid eyes on MY property/family. Enter my home with the intent to rob me or bring harm to me or my family and you WILL leave my domicile in a body bag. Guess what? I won't lose a nanosecond of sleep over it, either.

Oh, one more thing, coward...our murder rates are skewed high because of the ridiculous gun control laws in our larger metropolitan areas. In the cities/states that have lax gun control laws, crime is far below yours in the UK.

[Beowulf]

Funny. I was just talking to a co-worker who also works in the legal profession. He stated to me that convicts don't fear cops, lawyers or any part of the legal system. What they fear most is an armed homeowner. I like that thought myself.

And here's a thought. Cars kill more people than guns do each year. Shall we ban them too?

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Cars kill more people than guns do each year. Shall we ban them too?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hell, swimming pools kill more 0-18 year olds than guns...should we get rid of them too, mh??

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Verry funny string? The US has a higher murder rate than the UK. A small blip in the UK statistics...

[/ QUOTE ]
A small blip? Have you actually researched what you's blatting about, or are you blindly following your socialist/liberal mentors and parroting their lies?

Why would there be an INCREASE in crime, especially in gun-related crime, if the liberal fantasy that disarming the people will stop crime has any validity whatever? Could it be because criminals, who by definition don't obey laws, did NOT surrender their guns and now are more brazen and fearless because they know that you subservient, sheepish, grovelling subjects of the Crown can no longer resist them?

For a nation as old as England is, you don't seem to have learned very much.

[ QUOTE ]
... doesn't change the fact that America's gun laws lead to ridiculously high murder rates.

[/ QUOTE ]
As my brother TW pointed out, the high crime rates are ALWAYS in the places where the restrictions on the law-abiding citizens are the greatest. Washinghton DC, New York City, Chicago, LA and the other urban areas where the people are helpless against the thugs have a far higher rate of thuggery than areas where the vermin have to contend with the possibility of their potential victims being able to blow off their farking heads.

[ QUOTE ]
I know where I'd rather live.

[/ QUOTE ]
And we're glad that you live there.

[ThomasMore]

To mh8782
[ QUOTE ]
by mh8782:
"Verry funny string? The US has a higher murder rate than the UK. A small blip in the UK statistics doesn't change the fact that America's gun laws lead to ridiculously high murder rates."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, mh. The US has ALWAYS had a higher murder rate than the UK. Nobody has argued otherwise. What the crime data show consistently, is that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces the number of violent crimes, whereas restrictions on ownership of guns by law abiding citizens increases the number of violent crimes.

Everybody engages in basic risk analysis every day, and while everyone comes to his own decision as to what risks he will undertake in exchange for a hoped-for reward, changing the risks and the rewards will cause some people to change their behaviors.

What has happened in the UK is no "statistical blip", but absolutely consistent and predictable. Whereas criminals in England once burgled empty homes, now they conduct "hot burglaries" (also known as "home invasions"), entering and robbing or attacking families in their homes.

Similar results were obtained in Australia when guns were banned there.

My home town, Chicago, has always had a fairly high crime rate, but was not a crime leader for big cities. However, our current mayor Richard Daley has aggressively pursued gun dealers and gun owners, while the street gangs continue to flourish. Chicago is now the murder capital of the US.

In the other direction, about 15 years ago, Chicago suburb Morton Grove, Illinois passed an ordinance banning all persons from owning firearms in their homes. This garnered favorable national press for "progressive thinking". Immediately thereafter, Atlanta suburb Kennesaw, Georgia passed an ordinance REQUIRING all homeowners to keep firearms in their homes. The national press and punditry reacted with equal parts sarcastic derision and horror, predicting a shooting gallery. In the course of the next year, violent crimes in Kennesaw dropped 89%, and they have remained low to this day. (Incidentally, I have a good friend from the Atlanta area, and he tells me that those who really don't want to own firearms don't have to. Nonetheless, of those who would commit violent crimes such as murder, rape and armed robbery, nearly 9 out of 10 who would have done so in Kennesaw before, don't since.

One by one, many of the various states in the US have passed "concealed carry" laws for its citizens. Most require a background check, a short training course and registration to obtain a concealed carry permit (CCP). In each state where these have been passed, violent crime rates have dropped. Incidentally, nonviolent crimes actually increase as apparently those previously inclined to violent crimes substitute burglaries, theft and fraud for crimes that could get them shot. There have been virtually no problems with misuse of firearms by CCP holders. Now, a majority of US states have passed CCP laws (unfortunately, Illinois is one of the most retrogressive states and still prohibits them).

The fact is that the US has always had a high crime rate for many reasons, and it has persisted since our founding over 200 years ago. Don't conflate the myriad causes for a an historically high crime rate into a simplistic "lotsa guns, ergo lotsa crime" conclusion. The trend data indicate that a self-sufficient, self-protective public serves to deter a higher percentage of criminals from engaging in violent crimes or threatening bodily injury, both in the US and elsewhere.

Finally, those who benefit most from legal firearm ownership are women, who tend to be more vulnerable to violent crime than are men. Most violent criminals are men, who seek prey less likely to be able to resist them. Both physically and by acculturation, most women are viewed as more vulnerable, and more women than men are unable or unprepared to put up the fight necessary to deter or overcome a male attacker. However, a woman who is arned can do just as much damage to an attacker as can a man. Where CCP laws have been passed, the most dramatic drops in crime rates have involved male-on-female attacks. Whether an individual woman is armed or not, the perception that she MIGHT be has had a deterrent effect.

[mh8782]

"The fact is that the US has always had a high crime rate for many reasons, and it has persisted since our founding over 200 years ago. Don't conflate the myriad causes for a an historically high crime rate into a simplistic "lotsa guns, ergo lotsa crime" conclusion." - Thomas More.

Isn't the string simplistic? "England proves it: Fewer guns = more deaths"

It works both ways!

[DesertFox]

Just so. Economist John Lott published a book titled, More Guns, Less Crime. The obvious complement would be, Fewer Guns, More Crime.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
mh8782 said:
"The fact is that the US has always had a high crime rate for many reasons, and it has persisted since our founding over 200 years ago. Don't conflate the myriad causes for a an historically high crime rate into a simplistic "lotsa guns, ergo lotsa crime" conclusion." - Thomas More.

Isn't the string simplistic? "England proves it: Fewer guns = more deaths"

It works both ways!



[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. Your conclusion that more guns equals more crime is not valid, while fewer guns equals more deaths IS valid.

Re-read what those above have shown you. Learn.

[mh8782]

You don't seem to understand, lobo.

OK, as long as we're agreed. You can use simplistic logic to argue for conservative ideals, but not against. That seems fair

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
mh8782 said:
You don't seem to understand, lobo.

OK, as long as we're agreed. You can use simplistic logic to argue for conservative ideals, but not against. That seems fair

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh geez, another hoplophobe without a clue.

Look, statistics, studies, writings, anecdotes, facts, and personal experience all show that in societies where guns are banned, violent crime increases. In societies where guns are made more readily available, violent crime decreases.

You were implying that where there are more guns, more crime occurs, and the data does not support that.

I have been debating gun control while you were still shitting yellow, so either learn, or shut up.

[ThomasMore]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the string simplistic? "England proves it: Fewer guns = more deaths"

[/ QUOTE ]

mh, what you are referring to is a topic title. I don't see that you addressed the facts or reasoning underlying the thesis. Furthermore, if more guns were the cause of more crime, how do you explain the case of Switzerland, where nearly every home has assault rifles in it? Switzerland has a relatively low crime rate.

[KrazyJethro]

Here's an example for you to illistrate the idiocy of gun control.

Town A - Loose Gun Laws
100 criminals with guns
60 get them at a store with records
40 get them illegally

Town B - Strict Gun Laws
100 criminals with guns
10 get them in stores
90 get them illegally

Violent crime may be the same in these two towns, but I can tell you, I would rather be able to track the weapons. It increases the chance of you catching the criminal.

God forbid you know where the guns are. But I bet anti-gun folks think criminals register the serial numbers on their gun, cause we all know what upstanding citizens they are.

For all you anti-gun people out there, look into Hitler's action on gun ownership.

You people bitch and moan about what an evil empire we live in, then work to make yourselves defenseless against them.

Smart thinking. Dumbasses

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
KrazyJethro said:
Here's an example for you to illistrate the idiocy of gun control.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree with your premise...but, let's look at your examples in reverse order...

[ QUOTE ]
Town B - Strict Gun Laws
100 criminals with guns
10 get them in stores
90 get them illegally

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, with strict gun control all of the criminals will get their guns on the street...then, you have to add to that 10,000 law-abiding citizens who won't be able to get a gun at all (without becoming a criminal).

[ QUOTE ]
Town A - Loose Gun Laws
100 criminals with guns
60 get them at a store with records
40 get them illegally

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the criminals will still have to get theirs illegally (unless they just haven't been caught and have no criminal record)...the difference is the 10,000 law-abiding citizens will be able to get the means to defend themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
Violent crime may be the same in these two towns, but I can tell you, I would rather be able to track the weapons. It increases the chance of you catching the criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Violent crime won't be the same for the simple reason that criminals usually aren't so stupid that they'll risk getting shot by someone that MAY be armed and knows how to use their weapon with precision.

And the only weapons you'll be tracking are those of the law-abiding...as I said, criminals aren't THAT stupid...usually.

[ QUOTE ]
God forbid you know where the guns are. But I bet anti-gun folks think criminals register the serial numbers on their gun, cause we all know what upstanding citizens they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will estimate on the VERY high side and say that roughly ½ of 1% of criminals will purchase a gun through legal channels. The other 99½% will be stolen or bought on the black market.

Again, Law Enforcement will only have a list of law-abiding citizens that own guns.

[ QUOTE ]
For all you anti-gun people out there, look into Hitler's action on gun ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly my point. He KNEW where all the guns were, disarmed the people at large, enslaved an entire country and had designs on ruling the world. I'm quite confused...are arguing for or against gun control laws? You started out sounding like you were against them. Now, it sounds as if you want them. Could you clarify?

[ QUOTE ]
You people bitch and moan about what an evil empire we live in, then work to make yourselves defenseless against them.

Smart thinking. Dumbasses

[/ QUOTE ]
And now you sound like you're against them...maybe I'm just reading this wrong.

Nope, just re-read this in the "preview" and you are arguing for and against...which is it??

[Triller]

the thing is that in england noone ever used firearms for self defense, they were always restricted so much that you couldn't carry them in public anyway

I think the reason for more guncrime is rising level of gang culture in england. i think that is the case in america too.

criminals only carry guns to look cool. its like sunglasses

I doubt the swiss have any gang culture worth talking about

[DesertFox]

You make a good point for England. America, however, has pretty-much always had gangs so that's not new here.

I'd guess you get your ideas on criminals from movies. Criminals carry guns as locksmiths carry tools or doctors once carried little black bags: a gun is the tool-of-the-trade for a criminal.

[Triller]

in the uk the penalty for illegal firearm possesion is far more severe than burglary or even mugging so burglars and muggers dont risk carrying them to and from jobs (a knife is just as useful really). It is the gangs in the cities which fix up replicas and smuggle in weapons from europe and run about killing each other and unfortunate pedestrians.

[KrazyJethro]

Sure, like I said, it was a bad arguement. It was a terrible post on my part.

I am for gun ownership. I can tell you that coming from the Revolution, the founding fathers knew what could come of a government that became overbearing an we need to be able to fight a great number of threats.

We as humans have the right to defend our families and our property from anyone and anything that tries to take that away.

[Wolfcounsel]

I don't care about statistics* when it comes to guns. I care whether or not I can protect myself and my loved ones, and a firearm does the job nicely. If any anti-gun individual does not understand this, then he can call 1-800-555-WAAH for counseling.


*Anti-gun statistics are for common sense-challenged people.

[Triller]

I prefer a vial of nerve toxin. You can incapacitate a hostile intruder in seconds plus it is easy to conceal in public

[Timberwolf]

Hooookay...just make sure you're wearin' yer mask. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason for more guncrime is rising level of gang culture in england. i think that is the case in america too.

[/ QUOTE ]
"And where are the gangs obtaining their guns?" ol' DD asked innocently, knowing full well that the answer is "from the bad guys who sell them to other bad guys". Your surrendering of your freedom for the illusion of safety reminds me of a wise saying by Ben Franklin.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Your gun crime rate is increasing because laws that deprive the law-abiding citizens of their rights do NOT affect those who ignore the laws.

[ QUOTE ]
in the uk the penalty for illegal firearm possesion is far more severe than burglary or even mugging...

[/ QUOTE ]
The statement ignores Criminal Fact of Life #1: a criminal does not expect to be caught. Ergo, people who break laws are utterly indifferent to the penalties imposed by laws. If they are apprehended, they suffer the consequences. They know that. But, they take the risk because the odds are in their favor.

In the USofA, the criminal's primary concern is NOT the law, nor the police, nor the courts, nor prison. It's the possibility that his intended target might just pull a piece and waste his sorry ass. Wherever concealed carry is the law, crime is lower than it is where the cities or states decide to protect the badasses by disarming their victims.

A dead criminal is an ex-criminal. End of argument..