Joey pretty much got the point across. It's been documented that crime rate goes up when guns are taken away from the public, and down when the people have something to defend themselves with (or just to scare whoever's trying to hurt them) Gun control laws affect LAW ABIDING citizens, not criminals. If they cared about the law, would they BE criminals? No. -Jen

lets just say for the moment the capitol of my state, I've lived in various cities.

... where do you live again?

they need to come around my town and have a talk to the 14 year old crack dealers carrying Glocks that they bought illegal for between $50 & $100 off some older crack dealer.

I 100% agree the spin is to make us believe it is little kids at home watching Bugs Bunny and they decide...oh I think I'll shoot myself in the face with Daddy's gun. That is so wrong!!! I bet anyone on here who lives in the city knows kids 13,14 and 15 who have and carry guns.

quote:

---

bank robbery

---

the three years I have lived where I am right now, I have 2 banks right near...both have been robbed 3 times(once a year). And in broad daylight.

quote:

---

Just because there are things in our media about violence in Britain, and it is very much there, you still can't say it 'leads the world in crime'.

---

Read the studies and comparisons yourself. England/Wales leads (flip-flopping with Australia), the industrialized world. I've pointed this out on a number of occasions. By "industrialized", the ICVS was referring to nations that are reasonably civilized and have a decent working economy. No, the Sudan or Afghanistan was not ranked.

quote:

---

The vast amount of gun crime in Britain is criminal on criminal, not criminal on "prey".

---

Thank you! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
That's just what we've been pointing out for so long, that it's mostly the thugs and ********ers plugging each other. That's what U.S. statistics suggest too. While gun control advocates over here want you to believe that it's innocent little kids that are the so-called "15 children murdered by guns every day", the truth is, (aside from the fact that the '15-a-day number' inflated about 90 times their real value) the fact is these are criminals and gangsters.

Sure, it's unfortunate to see anybody killed, especially since they could have lead productive lives. But lets face facts: a certain segment of people will be attacted to gangs, violence, drugs, and that whole culture. Would you rather these gangsters live, and survive to sell drugs or murder your child?

Or you?

Unfortunately, criminals still frequently DO use weapons - be they guns, knives, bats, etc - against innocent people too, even though innocents are a small minority. That's why we need guns. That's borne out by murder statistics as well as news reports. You've heard of mugging, rape, carjacking, murder, attempted murder, theft, burglary, armed robbery, bank robbery, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and other stuff, right? These crimes don't just cover a criminal killing a criminal.

quote:

---

That's relative, but by most standards, it's still socialist. Certainly by U.S. standards. Particularly the high taxation levels.
How is your government 'leaning to the right'?

---

You're right, it is all relative: from the viewpoint that it is a labour government, it leans to the right. You would expect Labour to be all left wing, but Tony Blair's isn't.

I guess Britain has always been run in a reasonably left wing way, since the NHS (free health care) was set up in the 1940s.

From American viewpoint it would still be in the left, then. In US the main "right wing" British party (Conservatives) would be considered mid-line, the states are predominantly right wing.

quote:

---

The real world. I have you a number of links, from your own press.

---

Oh don't be so dramatic… Just because there are things in our media about violence in Britain, and it is very much there, you still can't say it 'leads the world in crime'. War torn countries… There are far more criminal places than here. It's a stable sort of place (relatively). Yes, take it with salt.

quote:

---

True enough, but you have to learn to separate legal gun use and illegal gun use. Criminals usually don't get guns from legal origins. Your country is an excellent case study in that.
In fact, the best way to quell gangs in to have their prey, the common citizens, armed, and loosening rules regarding self-defense.

---

You've ignored my main points. The vast amount of gun crime in Britain is criminal on criminal, not criminal on "prey". It is very rare that someone murders a person they're uninvolved with, that's why you hear about it when it does happen- because it's unusual.

It's naive to think that arming everyone would put a stop to these criminal gangs. Giving everyone guns would just make it easier for people who aren't already immersed in this lifestyle to commit violent acts. Making a greater risk to your law abiding folk.

Criminals don't use their guns against the law-abiding public, therefore we don't need them in defense. There is a small risk, in city areas at least, but not enough to bring in millions of lethal weapons for.

I'm off to bed.
Cheerio!

quote:

---

think that guns and such weaponry should not be available to the public. I think they should be constricted to the police and military branches.

---

So, you want to enjoy the protective benefits of guns, but don't want people to be able to protect themselves. Doesn't make much sense. Cops carry guns to protect themselves. The police rarely can respond except after-the-fact. So, their guns do little except to allow officers protect themselves. You, on the other hand, are even more of a target than before. The same is true for the military, but, obviously, since the military isn't a part of law enforcement that isn't much help against crime.

Besides, even if one could wave a magic wand and all guns in the hands of civilians - law-abiding and criminal - would instantly disappear, you'd be back to anarchy, where the strong prey on everybody else, as Tyler123 pointed out. The guy who can punch, stab, or baseball-bat the fastest and hardest will usually win. That's why police and the military carry guns and don't use fists, knives, and baseball bats as their primary weapons.

quote:

---

Britain is also not socialist. Labour may be a left-wing name but these days it leans towards the right, if anything.

---

That's relative, but by most standards, it's still socialist. Certainly by U.S. standards. Particularly the high taxation levels.

How is your government 'leaning to the right'? Besides Tony Blair's support for Iraq, in what manner does your government operate to the right? I do't see you repealing back gun control or hunting laws, restricting abortion, reducing taxes, etc.

quote:

---

Which world does Britain lead in crime? I can't believe it is a more criminal place than say, South Africa, or Italy with its Mafia.

---

The real world. I have you a number of links, from your own press. While I'm the first to say that anything from the press should be taken with an entire shaker of salt, it's obviously a hot topic. In one of the links is the Leiden International Crime Victimization Survey. Otherwise, remember that Google is good.

quote:

---

I've thought about this some more, and your point really doesn't make sense… People have always had to get guns illegally here if they want them, and it makes no sense saying that the 1997 restrictions have made it easier for them.

---

It actually makes a LOT of sense, and it's something we've seen many times in the U.S. Washington D.C. outlawed, for all intents and purposes, all guns in 1976, and has since been the tradional murder capital of the U.S. Chicago did similar in 1982, and they've been vying for first place most years ever since. In part, this is because criminals never gave up their guns. Now, you know that guns aren't like milk and expire. So, the civilians did (or kept them but are otherwise less willing to use them in self-defense, still giving the advantage to the criminals anyway.) That means the criminals are still armed and the law-abiding civilians are not.

Also, by outlawing the likes of semiautomatics and revolvers, many people will turn to more potent stuff, like submachine guns. Simply put, if you are going to risk being caught with a gun, why not have the most firepower? From what I've read in the U.K. press, this seems to be a distinct trend in the English underground. There's an old saying, I'm not sure exactly how it goes, that sums it up: "If you're going to go to jail for stealing a loaf of bread, you may as well steal a diamond."

Third, guns are not particularly hard to make. In most places, where they've been outlawed or in countries that lack access to good machinery, cottage industries have sprung up. I remember reading about the arms industry in the Khyber Pass. For as little as $30 U.S., you can have anything made. It may take a man and a helper an entire day to make one, but the quality is just as good as any produced in a factory. As I understand, this was also a problem in the U.K., before the Home Office began blaming Eastern Europe.

quote:

---

Thinking of it in those terms, surely it's best to keep guns to the gang environment? They have not yet spread to the rest of British culture, and why should they?

---

True enough, but you have to learn to separate legal gun use and illegal gun use. Criminals usually don't get guns from legal origins. Your country is an excellent case study in that.
In fact, the best way to quell gangs in to have their prey, the common citizens, armed, and loosening rules regarding self-defense. Only when it becomes clear and obvious that joining a gang or getting involved with drugs is tantamount to suicide will people stop.
In fact, that could be applied to the drug trade in general. Ever wonder why people don't drink bleach to get high? Because you know it'll kill you. Soon.

Guns promote equality. A woman has little or no chance of stopping a rapist or a mugger without a gun/weapon. If someone has a gun, they have at least some chance of defending themselves against gangsters or other criminals. MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. Criminals will have the most powerful weapon they can afford. That is a gun. People should have something to defend themselves with, the police are useless. The only thing that they are is a deterent and a way of catching the the person who comiited the crime. They rarely STOP a crime in progress. (I have a lot of respect for them though. They keep the streets safe, WHEN THEY ARE WATCHING)Most crimes happen out of sight of the watchful police. Profiling is an acceptable form of stopping/solving crime. The inner-city IS where most of the crime takes place and thus not looking there for the suspect first IS MORONIC. I hate to say it but the poor DO commit more crime than the more affluent. For all of history, young and poor=more likely to commit crime. I'm sorry if the police suspect you because of your age/socio-economic status but they should be doing that. If you are poor 17-year-old, you have a much higher chance of commiting a crime than a wealthy 40-year-old. IT'S NOT AGEISM, IT'S COMMON SENSE. People need to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their property. IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU ARE DANGEROUSLY STUPID!

Hmm, just reading through the posts again there's some weird stuff… doesn't make any sense, I'm going to have to go on a bit longer!

quote:

---

Praise God we do not live in England right now; that's becoming a bigger police state than here.

---

Britain isn't a police state, or on it's way to becoming one… it's true that the Labour government has an annoying policy of increasing surveillance in inner city areas- CCTV, similar to the US- but as far as everything else goes we're not as strict about keeping tabs on people as America or much of the rest of Europe… people aren't required to carry identity here.

If you get all your sources from the internet you'd believe that America's biggest exports are porn and penis enlargements…

Britain is also not socialist. Labour may be a left-wing name but these days it leans towards the right, if anything.

Remember, it's me who lives here.

quote:

---

your country's crime statistics show that it's crime rate leads the world

---

Statistics can be twisted to anyone's advantage. Which world does Britain lead in crime? I can't believe it is a more criminal place than say, South Africa, or Italy with its Mafia. Where you got that info from, I dunno…

quote:

---

The rate at which gun crime (and all crime) is skyrocketing, though.

---

I've thought about this some more, and your point really doesn't make sense… People have always had to get guns illegally here if they want them, and it makes no sense saying that the 1997 restrictions have made it easier for them. The increase is much more likely to be related to a greater gun culture in inner city areas, which would be down to many factors: living conditions, education… Which brings me to my next point:

A big problem I find with your gun argument is that in Britain and maybe the US, gun crimes are mostly between criminals, gang warfare tied in with drugs. These gangs possess guns to use against eachother. It is very rare that they will be used for armed robbery, or against people uninvolved in that way of life- the " armed criminal breaks in" scenario is quite far-fetched in the UK.

Most murders, rapes and violent crimes are commited among families and people who know eachother, because of arguments and the general weakness of people. Guns are not going to help those situations, as I've tried to explain in my other posts…

Thinking of it in those terms, surely it's best to keep guns to the gang environment? They have not yet spread to the rest of British culture, and why should they?

Ok, I really am done now!

So basically we should ban guns because you antigun people think the public is too stupid to handle them, or a tiny minority of people may irresponsibly leave them around where their kids can get to them? Please, the majority of gun users are responsible and law abiding people, as are the majority of people in general. To take their rights away because some idiots may abuse their own is completely unfair and tyrannical.

Que: What "other ways"? If a criminal is going around with a black market gun, do you really think you stand a chance? What happens if the police don't arrive on time (many competent police officers actually admit that in the majority of rape cases the police don't get there quick enough)? What about instances where police officers become corrupt or coercive, as has happened in numerous places? What would you do then in those situations? Sacrifice people's right to protect themselves in order to have a "less threatening" society (which in turn has a massive black market where criminals can get guns)? That sounds completely backward to me.

I think that guns and such weaponry should not be available to the public. I think they should be constricted to the police and military branches. I mean really a person of the public might say that they have a gun for protection, but there are other ways to protect yourself which involve a much smaller chance of someone comepletely innocent getting shot and stuff.

I know there is violence in Britain, that gun violence is rising, and thanks NuShoes for pointing out those sites cause they did tell me things I didn't know before.
However I don't think allowing everyone to have firearms would solve this.

quote:

---

the British government is toying with the idea of following you around everywhere you go, just "in case" you do something illegal.

---

This site is The Sun's website, well known for being little better than a tabloid… your other sources are respected (bbc, the guardian) but you can't take what the Sun says seriously… Just look at the journalism style. It's a bad sensationalist newspaper.

Right, to address other sources…
I know there are problems with UK's policing, always a struggle to run the justice system properly… that thing about the barbed wire to prevent burglary was stupid. There are bad things with our law, I know that. But we're discussing guns here…

And I still think people shouldn't be allowed guns here in Britain. The vast majority will never need them in defense, but then once they've got them for defense they have a much easier means for agression. That is why I don't like them, don't want them.

If the more recent stricter bans have only led to an increase of guns in criminal circles, then that was a mistake. Maybe the government should see that and adapt accordingly, but governments are reluctant to go back on what they've said and admit they were wrong, so that's not going to happen.

However, trying to keep guns out of people's hands isn't a mistake. Guns give people more power than they should have. People are complicated with strong emotions, gives them big weaknesses and a worrying tendency towards wanting to hurt eachother… most people do not need guns on top of that.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Criminals are not clean cut. You can't give an 'honest citizen' a gun, and say, "they're going to be fine, only use it for defense" cause something bad could happen with them and your honest citizen turns into someone with the inclination to kill, for whatever reason. And this crime will be much easier for them, with a gun in the house.

I'm not saying now, that our gun situation is good. Gun culture is on the rise. But I think the idea of keeping guns out of British society is a good one. There are other means of defense besides guns, that are less likely to go wrong. Giving everyone guns would not make things better here, that is what I'm convinced of.

I feel lucky that I live in a mostly peaceful area, and that I've never seen a gun except in the hands of security (it looked unfamiliar when I saw that, and I'm glad the sight of someone holding a gun in the street was strange to me). There is still much ugliness in Britain, as much as in the states I'm sure. But please, we don't need guns.

Well, not just socialism, but a Socialist Police State.

Sorta like the one we got in America, except ours is more toned down and not as widespread.

quote:

---

but now the British government is toying with the idea of following you around everywhere you go, just "in case" you do something illegal.

---

minority report anyone?

I have to agree with Joey on this. Not just the gun laws, but English society in general. It's bad enough that honest citizens can't even use barbed wire to protect themselves from burglary, but now the British government is toying with the idea of following you around everywhere you go, just "in case" you do something illegal.

Welcome to socialism.

No inky, you don't understand.


If NuShoes were the UK government and had just passed another anti-gun law, and I were a criminal, and I decided to mug you one day, guess what?

You're dead.

The laws do not restrict guns from criminals.

You could have used a gun to scare me away, but no, you support NuShoes' government and the anti-gun laws.

Therefore you're dead because of a bad political issue.

Just sloooowly think about things.

Praise God we do not live in England right now; that's becoming a bigger police state than here.

The rate at which gun crime (and all crime) is skyrocketing, though. In the last five years - since the ban went into effect - gun crime has soared more than 40%. Plus there was a major spike recently of another 35%. The point is, while England's overall gun violence rate is still much lower than that of the U.S., it's rising fast, as ours is falling, and will surpass us in just several years if the trend continues. Looking at the political and legal problems the U.K. is facing, that trend show no sign of levelling off, but should get worse.

While you may feel safer living in a disarmed society, your country's crime statistics show that it's crime rate leads the world nonetheless, even for violent crime. So you are less worried about being shot than in America...don't think getting stabbed will make you any less dead.

I don't like to be the bearer of bad news, and I don't want you to lose sleep thinking about it. But, the fact is, England isn't safer than the U.S. Here are a few links which I occasionally refer to. Since they are from your press, they do not tell the full story (well,we've got that much in common...), but they are nonetheless worth looking at, but I hope they won't freak you out.
Violence involving guns in the U.K. (Guardian) and BBC page on violence. In a nutshell, they go to great lengths of pointing out the "violence culture" that you seem to think England does not have. Apparently, England's is as bad if not worse than the U.S. in that respect. America, on the other hand, has a "gun culture", which promotes responsible and legitimate firearms use; it is very different from the U.K.'s violent, gangsta rap-oriented "gun" culture.

quote:

---

All I know is that gun control does not work. Taking away the guns is not the solution. That is what countries like England and Australia have done and crime there has only risen.

---

I'm English, and I'm pleased that we have strict gun laws here.

I do understand your point, that the amount of guns in Britain have increased over time, despite (as you argue maybe because of) stricter gun laws.

What you have failed to consider is that the level of gun crime in England is still far lower than in the US, and also that there may be other reasons for an increase in trafficking.

I simply feel much safer in a society where it is hard to get hold of a gun. A lot of people tend to think of criminals as separate to the rest of society. What is often ignored is that anyone can be a violent person, anyone can have an inclination to commit crime.

Thinking of people at my school, there are many I would not like to have a gun, because those who I think would want guns the most are also the ones I think would be least responsible with them.

The main reason I think guns should be very difficult to get hold of is this: For most other ways of killing, the killer has to be close to their victim. This makes it more difficult. It is also a much more personal, dirty job.

With guns, you just aim and pull the trigger.

Killing should not be that easy, it cheapens human life- people should have to make a real effort to kill someone, cause it means they have points to reconsider what they're doing- they can't just snap and do it. There's less scope for accidents.

That's why, despite the fact that it may (key point being may, don't rely heavily on biased sources) have led to an increase in guns to Britain, I support strict gun laws here.

The enforcement of similar laws in the US is a different matter. I suspect it would be impossible because of the amount of support for guns and the gun culture you have.

England doesn't yet have that culture, and I think it's better that way.

All I know is that gun control does not work. Taking away the guns is not the solution. That is what countries like England and Australia have done and crime there has only risen. It would be great if we could take away the guns and then there would be no violence, but it just doesn't work. It isn't an opinion, it is a fact.