massacre in Cumbria
 

in light of the terrible events of this week, there are fresh calls for stricter gun controls in the UK.

It seems to me to come down to two arguments

Either you believe that the ownership of guns creates more gun crime, and in the sick and fevered mind of a maniac like Derrick Bird, the possibility to own a gun will create such a crime

Or that if the population as a whole was armed, this animal could not have roamed around for 3 hours, killing at least 12 people in separate instances would have returned fire.

The media will unquestionably put pressure on the govt to tighten gun controls, one concern will be that Derrick Bird had a criminal conviction for theft I believe, yet legally was allowed to own two guns.

I personally am no longer sure that the guns themselves are the problem. I would not want to see gun ownership in the UK increased - but must one not conclude that a lunatic such as this would have acquired a gun illegally if he had not owned one legally?

Plan9: "Wait... hear that faint whining noise? Yeah... kinda like a whistle? What could it be?"

Telekinetic: "It's the endless circle jerk topic-nobody-can-agree-on thread generator spooling up!"

Dunedan: "Heh-heh... YEAH!"

...

http://drewjustice.files.wordpress.c...-free-zone.jpg

...

My question is: How could gun controls get any tighter in the UK?

There are 2 million guns registered in the UK I believe.

One thing is, as I mentioned, it will be asked why a gun license was granted to someone who had a criminal record.

Yeah, I got that. I guess we could fap-fap this mental abortion of a topic little.

...

Conviction for theft? Of what? A television?

Okay...

Let's say I have a criminal record. I was arrested when I was 19 for stealing a Playstation 2. $200+ item.

Does that mean that I'm a horrible person and, for the rest of my life, should be barred from owning firearms?

What about violent crimes? Let's say I'm 24 and get into a fist fight at a bar. Take away my guns then?

In the US we have issues with giving firearms to those convicted of felonies and domestic violence.

Now let's say I wake up one day and decide I'm going to bust a cap in my friends and neighbors.

What gun law on earth is going to stop me after I've made up my mind and donned my Marilyn Manson t-shirt?

Short of confiscating weapons and disarming the entire country, you can't really prevent a DFENS incident.

If there is any question, take a look at drug laws in the US. How many potheads do we have here at TFP?

Gun Control is basically regulation. We regulate other things as well, like murder. In fact, we have a complete ban on murder in both our countries. If regulation works, why exactly are there still murders? <- This is just an expansion of Plan9's cartoon.

Without Harry Potter doing the ole' "Boom Stick Expellia-mos" and instantly evaporating all firearms on the planet all at once, the bad guys will ALWAYS get guns. Therefore, as a good guy, I want one too. That is, of course, unless you want to issue me my own personal police officer.

If the first person this dude came upon had been able to defend themselves (admittedly over simplifying it), the other 11 would not have died.

Is it so simple?

If it were, then I could say that regulation does work: The murder rate in the U.S. is 3 times higher than in Canada.

If the U.S. were to take on Canada's gun policies, would it cut the murder rate down to a third, you think? I'd support such an initiative. Would you?

But, alas, it's not so simple.

In the last YEAR in the UK there were less than 40 murders in total that were firearm related. (According to the BBC earlier today).

That's less than one a week in a country of over 60 million.

As far as I can see from the published data (see Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in 2004 there were about 8,000 handgun homicides, and 2,000 other gun homicides.

Shame gun control doesn't work, eh?

You might have a point except for the fact that the UK continues to lead the developed world in per-capita incidences of violent crime.

Scotland's murder rate is fastest-rising in Western Europe, UN finds - Telegraph

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries - Times Online

Along with a rate of violent crime that has increased (with the rate of that increase accelerating yearly) drastically over the past 10 years (with ever stricter bans being announced and enforced; guns, pointy knives, dogs):

Murder rate increasing amid epidemic of knife and gun crime - Telegraph

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf

Scotland&rsquo;s murder rate soars - Times Online

...while at the same time, firearm sales in the US have experienced an unprecedented surge that lasted the better part of a year and US violent crime has -dropped- by considerable percentages according to the FBI. This in addition to the fact that the liberalization of concealed-carry laws in the US has accelerated over the past decade, and none of the "dodge city" horrowshows predicted by US and international anti-rights fearmongers like Sarah Brady or Josh Shugermann have ever materialized.

FBI: U.S. crime rates drop again - UPI.com

Crime rates down for third year, despite recession - Politics- msnbc.com

FBI &mdash; Crime Statistics - Press Room - Headline Archives 09-14-09

So: The UK, with increasingly stringent bans on weapons, has the fastest-growing rate of violent crime in western Europe, and is the most violent developed nation in the world. The US, with more guns in private hands than ever before, increasingly permissive carry laws, and even in the middle of a serious recession, is experiencing a decade-long across-the-board decline in violent crime. This even despite the fact that the vast majority of weapons sold in the US during "the rush" have been Evil Black Assault Weapons And Hand Cannons Of Doom; the allegedly preferred weapons for criminals and terrorists! More people, carrying more guns, and a dropping crime rate for the US; fewer people carrying zero guns and an increasing crime rate for the UK.

Gun control policy and ownership isn't the only factor on crime statistics.

Correct. However, if the correlation "More Guns=More Violent Crime, Less Guns=Less Violent Crime" were true, the above sets of facts would not exist. It would not be such a neat and obvious case, IMO: either the US would have a violent crime rate which is also increasing (which it isn't) or the UK would have a violent crime rate which was also decreasing (which it isn't.) Instead, the two are polar opposites: the country which "should" by Hoplophobe logic, be experiencing an increase in violent crime...isn't. And the country which should be seeing a decline...isn't. There are other factors at play, yes. But the illegality in the UK of most forms and types of self-defense, along with weapons therefore, cannot be discounted as a contributing factor. This even holds when compared to more gun-friendly European countries such as Switzerland, Norway, or the Czech Republic: all of which have higher rates/incidences of gun-ownership and lower rates of violent crime than the UK.

My own position is that these things are nearly impossible to measure with any value. You would think that fewer guns would mean fewer chances of guns being used, but that doesn't work if you apply the logic linearly.

This means that the other factors need to be taken into account. I think that socio-economic factors are more important than gun issues when it comes to crime.

If everyone were mentally/spiritually like the Dalai Lama but were armed like Lara Croft, what would crime be like?

I don't see the need for Canada to change its gun policy. I'm not sure it would have a great impact on crime in either direction. Our murder rate isn't that high. If we were to adopt the U.S. position on guns, would our murder rate plummet? I doubt it. Would it skyrocket? Not likely.

I think that if I were to live in many areas of the U.S., I would be more open to gun ownership and even CCW, but that's because I perceive the many parts of the U.S. to be far more dangerous than just about anywhere in Canada. I can't say the same about the U.K. I don't know enough about the situation there.

Regardless, it's not just about the guns.

You know, when I saw this in this mornings paper, my first thought was, "Holy Shit! Strange Famous has finally snapped!"

UK = 5 guns owned per 100 people. 40 gun murders a year

US = 90 guns owned per 100 people. over 10,000 gun murders a year.

I accept that this is a reduction from the high of around 20,000 per year a few years ago, but even if the US level fell 95% overnight, it would still be many times more dangerous to be in the US than the UK.

Sadly, you and I will never see eye to eye on this - we should both realise that by now. :)

Which reduction coincides with a period of increasing firearms sales, radically-liberalized CCW laws, increasing CCW licensure, etc.

If you'll review my sources above, you'll find that the UK is currently quite a lot -more- dangerous than the US. You are more than 2x as likely to be a victim of violent crime in Scotland than in the United States. "Most violent nation in the developed world" and all that.

This is true. However, debate with an educated opponent keeps me sharp ;-).

*fap fap fap* Oooh, yeah... oooh, that's the stuff... YEAH! *fap fap fap*

...

C'mon, guys... this thread is quickly becoming an exact copy of UsTwo's statistics clusterfuck from like 2 years ago.

Points we have yet to cover:

- The hardcore racial heterogeneity of the socioeconomic strata in the US vs. Europe (Canada)
- The culture of violence (news media, TeeVee shows, movies, video games) in the US vs. Europe (Canada)
- Constantly comparing the US (large land mass, large population, X culture) to any other place on earth (Europe, Canada)
- Beating the dead horse that guns laws actually compel anybody to do anything outside of their own moral standards
- Fistfucking the dead horse that good, lawful people with guns are either a help or hindrance in society
- Skullfucking the dead horse that law enforcement is the key to the prevention of mass casualty incidents as in the OP

I don't own a gun AND I've never been a victim of a violent crime!

Thus: No guns = no crime

(am I doing this right?)

Aaaayyy-men! Keep on preachin', brother!

totally disappointed I didn't get included in this. :orly:

Hey, I referenced you in a few other threads recently. Fear not, you're a living legend.

Where you been, bro?

Whether you are a horrible person or not for such actions is not for to say.

Should a person be allowed to hold a gun license after such an event? My view is that it needs serious consideration.

My argument whenever issues of violence, poverty, drug abuse, and the like are brought up is that the issue is fundamentally one of education, and our lack of monetary and personnel expenditure on education. Ignorance is a self-perpetuating cycle in culture that leads to abuses of the self and others.
That was entirely uncalled for :grumpy:
Consider US gun laws -- violent crime, serious mental illness, and felonious criminal history are, among others, criteria that disenfranchise individuals from the right to gun ownership. My thoughts on the subject are that due process should, in every case, be an individual right in that the judge and jury in each qualifying case bear the responsibility of determining whether, and to what extent, the convicted individual's rights are restricted. In reality, the disqualifying criteria set forth in the gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent modifications are an appropriate middle ground that should be further modified as our society and justice system evolve and build understanding of which individuals are likely to become violent criminals.

dealing with medical issues, but i hope i'm getting better. thanks. :thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

in your opinion then, are laws that bypass 'due process' a good middle ground?

Recidivism and crime statistics indicate to me that those who have previously committed violent crimes and those who are deemed psychologically troubled are more likely than the average person to commit future violent crimes. I also support an almost complete tear-down and rebuild of our justice and education systems, resulting in a set of federal and state systems that aims to educate every individual and reform every criminal, but until that happens I feel that the evidence suggests the NCIS criteria are more effective at preventing violent crime than disenfranchising citizens from their [absolute] right to keep and bear arms.

Obviously this is due to the fact that very few of our brothers to the North have time to kill anyone as there are 7 times more Tim Hortons in Canadia than in the US.

It's all a'boot priorities, man. That shit's delicious.