Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

As I explained earlier you will see an immediate increase in "crime rates" because possession is now a crime, as you can see in the graph presented by the BBC it is now starting to fall again.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Actually if you take the time to look at your Crime rates you will see that your's haven't changed hardly at all, either up or down before, during or after your Gun Grabbing Laws went into effect... Your gun crimes really haven't changed up or down either...

Pretty much Jolly ole England didn't have much gun crime before or after the Gun Ban took effect...


Darn those facts getting in the way again


edit: I take that back the lowest year on record I see for gun crime, was 1992 before the Gun Grabbing of 1998

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

As I explained earlier you will see an immediate increase in "crime rates" because possession is now a crime, as you can see in the graph presented by the BBC it is now starting to fall again.

Hmmm perhaps it wasn't clear your Crime rates DID NOT change Before, During, or After, according to your crime stats issued by your Police.. They was no uptick or decrease your Crime and Gun Crime rates are pretty darn steady and have been since 1993... The lowest year on record that I saw was 1992

What this shows is that your repressive gun laws were a feel good placebo for the Politicians and did nothing to lower crime, you had a low crime rate to begin with and it is still low

BTW I check Police, FBI, Interpol, etc: stats I simply do not trust any Media source not even the NRA or RKBA

Those results from the BBC are correct, they were published by the Home office, and the BBC can't be biased. They are a state funded organization (kind of) and it's be honest or be bust. God that makes us sound like a bunch of commies.

I beleive you have seen those stats though, what do you think that means? It's hard to say that it means weapons are good or bad, it could comment on the soceity involved. It could mean that weapon availability makes no difference, supporting a lot of the arguments in this thread ... it could also mean we didn't have many weapons in the first place. Interesting.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Hmmm perhaps it wasn't clear your Crime rates DID NOT change Before, During, or After, according to your crime stats issued by your Police.. They was no uptick or decrease your Crime and Gun Crime rates are pretty darn steady and have been since 1993...

BTW I check Police, FBI, Interpol, etc: stats I simply do not trust any Media source not even the NRA or RKBA

Originally Posted by Mats

Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.

For example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
• Five times more likely to burn to death
• Five times more likely to drown
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned
• 17 times more likely to fall
• And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Fact: In 2007, there were only 54 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 12
times as many children died from drowning during the same period.
190
Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths from
ages 1-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1.

WISQARS Injury Mortality Report, Center for Disease Control, 2007



Obviously measuring the number of crimes that don't happen because the criminal is deterred by a weapon is difficult, but consider this:

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. (GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?)

The potential outcome of many encounters could be devastating. Murder? rape? we'll never know, but I feel that the relatively low threat that accidental gun-deaths pose (which largely are due to parental or individual negligence) is not near great enough to say it's more valuable to limit gun numbers when you consider the possibility for how much good it is doing.

And this may come off as harsh, but consider that some people are plain dumb and reckless and might just as well kill them selves of their children in another type of "accident". Drinking a pint of bleach which was recklessly left in front of a 5 year old, playing with a kitchen knife, or shooting them selves with a gun that was irresponsibly kept.

Hilsen Norges divisjon av NRA

Aye, I'm sure those figures are correct.
Noone ever said driving a car was safe, nor should it be seen as an argument for making gun deaths any lesser or more acceptable.

54 dead children under the age of 13 dead that year, not a huge number but 54 children deprived of life nonetheless.
With a reduced portion of homes actually owning a gun, then that figure might just drop.. A good thing, no?

And that is just one of the many ways to die by getting shot.
There are of course a lot of killings happening in your basic home setting and in society as a whole.
That is, everything between a Breivik and a dumbass leaving a loaded gun within reach of a child.

The logic of they may just as well do some other act that can cause death is simply put not all that great.
Sure, as Forrest Gump said, shit happens, but the whole point of removing guns is to somewhat reduce the shit so to speak

Now, for measuring crimes that don't happen because the criminal is deterred being difficult.
I agree, that is indeed a hard thing to do, much like measuring how much the presence of a gun actually escalated that very same situation.
Violence breeds violence and all that.

It is about time for me to tell you all that I have been a gun owner myself for a good while.
I was a member of a pistol club, practiced quite a bit, and learned to appreciate the sport.
I just might have still been a member of that club had it not gone bankrupt.

One thing I never did though, was to bring that BUL 9mm 1911 out of those perimeters.
It was left at the club.
Worked out pretty good for me..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Actually if you take the time to look at your Crime rates you will see that your's haven't changed hardly at all, either up or down before, during or after your Gun Grabbing Laws went into effect... Your gun crimes really haven't changed up or down either...

Pretty much Jolly ole England didn't have much gun crime before or after the Gun Ban took effect...


Darn those facts getting in the way again


edit: I take that back the lowest year on record I see for gun crime, was 1992 before the Gun Grabbing of 1998

Yeah, those facts... In fact, in the decade after the UK Firearms Amendment Act (No. 2) of 1997, gun crime in the UK went up by 89% - still lower than in the US, but a significant increase for the British Isles. A 2006 study by The British Journal Of Criminology "found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis..." instead the opposite happened, gun crime went up. (see Gun Laws and Sudden Death).

My interpretation: You can legislate all you like, crazy people are going to do their thing regardless!

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Those results from the BBC are correct, they were published by the Home office, and the BBC can't be biased. They are a state funded organization (kind of) and it's be honest or be bust. God that makes us sound like a bunch of commies.

I beleive you have seen those stats though, what do you think that means? It's hard to say that it means weapons are good or bad, it could comment on the soceity involved. It could mean that weapon availability makes no difference, supporting a lot of the arguments in this thread ... it could also mean we didn't have many weapons in the first place. Interesting.

Pretty much England had and continues to have a low crime rate, nothing wrong there, except when you try and attribute it to your Gun Laws, as that just isn't the truth.
I find your complete faith in a state sponsered Media outlet somehow unsettling in this day and age, sorry it just feels Fahrenheit 451 ish to me honestly kinda gives me the Heebie Jeebies

Where did you get your 89% figure from?

Originally Posted by HamburgO

Yeah, those facts... In fact, in the decade after the UK Firearms Amendment Act (No. 2) of 1997, gun crime in the UK went up by 89% - still lower than in the US, but a significant increase for the British Isles. A 2006 study by The British Journal Of Criminology "found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation with ARIMA statistical analysis..." instead the opposite happened, gun crime went up. (see Gun Laws and Sudden Death).

My interpretation: You can legislate all you like, crazy people are going to do their thing regardless!

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Pretty much England had and continues to have a low crime rate, nothing wrong there, except when you try and attribute it to your Gun Laws, as that just isn't the truth.

I am sat here, thinking ... AMERICA NEEDS MORE TEA! I can't help myself sorry lol.
Having been to USA, being about to marry an American, and having american friends, and living in what some would call "the hood" in the USA. I don't see why
the crime rates are so different. I mean you guys have an attitude that differs from Brits, not bad (I actually like it), bolder, but not murderous or anything that I think would cause a huge discrepency in crime rates. Do you have any ideas on why those rates are so different. It is easy for somebody from a gun prohibition state to say it's guns. It's also easy to say it isn't guns. I just wonder what you think the reason is?

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I just wonder what you think the reason is?

To me that is the heart of this problem. Not gun ownership per se. What makes some people choose violence when some other do not. No matter if you are a good guy or bad guy.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I just wonder what you think the reason is?

And there in lies the true problem with the USA...

I and most every American could tell you exactly what the problem is but the answer would not be PC and therefore we are not allowed to bring it up over here.. Our Politicains can't fix what they can't talk about...

The only PC answer I can give is that our problem like many other countries starts in the breakdown of the "Nuclear Family" ie: A parent at home raising the kids while the other parent provides...