BBC: Why Britain needs more guns

[GabonX]

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

[Fruitcake]

This is all hardly surprising. In the UK they now have laws that ensure the rights of the aggressor are greater than those of the victim. People found defending themselves are sent to prison while the criminals are given social awareness programs and tags. Much of this stems from the Human Rights Act, ratified by the UK Govt under instruction from their masters in Brussels. This, in itself is hardly surprising for anyone who keeps abreast of such things as 75% of the UK laws are now handed down by Brussels.

We live in a topsy turvy world here on the UK.

[brooksieb]

I think only handguns of a low calibre should be allowed, to obtain a firearm you should be atleast 25-30+, the only problem/s i see here is we would need to obviously arm our police, aslong as it is regulated and monitored by the government i see no problems in this.

[GabonX]

You have just described the failed state of Mexico.

[Snorri1234]

Wait....isn't the BBC liberal media?

[GabonX]

It has a left lean but it isn't the most leftist source out there.

When I saw this article, a pro gun article from the precious BBC that liberals so often claim is the standard for nonbiased media, I had to post it

[jonesthecurl]

It's also 6 years old, and the only one of a number of articles taking this stance.

[got tonkaed]

You have just described the failed state of Mexico.

Havent we gone over why this isnt the case yet. Sure its possible, but theres a difference between could fail, likely to fail, and has failed.

[GabonX]

You have just described the failed state of Mexico.

Havent we gone over why this isnt the case yet. Sure its possible, but theres a difference between could fail, likely to fail, and has failed.

It already has failed, make no mistake about it, but this isn't the place to talk about it.

Feel free to make your own thread.

[got tonkaed]

You have just described the failed state of Mexico.

Havent we gone over why this isnt the case yet. Sure its possible, but theres a difference between could fail, likely to fail, and has failed.

It already has failed, make no mistake about it, but this isn't the place to talk about it.

Feel free to make your own thread.

Its amazing how often you choose to trumpet your own viewpoint instead of looking at the variety of different sources that suggest you are wrong.

We could talk about it any thread that you like. If your going to start threads about articles that are apparently 6 years old (i didnt check it -im going off jones there) to argue you a point, why should it really matter where we talk about the ways in which you overstate the current.

[GabonX]

I'm actually very critical of what I read and I make it a point to read as many sources as possible and then form my own opinion. Quite often I find that people don't really scrutinize the data in their own sources, a perfect example of this being in the New York Massacre thread.

If you make a point avoiding The Sun, MSNBC, Fox News, a given poster on a forum, or any other source, than you are willingly increasing your own ignorance. Even if you disagree with what these things say, even if everything they say is false, they provide a window into another way of thinking.

A make a point of watching them all.


This article may be a little old but it is about the rising crime rate in the UK and the dropping crime rate in the US. Because this trend has continued for several years since the article was published, it is probably MORE relevant now than when it was written.

Regardless it is still relevant.

[icedagger]

When I saw this article, a pro gun article from the precious BBC that liberals so often claim is the standard for nonbiased media, I had to post it

Yes, a non-biased media organisation presenting someone's viewpoint on strict gun laws who happens to be against them at some point over the last six years. Shocking. What is the point of this thread? There are already hundreds of others that have discussed the same thing to exhaustion. Do you just post every article you see that happens to agree with your views?

[MeDeFe]

It's also 6 years old...

Says it all, at least it's a bullet against any hypothetical claims that the BBC is one-sided.

[got tonkaed]

I entirely agree about looking at different sources for you news and not discounting them. Where we are in disagreement is to how much we should disregard numerous sources of opinion in order to maintain one that is more politically charged and lent to ideology.

A quick list of people who may disagree with you on the idea of the Mexican failed state (as we speak)...granted some of these date as far back as Jan. so you could i guess make a point about timeliness. However i think the point that is illustrate is clear, and i havent even tracked down the exact Pentagon report yet. Krause is admittedly double booked here, but hes not the only voice by far. Also these are not all coming from the same perspective on the issue.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/ ... id=1181621
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/a ... px?id=3143
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/200 ... iled_state
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/bord ... 97616.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1146c7c4-e58e ... fd2ac.html
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plan ... state.aspx
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=12709
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YW ... YzNmIxMGI=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206674721488169.html

The fact that Calderon is deploying more people shows that the state is anything but failed. Increases in hostility as of late can just as much be attributed to the gov attempting to ramp up the pressure on the cartels as anything else.

[captain.crazy]

The real reason that the second amendment comes under attack is because the government wants to disarm the population, making it easier for them to attack us under the guise of public safety. During Hurricane Katrina, I saw lots of videos of federal Agents confiscating weapons in a time when those people needed them most. Meanwhile, they (the fed) corralled thousands in the stadium there where they were left to massive lawlessness. The protection of true liberty rests in the hands of the individual, your governments will only seek to leach it from you. Satan Controls the illuminati, the illuminati controls your governments, your governments control you.

[GabonX]

When I saw this article, a pro gun article from the precious BBC that liberals so often claim is the standard for nonbiased media, I had to post it

Yes, a non-biased media organisation presenting someone's viewpoint on strict gun laws who happens to be against them at some point over the last six years. Shocking. What is the point of this thread? There are already hundreds of others that have discussed the same thing to exhaustion. Do you just post every article you see that happens to agree with your views?

Attacking me is a poor way to avoid discussing the facts in this article such as:

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

I was willing to let this debate die. Somebody else brought it back here in the New York Massacre thread.

The point is that gun control in the UK has been a complete and total failure as every facet of violent crime has risen. To the contrary, most States in the US have pursued the exact opposite strategy, allowing people to carry firearms, and even though the great majority of people choose not to, their presence in society has resulted in a decrease in violent crime.

[InkL0sed]

New York City is extremely safe.

[Snorri1234]

I'm actually very critical of what I read and I make it a point to read as many sources as possible and then form my own opinion. Quite often I find that people don't really scrutinize the data in their own sources, a perfect example of this being in the New York Massacre thread.

I think you'll find that you are "right" in that thread is because nobody wants to argue it anymore. Also because you ignore posts.

If you make a point avoiding The Sun, MSNBC, Fox News, a given poster on a forum, or any other source, than you are willingly increasing your own ignorance. Even if you disagree with what these things say, even if everything they say is false, they provide a window into another way of thinking.

Sure, but the problem is that they frequently just make up shit.

[icedagger]

You seem to be missing my point gabon. I'm not taking a stance on gun control, I'm just saying this thread is pointless. Why not post your article in one of the many other threads about gun control? I don't think it's nesseccary or healthy for the forum for you to post so many threads with 0 content and just a news article which is going to lead to you and everyone else restating what they have already said in countless other threads.

[GabonX]

I'm actually very critical of what I read and I make it a point to read as many sources as possible and then form my own opinion. Quite often I find that people don't really scrutinize the data in their own sources, a perfect example of this being in the New York Massacre thread.

I think you'll find that you are "right" in that thread is because nobody wants to argue it anymore. Also because you ignore posts.

If you make a point avoiding The Sun, MSNBC, Fox News, a given poster on a forum, or any other source, than you are willingly increasing your own ignorance. Even if you disagree with what these things say, even if everything they say is false, they provide a window into another way of thinking.

Sure, but the problem is that they frequently just make up shit.

Nobody wants to argue with me because I read the statistics from the anti gun website which actually prove my point!

It's very low class. Somebody claimed that I "ran away" because somebody proved I was wrong by posting a couple links, and when I pull information from the links that they post which actually prove what I've been saying there isn't a peep.

Fox News and The Sun don't make really make things up. People make the claim all the time but rarely do they try to demonstrate it.

[InkL0sed]

I'm actually very critical of what I read and I make it a point to read as many sources as possible and then form my own opinion. Quite often I find that people don't really scrutinize the data in their own sources, a perfect example of this being in the New York Massacre thread.

I think you'll find that you are "right" in that thread is because nobody wants to argue it anymore. Also because you ignore posts.

If you make a point avoiding The Sun, MSNBC, Fox News, a given poster on a forum, or any other source, than you are willingly increasing your own ignorance. Even if you disagree with what these things say, even if everything they say is false, they provide a window into another way of thinking.

Sure, but the problem is that they frequently just make up shit.

Nobody wants to argue with me because I read the statistics from the anti gun website which actually prove my point!

It's very low class. Somebody claimed that I "ran away" because somebody proved I was wrong by posting a couple links, and when I pull information from the links that they post which actually prove what I've been saying there isn't a peep.

Fox News and The Sun don't make really make things up. People make the claim all the time but rarely do they try to demonstrate it.

It's demonstrated almost daily on MSNBC, but they're liberal biased media so they're wrong, of course.

[Snorri1234]

For added fun bonus-points, I'm going to discuss this article.

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

No to the second part, but whatever.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

Even taking this at face-value, it still brings up the question as to what is considered a "very serious" offence.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

Wait, how is this a bad thing? I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a country that had a little more plain theft and a little less murder than the other way around.

I know I may be a big softie, but I rather hand in my wallet than be killed.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Ofcourse, no mention of the fact that a burglary is far shittier when you're not at home. If a junkie breaks in, takes your cd-player and goes out it's far less fucked than when your entire home is robbed completely just because you're not there.

So I might not be completely understanding as to how this is in any way seriously bad.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

Oh I get it. Americans just like killing eachother more. Go America!

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

Proof that Americans are violent bastards. Sure, you could ofcourse explain that there has been some serious changes to both cities which have absolutely nothing to do with laws but that would make your point less strong so just ignore it.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

Murdering someone is not the same as using a gun for crime. I don't know if you americans noticed this, but using a gun to rob someone does not mean you have to shoot the person afterwards.

But anyway, this ofcourse has nothing to do with the "tough on crime"-mentality that the New Yorkers have supported compared to the british "criminals are just misunderstood and just need some love"-mentality.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone.

Wow. I admire this person for stating things everyone already knows. How controversial.

Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets.

I love exageration. I also love how this person says less cops on the street is due to THEM KEEPING TRACK OF GUNS instead of y'know, the increase of paperwork and the general restrictions the gov puts on them. I might be suprising you Americans again, but police-officers in Europe generally have far fewer options than those in the US.

And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

ANARCHY IN THE UK BITCH!

Or wait, any of you londoners get robbed all the time? No? Weird.

According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

This is true. It's sad that defending yourself is frequently suspect and might even get you a sentence. But that doesn't mean "MOAR GUNS" is the best option.

[Simon Viavant]

If you make a point avoiding The Sun, Fox News, a given poster on a forum, or any other source

How remarkably well informed you are GabonX. I'm sorry I ever questioned your credibility.

If you get your information from such reliable sources as fox news, the sun, and posters on internet forums, you're clearly well informed.

[GabonX]

You edited my post to remove MSNBC from the list. If you get most of your information from sources as biased as this you are in the same boat as someone who only watches Fox News.

The point is that if you shut out sources, you shut out perspectives and ideas. Regardless of whether the things you hear are right or wrong, (and the more sources you take in the better suited you are to determine what is right and what is wrong), you have a weaker understanding of the world if you ignore them.

[captain.crazy]

For added fun bonus-points, I'm going to discuss this article.

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

No to the second part, but whatever.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

Even taking this at face-value, it still brings up the question as to what is considered a "very serious" offence.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

Wait, how is this a bad thing? I don't know about you, but I would rather live in a country that had a little more plain theft and a little less murder than the other way around.

I know I may be a big softie, but I rather hand in my wallet than be killed.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Ofcourse, no mention of the fact that a burglary is far shittier when you're not at home. If a junkie breaks in, takes your cd-player and goes out it's far less fucked than when your entire home is robbed completely just because you're not there.

So I might not be completely understanding as to how this is in any way seriously bad.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

Oh I get it. Americans just like killing eachother more. Go America!

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

Proof that Americans are violent bastards. Sure, you could ofcourse explain that there has been some serious changes to both cities which have absolutely nothing to do with laws but that would make your point less strong so just ignore it.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

Murdering someone is not the same as using a gun for crime. I don't know if you americans noticed this, but using a gun to rob someone does not mean you have to shoot the person afterwards.

But anyway, this ofcourse has nothing to do with the "tough on crime"-mentality that the New Yorkers have supported compared to the british "criminals are just misunderstood and just need some love"-mentality.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone.

Wow. I admire this person for stating things everyone already knows. How controversial.

Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets.

I love exageration. I also love how this person says less cops on the street is due to THEM KEEPING TRACK OF GUNS instead of y'know, the increase of paperwork and the general restrictions the gov puts on them. I might be suprising you Americans again, but police-officers in Europe generally have far fewer options than those in the US.

And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

ANARCHY IN THE UK BITCH!

Or wait, any of you londoners get robbed all the time? No? Weird.

According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

This is true. It's sad that defending yourself is frequently suspect and might even get you a sentence. But that doesn't mean "MOAR GUNS" is the best option.

The purpose of guns in America is to enable the people to over throw our bullshit and corrupt government. Pure and simple. Getting to have the ultimate self defense tool is just an added bonus.