Political Ramblings

[rebelcowboysnb]

That image showing without hitting play is telling as it is.

 

[thaiturkey]

I don't care why you moved, but one of the benefits is that you can buy a gun to defend your home now. That would be illegal in England.

Are you still in denial of England having a higher violent crime rate then the U.S. ?

I never felt the need to have a gun at home in England, even before the ban on hand guns. Hand guns at home are legal in Thailand, subject to a licence, but there are, as a consequence of that law, illegal guns in irresponsible hands too. Therefore, we have armed ourselves well within the limits of the law.

Where have I denied anything about violent crime in England and where are your statistics on the subject?

 

[Matthew3590]

I never felt the need to have a gun at home in England, even before the ban on hand guns. Hand guns at home are legal in Thailand, subject to a licence, but there are, as a consequence of that law, illegal guns in irresponsible hands too. Therefore, we have armed ourselves well within the limits of the law.

Where have I denied anything about violent crime in England and where are your statistics on the subject?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

[thaiturkey]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

I would need to see better than an extract of statistics published by the Daily Mail rag.

Legally owned guns in the UK have always been small in number. Most were owned for sporting reasons. The gun bans were intended to prevent or reduce the numbers of massacres such as Hungerford and Dunblane and in that they seem to have been successful. The same applies, I think, in Australia. The US is now facing the same decisions for the same reasons.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
So it's the legal gun owners that force the criminals to arm themselves. That's a new twist.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote: http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-and-gun-homicide-rates

 

[Q9]

You think I came here to buy a gun?

Are you about to quote fictitious crime figures like Mr. Pratt of the Piers Morgan Show?

What figures are you referring to?

As an aside, I did some research on gangs and their relation to crime, and found out (courtesy of the FBI) that, on average, gangs were responsible for 48% of violent crime in the US. Obviously, it fluctuates wildly based on region, but they contribute a very significant portion. The UK has never really had a problem with gangs; maybe kicking the legs out from under them would be a good start towards curbing violence.

An interesting historical note for you, Thai - the UK and the US had similar differences in homicide rates even when both had extremely lax gun laws. Japanese homicide is almost nonexistent, which makes me think that there is a significant cultural element to this entire discussion, as well - Asian culture centers heavily around submission to authority (I blame Confucius), whereas the US has always had a very rough, independent culture.

I think it's telling to look at the rate of increase or decrease in crime, as well - in the UK, crime had been on the rise when the handgun ban went into effect. It then continued to rise for a few years, peaked around 2003, then dropped off. In the US, crime has been on a decrease for the past two decades even as gun laws are liberalized. If nothing else, IMHO, it demonstrates that gun laws have little effect in reducing crime. Whether they increase it is still up for debate. The presence of guns is really interesting - Honduras has 6.6 firearms per 100 people, but have an extremely high crime rate. Thailand has only 15.6 firearms per 100, but is also quite violent, from my understanding. Mexico has 15 per 100, and it's more dangerous than Afghanistan.

Quite frankly, looking at these stats from a detached perspective makes me wonder if guns and gun laws have any real effect on violent crime at all. It seems that the real common denominator here is the presence of gangs, radical Islam, terrorist groups, etc.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

 

[thaiturkey]

So it's the legal gun owners that force the criminals to arm themselves. That's a new twist.

That's not what I wrote.

More legal guns means that more such weapons will find their way into the hands of criminals.

 

[thaiturkey]

What figures are you referring to?

As an aside, I did some research on gangs and their relation to crime, and found out (courtesy of the FBI) that, on average, gangs were responsible for 48% of violent crime in the US. Obviously, it fluctuates wildly based on region, but they contribute a very significant portion. The UK has never really had a problem with gangs; maybe kicking the legs out from under them would be a good start towards curbing violence.

An interesting historical note for you, Thai - the UK and the US had similar differences in homicide rates even when both had extremely lax gun laws. Japanese homicide is almost nonexistent, which makes me think that there is a significant cultural element to this entire discussion, as well - Asian culture centers heavily around submission to authority (I blame Confucius), whereas the US has always had a very rough, independent culture.

I think it's telling to look at the rate of increase or decrease in crime, as well - in the UK, crime had been on the rise when the handgun ban went into effect. It then continued to rise for a few years, peaked around 2003, then dropped off. In the US, crime has been on a decrease for the past two decades even as gun laws are liberalized. If nothing else, IMHO, it demonstrates that gun laws have little effect in reducing crime. Whether they increase it is still up for debate. The presence of guns is really interesting - Honduras has 6.6 firearms per 100 people, but have an extremely high crime rate. Thailand has only 15.6 firearms per 100, but is also quite violent, from my understanding. Mexico has 15 per 100, and it's more dangerous than Afghanistan.

Quite frankly, looking at these stats from a detached perspective makes me wonder if guns and gun laws have any real effect on violent crime at all. It seems that the real common denominator here is the presence of gangs, radical Islam, terrorist groups, etc.

Violent crime in the UK these days is probably related more to the illegal drug trade than anything else. Mostly, the dealer gangs attack each other. Street robberies are mainly confined to certain inner city areas. I know that there are exceptions, including the incident in Cumbria, but the issue, to be realistic, is to reduce gun crime rather than fancifully think that it can be eradicated.

The common denominators that you mention don't often affect Western civilian society, other than gangs in certain urban areas, perhaps. The current debate is mainly about guns used in massacres and none of those events have involved gangs, Muslims or terrorists. I haven't heard anyone argue for a complete gun ban, only a ban or restrictions on those weapons being used today in massacres.