Banning guns = higher crime rate.

I'll repeat myself:

Originally Posted by Leffe

I assume you're backing this up with credible links...

http://www.gunsandcrime.org = pro-gun web site, easily seen from their home page.

 

What? Are you saying that because Germany has lots of guns, that keeps gun crime in the NL low? If you are, explain your theory VERY VERY clearly!

 

Prove the stats are wrong. Just because it is a gun website does not automatically mean it is incorrect. What is one to do, only look at the Brady Campaign website?

 

That is my theory. There's nothing else to explain. There's no evidence suggesting I'm wrong and I've provided sources that suggest I'm right. There's absolutely nothing that will change your mind. I just think it's amusing to watch the liberal argument shift throughout the debate. When one argument fails, they move to the next. It will never end. That's what I've learned here. A Liberal will never stop arguing their opinions, regardless of the facts thrown at them.

 

I don't know about Australia. And I don't know why he's separating England and Great Britain [sic] as if the rest of Britain has different gun laws. But I do know that no political party has disputed that the most recent firearm restrictions in 1997 were indeed followed by a dramatic rise in gun crime. HOWEVER... one statistic does not a trend make, and if you look at all the previous legislation in the UK that restricted firearms, you'll see that this was noteable by being an exception, as no other gun regulation in the UK has resulted in a marked increase like this. Also, that law has not been repealed and Parliament Briefing Papers indicate that crimes with the use of a firearm have been falling since 2004. By the way, crime overall was rising at the time, why would it be a surprise to anybody that gun crime rose too? Especially at a time that more people were being criminalised if they continued to use firearms that were previously legal! What's more, that same paper shows that, before 2004, more crimes were committed with AIR GUNS than 'real' guns, and air guns can still be purchased quite legally.

In short: there's no denying that, in one isolated case, UK gun laws were followed by more gun crime, but that proves absolutely nothing of any value about the gun control debate to any intellectually honest person.

 

Whatever, in future I'll use no end of not job blogs fr=or my claims and then state the onus is on other to disprove... Then (rightly so) other posters will ignore my posts. I only ever quote reputable and independent sources... you get simple disrespect for yours...

 

There's no evidence at all to suggest your nonsense is correct! Christ alkive, it defies logic!

 

Dude, you cannot even form a sentence you're so angry. This shows that Liberals argue with emotion not facts. You don't use ANY sources. You have failed to acknowledge the difference between opinions and facts.

 

Stop rambling on. Show me some stats, or facts, or evidence to prove me wrong. Read the thread because I've loaded it down with evidence. You're not the first lib to get on this thread and debate me. Give me some actual information other than the ramblings of a pissed off liberal.

 

I wish I could go hunting w/ that Republican HOT chic, I certainly can teach her a few tricks....

[video=youtube;qSct2S0xZNM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSct2S0xZNM&feature=related[/video]

 

Far from it. I have just proven that guns are generally innocuous in a society that does not have to use them to protect itself. And that in such a society, the numbers (though not necessarily the types) of guns matter little.

It does not help your argument - which is that Americans need more guns, and especially handguns, to protect themselves) - and thus produces the silly generalisation that more guns lead to lower crime.

 

Good post.

It is also unfathomable why tighter gun restrictions would anyway produce a rise in crime if, as in America, everyone is already armed to the teeth.

 

Basically what this article says is, there has been a steady decrease of gun deaths in Australia since 1978, and a sharper drop since the 1996 buy back scheme.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...e-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

This is also a good reference point.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

 

A few more statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

"In Australia, knives are the most commonly used weapons in serious offences such as robbery, murder and attempted murder followed by firearms. Although the overall use of firearms in violent crime has declined over the past 10-15 years, gangs and those in the drug market often use handguns for protection. For some time the AIC has been researching the use of firearms through its National Firearms Monitoring Program (NFMP) and National Armed Robbery Monitoring Program (NARMP). Its research has also revealed that firearm owners continue to be negligent in securing unattended firearms and preventing their theft."

http://aic.gov.au/en/crime_types/violence/weapons.aspx

"This report presents findings of the nineteenth year of homicide data collection (2007–0 and provides an overview of key characteristics. During 2007–08, there were 260 incidents of homicide resulting in 273 victims and committed by 308 offenders. Since 2001–02, there has been a decrease in the incidence of homicide."

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/mr/1-20/13.aspx

 

Keep on trying. It's almost not a fair argument. There are literally no stats that refute me. I'm not sure why you guys keep trying but I've debunked argument after argument. I'm not going to change any of your minds so I might as well give up.

 

I don't know very many Democrat's that want to ban people from owning guns. I personally have some guns for skeet shooting and one for protection. What we are against is the need for assault rifles, clips that carry over 20 rounds, automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, etc. Stuff that you do not need to reasonably protect yourself. I know all you heroes think you can save everyone with a pistol strapped to you, but you aren't going to have much luck against a man with bullet proof armor on, tons of rounds, and an automatic rifle. Those guns are killing machines. Almost all self defense related incidences where an individual was able to protect themselves with a gun had just a normal handgun on them that carried normal rounds. The rest of the gadgets are just for play and for killing.

 

So you dispute statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology?

Throw up a few stats that are contrary to their's. Bet you can't.

 

Hooray. He's proved that Americans need guns to stop other Americans with guns from killing them!

And that no other civilised country needs guns for the same reason.

Remarkable.

 

Against assault rifles? You cannot buy one newer than 68 and you have to have a federal tax stamp if you want to buy one. They cost around 16K. Not many people can afford assault rifles. Clips are what M1 Garands use, you are talking about magazines. Guess if you have a 100 round drum like the shooter did, you run into the same problem he did, they jam. Better than a clip. Armor piercing bullets? If you mean a WWII 7.65x25 that can pierce a bullet proof vest, then you should go talk to the Russians.

The hysteria here is really funny. If the guy had on "bullet proof armor", tons of rounds, and an automatic rifle, he would still be stuck in his car. BTW, he didn't have an automatic rifle.

As far as a handgun is concerned, that is one of the poorest weapons to defend yourself with. You only use a handgun if you can't use a rifle or shotgun. BTW, what is a "normal" round?

 

So you want people to walk around public places with rifles and shotguns? That sounds like fun.

 

Jallen289 has started a thread based on emotion without any substantiation. He is now grasping for straws to save face.




Pathetic really.

 

Why is it all people like you do is reply with strawman fallacies? All you got?

 

The closer Yanks get to Canada, the lower the gun crime rate.

In other words, the closer they get to civilisation, the less inclined they are to shoot one another. Can't be a coincidence, can it?

 

Air guns are not firearms and are not regulated under the Firearms Act. Shotguns may also be purchased quite legally. Rifles and handguns may not, however.
There may indeed be more gun-related crime. We are still fortunate that our stringent firearms regulation ensures that a miniscule number of guns remain in the hands of a very few criminals.

 

So the crime stats in the UK *dont* show that the rise in crime after the 1997 law was highly unusual compared to other gun control laws passed in this country?

So, gun crime in the UK *hasnt* fallen since 2004 with this law still in place?

So, the rise in gun crime is *not* against a backdrop of rising crime in general in the UK?

So, prior to 2004, there *wasnt* susbtantially more UK gun crimes involving air guns (which are legal) than pistols (which are not)?