UK arms control and the fake USA crisis

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

So you're saying that if criminals know people may be armed, they take that fact into consideration? I think that's the main point we are trying to make.
Mav88 was trying to make a correlation between the handgun ban in 1997 and the crime spike thereafter but for reasons I have mentioned in previous posts and the simple fact that crime spiked before in 1992 there is no logical correlation.

The comparisons between the US and other states gun laws and crime stats is nothing more than a distraction for both pro and anti gun groups.
 
Quote from pspr:

I just thought that was RCG doing his, "Talk To The Hand", persona.
blackhand society , serbian assassinaion of archduke Ferdinand sparked WWI, hitler was a member .

yeah that group.
 
Quote from Dragons Teeth:

Are you pursuing a political ideology or facts?
You are on a fools errand if you seek comparisons between legal firearms and crime in the UK and transplanting that argument to the US.
Due to the rarity of handguns in the UK they did not enter the conscious thought of criminals targeting non criminals as they were not carried and if kept at home they had to be safes/lock boxes in locked rooms. I feel your argument would be better served if it focused on the unique circumstances surrounding gun control/self defense in the US

what the hell you talking about, I called it a gun control experiment, now because you don't like the results you claim it is idealogy and some sort of statisical aberration. The fact is liberal idealogy says less guns equals less guns crime, period, with no claims whatsoever as to the absolute starting levels.

The facts remain as they are, you don't like them so you obfuscate and make up unsubstantiated hypothesis. I repeat another inconvenient fact for you about UK gun control

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf

The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly .iii In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.iv The shootings in a single week in the fall of 2003—of a Liverpool football player and two other men in a bar, of three men in a drive-by attack in Reading, of a 32-year-old builder leaving a health club in Hertfordshire, of a 64-year-old woman trying to protect her daughter during a Nottinghamshire burglary—provoked Oliver Letwin, shadow home secretary, to remark: “One might have thought that this was Baghdad. In fact it‟s Blair‟s Britain.”v

I'm sure you will wave your hand, come up with some half baked hypothesis and satisfy yourself.
 
Quote from Dragons Teeth:

Mav88 was trying to make a correlation between the handgun ban in 1997 and the crime spike thereafter but for reasons I have mentioned in previous posts and the simple fact that crime spiked before in 1992 there is no logical correlation.

The comparisons between the US and other states gun laws and crime stats is nothing more than a distraction for both pro and anti gun groups.

Look, if you refuse to read then I'm gonna call you what you are- willfully retarded. I said HANDGUN CRIME ONLY when referring to handguns.

Secondly, it does not matter if there was a crime spike, IN FACT it supports my assertion that crime is independent of guns, if you wanna argue that way about gun control. Did you catch yourself? You just made an excuse for the lack of effectiveness of gun control. Liberal idealology says that no matter what, less guns equals less gun crime, crime spikes are irrelevant to that claim. You just made an exception, ooops, so how many more are there?
 
Well, of course gun control does work, but only in situations where the gun control is actually working, courtrooms, airplanes, etc. But you're right, in places where it's not working, gun control does not work

In other words gun control would work if were turned into one massive police state, and on that I agree. Gun control worked just fine in the soviet union and nazi germany.
 
Quote from TheBlackHand:

1. The more guns that are in circulation, the more gun crime you will have. Anyone with a brain can figure that one out.

The US Medical profession is about that stupid. They see that cholesterol is associated with heart disease so they spend billions and ruin millions of people with Statin drugs and heart disease gets worse... They see that weak bones are lacking calcium so they supplement calcium and the bones get weaker yet.. but they keep on doing it!

Guns are used to deter crimes!
 
Quote from Eight:

Guns are used to deter crimes!

About 2.5 million times a year to be exact. Almost 500,000 of those are to prevent home invasions.

92% of the time the armed citizen never even fires a shot, they merely brandish their weapon.
 
Quote from Mav88:

what the hell you talking about, I called it a gun control experiment, now because you don't like the results you claim it is idealogy and some sort of statisical aberration. The fact is liberal idealogy says less guns equals less guns crime, period, with no claims whatsoever as to the absolute starting levels.
Its not in any shape or form an experiment and there are no results other than your own fallacious conjecture.

The facts remain as they are, you don't like them so you obfuscate and make up unsubstantiated hypothesis. I repeat another inconvenient fact for you about UK gun control

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/guncontrolinengland.pdf
Joyce Malcom is a history professor yet she is completely unaware that a state called England has not existed since 1707 and what she has roped together is a cut and paste conjecture which is not in the least bit scholarly.


I'm sure you will wave your hand, come up with some half baked hypothesis and satisfy yourself.
Nope I will let you come up with something. Now entertain me.
 
Quote from Mav88:

Look, if you refuse to read then I'm gonna call you what you are- willfully retarded. I said HANDGUN CRIME ONLY when referring to handguns.

Secondly, it does not matter if there was a crime spike, IN FACT it supports my assertion that crime is independent of guns, if you wanna argue that way about gun control. Did you catch yourself? You just made an excuse for the lack of effectiveness of gun control. Liberal idealology says that no matter what, less guns equals less gun crime, crime spikes are irrelevant to that claim. You just made an exception, ooops, so how many more are there?
You first post was smorgasbord of conflicting opinions and pasted links and you even conferred your own opinion that both the US and UK have separate cultural identities.
Quote from Mav88:

The UK has a low gun crime rate because of culture, something very obvious to thinking people but out of reach to the fragile brainwashed liberal mind....
You may not have picked up on this as yet but I do not have an argument on gun control just a dislike of wild assumptions. Maybe pro 2nd folks should internalize their argument rather than pursue the distractions of whats happening on distant shores.
 
Back
Top