Anti-gun protests in London

[GoddessWhispers]

On gun issues, people just....open their mouths....and out comes crap

636679[/snapback]

[Seraphina]

because as i've said numerous times, as i've demonstrated numerous times, banning firearms doesn't lower overall rates. The UK experience, the Australian experience hell pick any country that has done something similar, shows that there will not be a reduction in overall murders because unfortunately, regardless of what you have said, a knife can be pretty lethal too.

And yet your very own statistics on the UK demonstrate that, though you claim it has a higher rate of violent crime, it has a lower murder rate than the US.

This quite clearly demonstrates that guns do, in fact, inflamte the situation, do in fact lead to more deaths, and that removing them from society would in fact save lives.

[whoa182]

If you take a gun away from a psycho ,he still will be a psycho.

oh really? well lets see what happens in the hypothetical scenario.

Scenario one

Monday morning, Kids go back to school and one of that old schools students have has some mental issues and is pretty much a psycho ready to explode and decides to go on a killing spree at the old school that he didnt like. His names bob and he wants revenge.

Bob takes his dad's hand gun and its fully loaded with plenty of ammo. He arrives at school and all school kids are in class. He then bursts into school threatening everyone with the gun, he enters a class room of 12 kids and a teacher.

armed with a gun, all kids are in danger because he can aim the gun at anyone and he doesnt have to go chasing them because they are all in his sight and bullets move pretty fast.

Right there we have a hostage situation, uncontrolable, dangerous, has enough ammo to kill all kids and teacher. no1 is fast enough to escape and are powerless.

Scenario two

Monday morning, Kids go back to school and one of that old schools students have has some mental issues and is pretty much a psycho ready to explode and decides to go on a killing spree at the old school that he didnt like. His names bob and he wants revenge.

Bob takes his knife that he Intends to use. He arrives at school and all school kids are in class. He then bursts into school threatening everyone with the knife, he enters a class room of 12 kids and a teacher.

armed only with a knife, all kids are still in possible danger, but the teacher might be able to gain some control because bob has to make contact with the knife in order to cause harm. But the kids now have a much more significant chance of staying alive long enough for the LAW (cops) to use weapons to make the arrest quickly because he can't stab all 12 kids at once.

I think we can all agree that The psycho is much less dangerious without access to this weapons and everyones chances of getting out of that class alive significantly improves if bob didnt have that gun

s1

No struggle, bob has complete control over movement of all kids, he can end all their lives in a matter of Seconds

s2

There could be a struggle, bob has to make contact and he can't chase all 12 kids at once. Some may die and get injured but its likely that majority will live.

Edited May 24, 2005 by whoa182

[Celumnaz]

nope, people are going kill no matter what. be it guns bombs knives crowbars slingshots... it's just going to happen as long as there are people. Until something in SOCIETY changes that. most guns can be traced, most of the time we find the ones responsible, most of the time we get it right. if not, it *would* be total chaos, and it's not.

once we take them away, now we get to deal with more creative things constantly, not just every now and then, unless something changes in society.

What's that?

13% of the american population is suffering from 48% of homicides

?

Since we're mixing speculation with fact... At least with a gun we can probably find the jerk, less so with a bucket of gasoline and a match... or, something I haven't thought of... how long did kazenski take to find? how long did it take to find your common street thug in that 13% of the population?

I might venture to think we'd be creating a 150% increase to the amount of kazenski type detective work needed to find all the creative idiots out there.

but besides all that, and the voluminous statemens of fact and documentation in these threads provided...

now this has got me thinking on the statistics of victims of violent crime that are not fatal, some in a coma, some disfigured, maimed... like tattooing someone's head, the things that happen in subways... reconstructive surgery, personality changes, lifestyle changes, impact on families... just to think, it's undeniable a % of them would be alive and self-assured, and a criminal jerk would be dead. yeah yeah he deserved his day in court, prolly would've got off, whatever.

we didn't have a problem with it once upon a time in this society. everyone knew how to use one. 30 years ago, it was a class in school, you'd have to bring your own, but they'd provide 1 or 2 for the less fortunate.

the real problem has happened within that timespan give or take. I still go with my fear of guns idea, or a desire for control maybe...

what does the higher rate of violent crime accomplish?

[Commander CMG]

Sera... you are wasting your time trying to explain things to the hardened few, I have been trying and it is like banging your head against a wall.

It is a simple and plain fact that if you restrict the access to guns it is bound have a possitive effect on gun crime and accidents within the USA, no one will despute tha fcat that people will still get their hands on guns, but it will make it more difficult to do that, they will have to find another source rather than just pop into the gun shop.

[bathory]

And yet your very own statistics on the UK demonstrate that, though you claim it has a higher rate of violent crime, it has a lower murder rate than the US

yes indeed it has a lower murder rate

This quite clearly demonstrates that guns do, in fact, inflamte the situation, do in fact lead to more deaths, and that removing them from society would in fact save lives.

how many times do i have to repeat this?

The UK has always had a low homicide rate, removing guns from the UK didn't lower homicides one bit.

All it takes is to have one country with a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of murder and violent crime to shoot down your silly ideas...oh wait! there are several countries.

What's that?

QUOTE

13% of the american population is suffering from 48% of homicides

?

just to clarify African Americans who account for about 13% of the american population are the victims of around 48% of homicides, its a social and cultural issue, removing guns from the greater population ISN'T going achieve jack. The white/asian/hispanic/whatever rate of homicide is on par with Britain and other 'enlightened' nations.

It is a simple and plain fact that if you restrict the access to guns it is bound have a possitive effect on gun crime and accidents within the USA

you do realise that this is some circular reasoning?

of course restricting guns is going to have a positive effect on gun crime and accidents...

If SUVs were banned you would see a dramatic decline in SUV accidents...unfortunately you won't see a decline in overall motorist accidents...

i hope you realise how silly your arguement is. It doesn't matter if gun crime goes down if other types of crime go up, which they will do.

Edited May 24, 2005 by bathory

[SnakeProphet]

oh really? well lets see what happens in the hypothetical scenario.

Scenario one

Monday morning, Kids go back to school and one of that old schools students have has some mental issues and is pretty much a psycho ready to explode and decides to go on a killing spree at the old school that he didnt like. His names bob and he wants revenge.

Bob takes his dad's hand gun and its fully loaded with plenty of ammo. He arrives at school and all school kids are in class. He then bursts into school threatening everyone with the gun, he enters a class room of 12 kids and a teacher.

armed with a gun, all kids are in danger because he can aim the gun at anyone and he doesnt have to go chasing them because they are all in his sight and bullets move pretty fast.

Right there we have a hostage situation, uncontrolable, dangerous, has enough ammo to kill all kids and teacher. no1 is fast enough to escape and are powerless.

Scenario two

Monday morning, Kids go back to school and one of that old schools students have has some mental issues and is pretty much a psycho ready to explode and decides to go on a killing spree at the old school that he didnt like. His names bob and he wants revenge.

Bob takes his knife that he Intends to use. He arrives at school and all school kids are in class. He then bursts into school threatening everyone with the knife, he enters a class room of 12 kids and a teacher.

armed only with a knife, all kids are still in possible danger, but the teacher might be able to gain some control because bob has to make contact with the knife in order to cause harm. But the kids now have a much more significant chance of staying alive long enough for the LAW (cops) to use weapons to make the arrest quickly because he can't stab all 12 kids at once.

I think we can all agree that The psycho is much less dangerious without access to this weapons and everyones chances of getting out of that class alive significantly improves if bob didnt have that gun

s1

No struggle, bob has complete control over movement of all kids, he can end all their lives in a matter of Seconds

s2

There could be a struggle, bob has to make contact and he can't chase all 12 kids at once. Some may die and get injured but its likely that majority will live.

Scenario 3

There is no psycho.

s1 Most casualties

s2 Few casualties

s3 No casualties

I say it again.I m not trying to argue that banning guns would lower the homicide rate.I m sure it would(Although I m quite sure the first few days after the ban would be complete chaos).But what do you think is the more effective way?Banning guns or getting rid of the bobs in your society?You seem to think that with banning guns you have got rid of the problem,but the psycho is still there.Some kids may still die and get injured...your words.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Snake_6024

[Mekorig]

People will keep kiliing people, and it will be extrmely dificult to stop that. But, taking out fireguns of the equation, you make smaller the body count. You will still have a list of death in violent cases, but it will be smaller.

[Commander CMG]

In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shooting in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms.

[Celumnaz]

In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shooting in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms.

637349[/snapback]

gah

Can I Please see the source on that?

65 High Profile Multiple Victim Shootings in 40 years.

Of those shootings, how many victims?

Of those shootings, how many were with handgun vs. long gun?

Of those shootings, how many of the offenders were caught?

How many were caught with ballistics or other evidence that would not have been there with an unregistered can of gasoline?

Are those stats real? Are they pre-interpreted? Raw Data?

What makes them High Profile? I'm starting to think this is a media driven epidemic people are buying into lock, stock, and barrel because of a) fear of guns, or desire for control. It's definately NOT "for the children".

[Commander CMG]

In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shooting in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms.

637349[/snapback]

gah

Can I Please see the source on that?

65 High Profile Multiple Victim Shootings in 40 years.

Of those shootings, how many victims?

Of those shootings, how many were with handgun vs. long gun?

Of those shootings, how many of the offenders were caught?

How many were caught with ballistics or other evidence that would not have been there with an unregistered can of gasoline?

Are those stats real? Are they pre-interpreted? Raw Data?

What makes them High Profile? I'm starting to think this is a media driven epidemic people are buying into lock, stock, and barrel because of a) fear of guns, or desire for control. It's definately NOT "for the children".

637473[/snapback]

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

[Celumnaz]

Nice! Thanks

Another page added to my bookmarks. This is one of those things that will take a while to pick apart... looks on the surface like a find the facts to fit the agenda thing... the names doing the studies seem familiar. Numbers don't lie, but if these guys are liars... they'll use numbers for sure. Takes alot of legwork to take apart a carefully constructed mislead.

[Seraphina]

The UK has always had a low homicide rate, removing guns from the UK didn't lower homicides one bit.

Oh my god Bathory! For crying out loud!

Can you please explain to me why the murder rate hasn't risen with the rate of violent crime? Can you please, PLEASE explain to me why, despite having (according to your sources...which I must admit, I highly doubt) a higher yeild of muggings, assaults, and suchlike, do we still have a lower murder rate than the US? Why do we have significantly more people surviving what you claim are far more frequent brushes with death?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, people are significantly more likely to survive an encounter with a homicidal maniac if he's armed with a knife or a stick than they are if he's got a gun?

Gun appear to just love applying statistics without any attempt at applying logic in the meantime...sure, there are countries with guns that have far lower crime and murder rates than the US....so friggin what? Clearly, the US is absolutely incapable of doing the same. If guns are obviously having such an effect there, why on earth should measures not be taken in their case?

[bathory]

Can you please explain to me why the murder rate hasn't risen with the rate of violent crime?

last i checked the UK rates were all going up

gun related crime was going up too (after the handgun ban in 96 of course)

Can you please, PLEASE explain to me why, despite having (according to your sources...which I must admit, I highly doubt) a higher yeild of muggings, assaults, and suchlike, do we still have a lower murder rate than the US? Why do we have significantly more people surviving what you claim are far more frequent brushes with death?

perhaps the lack of a gang culture? the US has a higher rate of violent crime than it does homicides

the US homicide rate is currently at 0.04 per 1000

the UK is at 0.01 per 1000

the US has an assaults rate of 7.70 per 1000

the UK has an assault rate of 7.50 per 1000

(i had already stated i was incorrect in regards to the violent crimes rate, but you ignored that)

You keep attempting to create a correlation between firearms ownership and homicide rates. Explain how Canada fits into your correlation?

It has the same homicide rate as the UK and a lower rate of violent crime

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, people are significantly more likely to survive an encounter with a homicidal maniac if he's armed with a knife or a stick than they are if he's got a gun?

i dunno, do you have any figures? maybe a comparison between attempted murders using a 'tool' o some descritpion and a 'firearm' of some description and the actual murder rate involving said weapons?

Gun appear to just love applying statistics without any attempt at applying logic in the meantime...sure, there are countries with guns that have far lower crime and murder rates than the US....so friggin what?

clearly it means that there isn't a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates...you know, something you keep trying to make a point of?

[Commander CMG]

So I suppose that easy access to guns and the fact that In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shooting in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms... all these guns were legally held firearms and how many of the kids that have gone to school and blown their friends away managed ti get their hands on Daddys gun... oh sorry the death of the kids are irrelevent as you mentioned in your previous post. I don't think we are getting anywhere in our discussion.

Edited May 25, 2005 by XSAS

[Subtemperate]

clearly it means that there isn't a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates...you know, something you keep trying to make a point of?

Bathory, that is a flaw in your own argument. You claim yourself that its a cultural problem in the USA and that it can't be compared to the UK or Australia for that problem does not exist here...... Yet you yourself are comparing them to other places of gun ownership and making a correlation stating that that is not the problem.

Therefore even using your logic it is logical to think that if it is in fact a cultural problem ,then the ban may actually reduce crime, given that we have no other sources that can disprove that fact...due to them being different culturally....

[bathory]

So I suppose that easy access to guns and the fact that In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shooting in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms... all these guns were legally held firearms and how many of the kids that have gone to school and blown their friends away managed ti get their hands on Daddys gun... oh sorry the death of the kids are irrelevent as you mentioned in your previous post. I don't think we are getting anywhere in our discussion.

if you had read your own source you would have seen that it was worldwide, it had shootings from germany, scotland etc

that said, considering the number of shootings (65) and the timescale they are taken from (40 years), and the fact it limits itself to a specific type of shooting, one which has a low probability of occuring, of vourse you are going to have hugely skewed figures showing nice big percentages.

Bathory, that is a flaw in your own argument. You claim yourself that its a cultural problem in the USA and that it can't be compared to the UK or Australia for that problem does not exist here...... Yet you yourself are comparing them to other places of gun ownership and making a correlation stating that that is not the problem.

I'm saying the cause is a cultural problem that is limited to the US and thus you can't make comparisons between how things may or may not be in the UK.

Seraphina on the other hand is doing so, and i'm pointing out the flaws in doing so by using HER logic, if a correlation were indeed the case (ie a causal relationship between firearms ownership and homicide rates) it would be evident in countries such as canada.

My argument as to what the cause of high rates of homicide in the US has always been to point out the fact its centered around the Gang and drug culture that is present to a large extent within a certain minority.

Therefore even using your logic it is logical to think that if it is in fact a cultural problem ,then the ban may actually reduce crime, given that we have no other sources that can disprove that fact...due to them being different culturally....

gun bans don't lower homicde rates regardless of culture, we have multiple examples of this across different cultures. Sure you could argue that it might be different for the US, gravity might stop working tomorow too:)

[Subtemperate]

Medics will tell you you are far more likely to die when injured by a gun (obviously getting shot) then those who come into the emergency with injuries from other weapons.

Australia, for example, may not of lowered its overall crime rate, but did in fact lower the percentage of gun usage's in attacks... therefore increasing the probability of those attacked to survive the attack.

Statistically Homicides should rise in the same threshold that population does.... However in the UK, and Australia they have not. In fact the UK homicide rate has gone down, as previously noted....

So therefore.... the rise that should be happening statistically in homicides, is not... due to factors including gun control in these countries. On that basis alone you cannot compare the rates due to the fact you are not lessening from the same amount, you are reducing a rising amount... and that makes it impossible to judge the total effective reduction

Now I am not going to compare this to the US, but I dont agree that these had no influence on crime.....

So...as if you claim that the homicides are those due to that minority... why does the rest of the country need guns for security? They obviously aren't at threat statistically..... 13% have 71% I think you said, therefore the other 87% of america doesn't really need them for any reason, as they are not at risk.... going by their reasoning for having them....

[bathory]

So...as if you claim that the homicides are those due to that minority... why does the rest of the country need guns for security? They obviously aren't at threat statistically..... 13% have 71% I think you said, therefore the other 87% of america doesn't really need them for any reason, as they are not at risk.... going by their reasoning for having them....

the abnormal number of homicides are due to problems within a certain minority. 13% of the population accounts for 48% of the victims.

Defence is still a valid reason, why? because you never know when you need one, its kind of like having a fire alarm in the house, odds are you won't ever need it, but do you take that chance?

as for the survivability of knifings vs shooting, i think a big factor is intent, if someon intends on killing you, i don't think whether they use a knife or a gun will make much of a difference, i think its a criminological theory where crime dictates the weapon, the weapon doesn't dictate the crime.

[onep0int]

oh yeah, forget about defense,self-defense is totaly dumb!

623608[/snapback]

Self defence by using a gun is dumb.. this is not the wild west, it is not a war zone, guns have a place in this todays world. There is no quick fix or solution to stopping gun crime, but the right to bear amrs etc etc etc... what a load of crap.

623630[/snapback]

here's something for you to make a mental image about ...you and your girlfriend/wife/mistress (whatever it be) just got out of a nice dinner lets say for example in my backyard of miami in south beach ...where we have a nice mix of decent people and scum ....on the way to the dark parking lot in which you parked your car a man/group of men (hell even women) ...approach you and your lady friend in a very suspicous manner and proceed to pull a gun (or another weapon with the same lethal effect) on you and rob you blind possibly even still leave you face down in a puddle of blood

now myself a concealed weapons permit holder ...I would find quite easy to get myself out of a similar or equal situation the second I would have seen activity that makes me uneasy about my own and my lady friend's personal safety

criminals will always have acesss to firearms outside of the legal process ....myself knowing this and as a law abiding citizen I appreciate my right to carry firearms to protect myself in such a situation ....I have protected myself in such a situation and I will continue to do so

"it's better to have and not need than need and not have"

also for some 1 so antigun ...thats a cute mp5 (looks like the front stock of it anyways) the character is holding in your av ...and looks like something out of counter strike ...so for being antigun you appear to enjoy realistic first person shooting games

I'll refrain from rightfully calling you names ....but honestly you have a warped understanding of how the world really works ...it's not all pretty pink and baby blue outside of your liberal mentality ...in your mind it might work like a movie but real life is very different

btw I've never seen this website before until searching this morning for information on getting the lic. to own automatic firearms ...I'm getting into Fugitive Recovery and Bail Enforcement ...in which my M4 would be highly useful with 3 round burst incase of a sticky situation

Edited May 25, 2005 by onep0int

[PadawanOsswe]

I think XSAS has made it very obvious that gun's serve no purpose in any society. 

Of course its the parents and childs fault. But the fact is, if there were no guns a hell of a lot of lives would be saved every year and you wouldn't have all these mass killings going on.

633774[/snapback]

That is a problem of society.Guns are nothing more than tools.People will look for other ways of killing.

If guns serve no purpose in any society any other tools serve no purpose as well.

634282[/snapback]

Don't you agree that the majority of them lives would of been saved without guns?

If so I don't see your point, Im simply saying that gun's being involved in social problems usually lead to death.

The stats make it quite clear that people cannot control themselves. If you take guns away from it all then a lot of kids will be saved.

Its that simple

635078[/snapback]

no, the attacker could have been a knife thrower,an archer, a spear thrower,etc...

the Firearm is just like any other weapon, just more advanced.

[Commander CMG]

oh yeah, forget about defense,self-defense is totaly dumb!

623608[/snapback]

Self defence by using a gun is dumb.. this is not the wild west, it is not a war zone, guns have a place in this todays world. There is no quick fix or solution to stopping gun crime, but the right to bear amrs etc etc etc... what a load of crap.

623630[/snapback]

here's something for you to make a mental image about ...you and your girlfriend/wife/mistress (whatever it be) just got out of a nice dinner lets say for example in my backyard of miami in south beach ...where we have a nice mix of decent people and scum ....on the way to the dark parking lot in which you parked your car a man/group of men (hell even women) ...approach you and your lady friend in a very suspicous manner and proceed to pull a gun (or another weapon with the same lethal effect) on you and rob you blind possibly even still leave you face down in a puddle of blood

now myself a concealed weapons permit holder ...I would find quite easy to get myself out of a similar or equal situation the second I would have seen activity that makes me uneasy about my own and my lady friend's personal safety

criminals will always have acesss to firearms outside of the legal process ....myself knowing this and as a law abiding citizen I appreciate my right to carry firearms to protect myself in such a situation ....I have protected myself in such a situation and I will continue to do so

"it's better to have and not need than need and not have"

also for some 1 so antigun ...thats a cute mp5 (looks like the front stock of it anyways) the character is holding in your av ...and looks like something out of counter strike ...so for being antigun you appear to enjoy realistic first person shooting games

I'll refrain from rightfully calling you names ....but honestly you have a warped understanding of how the world really works ...it's not all pretty pink and baby blue outside of your liberal mentality ...in your mind it might work like a movie but real life is very different

btw I've never seen this website before until searching this morning for information on getting the lic. to own automatic firearms ...I'm getting into Fugitive Recovery and Bail Enforcement ...in which my M4 would be highly useful with 3 round burst incase of a sticky situation

639723[/snapback]

On the contrary to your posting about me being anti guns... I use them at work, as for my av with the MP5, it is a painting that a friend of mine did as for me having a warped understanding of the real world.

I work in the real world, I deal with the canercous individuals in society, I protect people, diamond mines, oil rigs, I recover abducted children, I get kidnapped Victims back, I train counter Terrorist units across the world, I train hostage rescue units in more countries than you have probably visited, I have served Queen and country and killed god knows how many people with guns so don't preach to me about the real World or indeed my "liberal mentality"... unlike most people that post on these boards I can differentiate the differences between the Movies and the real World.

PS...Welcome to UM.

Edited May 25, 2005 by XSAS

[SnakeProphet]

The bad thing is,since he is new to this board,he propably won t believe you.How many people are able to say they worked with the secret service?Not many.I would find it suspicious as well,if I didn t know what I know.

But I can vouch for XSAS.I m 99.9% sure,he really did what he said.

[Commander CMG]

The bad thing is,since he is new to this board,he propably won t believe you.How many people are able to say they worked with the secret service?Not many.I would find it suspicious as well,if I didn t know what I know.

But I can vouch for XSAS.I m 99.9% sure,he really did what he said.

639970[/snapback]

Snake, I don't give a damn if he believes me, I just found his comments offensive... although I have been involved with TV advising on several shows so he could have a point with the Movie comment... LOL.. 99.9% sure Snake.. Hmmm

Edited May 25, 2005 by XSAS

[SnakeProphet]

Well,I already knew your answer when I read his post and was going to reply at first but then thought I will let you do the work.

Advertising.....hmm.......Would be interesting to see....