How's that handgun ban working out for ya, Britian?

[MikeSettles]

I have been given to understand that UK police are not generally armed: They draw firearms for specific missions/events, then return them to the armories/vaults after. No one gets to take one home while off-duty.

I recently had occasion to discuss civilian firearms ownership with a Brit contracter in Afghanistan: He had been conditioned to think that no one should have a firearm.

I hit him with the arguments that
1. Self-defense is not a "Right", rather a personal responsibility, which goes to species preservation. (Cats have claws, dogs have teeth, humans make tools.)
2. The 2nd Amendment, and 44 State Corollaries, guarantee a right to the means (ie the tools) to execute our personal responsibility.
3. The police can't be everywhere, and have no duty to protect any individual - even in the UK.

He had nothing for a return argument, and though he still had an aversion to "guns", my arguments set him to considering something outside his British Media Conditioning.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I see, this one shooting shows that the English have a far worse handgun crime problems then we do, and it is because of their laws?

If your hang your hat on this sort of thinking it will fall off your head when you put it on.

It's a simple fact that violent crimes involving firearms went up after gun bans in the UK and Australia

 

[bugeye]

It's a simple fact that violent crimes involving firearms went up after gun bans in the UK and Australia

No, not a simple truth but a complex lie.

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

Not that this matters at all, we aren't English, we aren't Aussies.
I'm sure some lefty is saying that American Fast Food causes international violence, lol.
Considering the quality of the food they might have a point if the English hadn't allready staked out low ground with the liver and kidney burgers at whimpys.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

No, not a simple truth but a complex lie.

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

Not that this matters at all, we aren't English, we aren't Aussies.
I'm sure some lefty is saying that American Fast Food causes international violence, lol.
Considering the quality of the food they might have a point if the English hadn't allready staked out low ground with the liver and kidney burgers at whimpys.

Ah, our disinfo expert arrives.. and as one of the sources your link uses

Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide.

Man, just when I think you've run out of good comedy material

 

[rufus]

No, not a simple truth but a complex lie.

Gun Control and the Second Amendment

Not that this matters at all, we aren't English, we aren't Aussies.

This is old news:

Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
• Assaults are up 8.6 percent
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily
• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

 

[bugeye]

Ah, our disinfo expert arrives.. and as one of the sources your link uses



Man, just when I think you've run out of good comedy material

I used an objective source not one that supported an anti gun, or pro point of view.
The info you quoted is statistically accurate.
As to the issue in question, they said the increase after gun control in England and Australia is an urban myth and link to the best stats available to prove their point.
On top of that, your say I do misinformation here, but this, and almost all of your posts, stand as a record of who is actually playing that game.

 

[bugeye]

This is old news:

Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

Yes, that's the urban myth that the cite I provided takes on and debunks using the best numbers available.
In short, what you call old news and accept as true, and never bothered to check, is BS.

Now, let me put on my psychic hat, your side will now find some small detail that goes against this premise, something that has just about now weight to it at all like the number of homcides in three blocks, and you will then declare victory. I call this the tactic of the short bus.

 

[Trlsmn]

I used an objective source not one that supported an anti gun, or pro point of view.
The info you quoted is statistically accurate.
As to the issue in question, they said the increase after gun control in England and Australia is an urban myth and link to the best stats available to prove their point.
On top of that, your say I do misinformation here, but this, and almost all of your posts, stand as a record of who is actually playing that game.

When you quote a source it's an objective source, when a counterpoint poster quotes a source it's not reliable? ....... LOL OK check.

One of these days you will surprise me Bugeye and actually post in favor of retaining gun rights instead of against retaining gun rights.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I used an objective source not one that supported an anti gun, or pro point of view.
The info you quoted is statistically accurate.
As to the issue in question, they said the increase after gun control in England and Australia is an urban myth and link to the best stats available to prove their point.
On top of that, your say I do misinformation here, but this, and almost all of your posts, stand as a record of who is actually playing that game.

Cognitive dissonance agents, always right there with false info/sidetracks and attempts to de-legitimize truth and facts

 

[bugeye]

Cognitive dissonance agents, always right there with false info/sidetracks and attempts to de-legitimize truth and facts

Yes, that seems an apt self portrait.

If I "de-legitimize the truth" then it should be childs play for one as 'enlightened' as you to show me up using the 'real' truth, yet this has yet to happen?

 

[MA Duce]

Rather than trade broadsides, it would be interesting to see the numbers, adjusted for population growth. One of the standard means to prove a point with statistics is to ignore the influence of sample group growth. I can categorically state that since seatbelts were introduced more people die each year from car accidents than before seatbelts were mandated. Now you could say that seatbelts cause deaths in car accidents...or you could realize that there are more people driving.
I'm not saying that gun bans are good, just that I am deeply disturbed by some of the sites around the internet that use flimsy interpretation of fact to support their case. I have noticed that here too both sides of any issue use the worst type of inflammatory language and the shoddiest "scientific" data to support their case. This practice, which is used on all sides of the political spectrum, only feeds polarization and muddies the waters. Let's try to have logical debates and use accurate statistics. If each side uses their own rules nothing is ever settled.

 

[drew]

Rather than trade broadsides, it would be interesting to see the numbers, adjusted for population growth. One of the standard means to prove a point with statistics is to ignore the influence of sample group growth. I can categorically state that since seatbelts were introduced more people die each year from car accidents than before seatbelts were mandated. Now you could say that seatbelts cause deaths in car accidents...or you could realize that there are more people driving.
I'm not saying that gun bans are good, just that I am deeply disturbed by some of the sites around the internet that use flimsy interpretation of fact to support their case. I have noticed that here too both sides of any issue use the worst type of inflammatory language and the shoddiest "scientific" data to support their case. This practice, which is used on all sides of the political spectrum, only feeds polarization and muddies the waters. Let's try to have logical debates and use accurate statistics. If each side uses their own rules nothing is ever settled.

Sounds better than the usual pissing matches over numbers and their sources. People use the shoddy numbers because they "prove" their point. I'd like to see some fairly derived numbers too.

 

[bugeye]

When you quote a source it's an objective source, when a counterpoint poster quotes a source it's not reliable? ....... LOL OK check.

One of these days you will surprise me Bugeye and actually post in favor of retaining gun rights instead of against retaining gun rights.

Since this is a specific show me where the cite is flawed?
Show me when an objective cite was linked that I said was not?

We can support gun rights without spouting BS!
Are you supporting gun rights or *******?

 

[jvbutter]

So let me get this straight....they banned handguns and the bad guys didn't turn them all in????

I'm shocked... But i know this is America and with the "Gun turn in" programs our criminals don't have anymore....