|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
 Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns.  [Re: Xlea321]
#1048752 - 11/13/02 06:53 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Before the ban you were millions of times more likely to win the lottery than find anyone in Britain with a gun.
So where do I buy English lottery tickets? I LIKE those odds!
Explain to us how taking guns away from a tiny, tiny minority of the population has had such an explosive effect on crime.
You have figures to quantify that "tiny, tiny minority" for us? Like, was it it one household in twenty? One in fifty? One in a hundred?
To answer the question, though, the English criminals no longer have to GUESS if you are the one in twenty or one in a hundred or whatever homeowner who is armed. They KNOW you are unarmed, because ALL law-abiding citizens are now unarmed, so they have nothing to worry about.
pinky
--------------------
|
CoolMojo
Imagination iswhat you make ofit
Registered: 10/26/01
Posts: 334
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: GazzBut]
#1048762 - 11/13/02 07:18 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Socrates was convicted and executed by histories only TRUE democracy. Meaning that he wasn't sentenced to death by representatives of the people. He was black balled. Everybody in the citie voted on his fate and said he needed to die.
Yes democracy hinges on the will of the people but what your forgetting is that the people are idiots. Rome was destroyed by the mob and that was the majority. Just because the majority says something doesn't mean its right. In fact I usually assume the oposite. Since the majority of people are morons I usually go with what the minority is after. Its the safer bet. And in this world where people think that because an opinion poll says this is right then well golly ge it must be, I really don't like siding with the mob.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Phred]
#1048778 - 11/13/02 07:50 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
listen up know it all. I live in the UK. I do not know one person, one single person who has been effected by guncrime. I live in London. Im not saying it doesnt happen but it is a hell of a lot rarer than you seem to think, or should i say just make up to suit your arguement.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: GazzBut]
#1048896 - 11/13/02 09:39 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I do not know one person, one single person who has been effected by guncrime. I live in London. Im not saying it doesnt happen but it is a hell of a lot rarer than you seem to think, or should i say just make up to suit your arguement.
Glad to hear you nor none of your acquaintances have ever been robbed. I sincerely hope your good fortune continues.
As for your insinuation that I am "making things up", what is it about you Limeys that makes you incapable of believing that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong about stuff from time to time? Between you and Alex123 I have been accused of "making stuff up" or "lying" three times in the last month, when all I do is link stuff from ENGLISH news sources and from United Nations studies. All the studies I have come across show that since the latest step (1997) in the English government's plan to completely disarm its civilians, the crime rate in England and Wales has risen steeply. I would be pleased to examine a study contradicting the ones I have read, if you would be so kind as to provide a link to one.
For those who may be interested in considering some actual statistics rather than baseless opinions, here's a look at crime rates and victim attitudes for 17 major industrialized countries from (of all places) the United Nations. Note the not-so-surprising revelation that England now has the worst crime rate of all major countries. Following the 1997 ban on civilian ownership of firearms, crime in England began to skyrocket. In the UN study, researchers found that nearly 55 crimes are committed per 100 people in England and Wales compared with an average of 35 per 100 in other industrialized countries. England and Wales also have the worst record for "very serious" offenses, recording 18 such crimes for every 100 inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16 (yet another country that has all but banned legitimate self-defense, thus creating a lucrative hunting ground for criminals). The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm
With guns outlawed and crime rates (excepting homicide) far in excess of those in the United States, the Brits have attempted to switch to other forms of self-defense. To no one's surprise, the government has outlawed those as well. Electric stun guns, chemical-defense weapons like Mace, pit bulls, penknives, swordsticks, and blowpipes are all illegal, as are imitation guns. One elderly lady was arrested for trying to frighten off a gang of thugs by firing a blank from her imitation pistol.
This is no longer a crusade against GUNS, it is a crusade against self defense. There is undoubtedly legislation being prepared right now to shut down all karate and jiu-jitsu dojos in the UK.
pinky
--------------------
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: CoolMojo]
#1048981 - 11/13/02 10:30 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I was pointing out that the people being happy with something is no indication of it being right or wrong or even a good thing or a bad thing
Well hang on a minute mojo, remember 90 years ago the majority of people were perfectly happy with heroin being available over the counter.
It was a tiny minority of right-wing fucko's who decided to make drugs illegal, since which they have spent endless billions convincing the world that drugs are the greatest threat to society that exists. The thinking of the majority has been influenced by this. I don't think you can blame the majority too much for that.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Phred]
#1048992 - 11/13/02 10:34 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You have figures to quantify that "tiny, tiny minority" for us?
I think the handgun ban affected something like 140,000 people. In a population of around 60 million that works out at about 99.8% of people didn't have a gun before the ban. And a lot of those gun owners kept their guns at the shooting club anyway so the percentage is even lower.
Face it pinky - the idea that the handgun ban had any effect on crime is utter bollocks.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Phred]
#1051637 - 11/14/02 03:18 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"As for your insinuation that I am "making things up", what is it about you Limeys that makes you incapable of believing that maybe, just maybe, you might be wrong about stuff from time to time? Between you and Alex123 I have been accused of "making stuff up" or "lying" three times in the last month, when all I do is link stuff from ENGLISH news sources and from United Nations studies."
I didnt see any links in the post I was replying to. Did you forget? Here though, You link then interpret. It is your interpretations which are the problem. There is no proven link between the increase in crime rates and our gun laws. Around the same time as this happened prison sentences were relaxed and alot more people were given non-custodial sentences. This may have played a part, I dont pretend to know.
Heres a quote from the ICVS report "Samples were usually of 2,000 people, which mean there is a fairly wide sampling error on the ICVS estimates. The surveys cannot, then, give precise estimates of crime in different countries. But they are a unique source of information and give good comparative information."
Great evidence. Now where did the people they contact live etc etc. The report is flawed by their own admission.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Viveka
refutation bias
Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Xlea321]
#1054408 - 11/15/02 12:34 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
" It was a tiny minority of right-wing fucko's who decided to make drugs illegal, since which they have spent endless billions convincing the world that drugs are the greatest threat to society that exists. The thinking of the majority has been influenced by this. I don't think you can blame the majority too much for that. "
So, then, it follows that an individual or a society should not have to bear the consequences of a poor decision, simply because they were stupid enough to be duped by propaganda? This is exactly why pure democracy is so dangerous. If the will of the majority ruled, we would already have invaded Iraq. If the will of the majority ruled, people would make all sorts of rash, uninformed decisions and a country would go to hell in no time. The people hold the most power simply in numbers and in a balanced and stable society, the power of the people must be checked just as the power of all branches of gov't must be checked. As was said before, pure democracy killed Socrates.
Besides, your logic here is kind of jumbled. You first assert that the will of the majority is a good thing:
"Well hang on a minute mojo, remember 90 years ago the majority of people were perfectly happy with heroin being available over the counter. "
But then you admit that the majority, over a period of time, was duped by a "tiny minority of right-wing fucko's" with their "endless billions" into believing that "drugs are the greatest threat to society that exists". If the majority is such a great decision maker, then why is it so easily manipulated into believing such a bullshit agenda??? If the majority ruled, marijuana and mushrooms or any other drugs would NEVER be decriminalized in this country while big alcohol, tobacco, and television would continue to reign as The People's pacifier of choice.
|
shogun221
God in the Wired
Registered: 09/27/02
Posts: 108
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Viveka]
#1054453 - 11/15/02 01:00 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If the "majority" is not in power, then it follows that a priveledged minority is. Who are these minorities, and what endows them with the right to choose for everyone else? If someone holds arbitrary power over my life, without my consent, then I believe I may give myself the same over him.(In other words; the fucker's gonna have 3 clips emptied in his skull)" Personally, I believe that educating the masses is what is needed for a working democracy, not simply pretending they do not exist.
--------------------
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. ~FDR"
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: shogun221]
#1054538 - 11/15/02 01:46 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I agrre shogun. Perhaps the reason the majority would make uniformed decisions is due to the quality of information they are provided with.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: GazzBut]
#1054769 - 11/15/02 03:56 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, the reason the majority would make uniformed decisions is that the majority don't care enough to become informed.
If you want to become informed it sometimes requires effort. Effort, sadly, is not something most people want to expend.
And all too often, even when the effort is made, people believe what fits into their preconceived ideas.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#1054817 - 11/15/02 04:11 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think we are all guilty of that luvdem. and perhaps this low opinion of the majority is useful for certain minorities?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Viveka]
#1055246 - 11/15/02 09:51 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If the majority is such a great decision maker, then why is it so easily manipulated into believing such a bullshit agenda???
It wasn't easy. It took 90 years of propaganda, the US and UN insisting drugs are kept illegal by worldwide agreements and even after all that you still have countries across Europe decriminalising drugs. To me, that's evidence of the wisdom of the majority.
And judging by the trouble Bush and Blair are having convincing everyone that war on Iraq is justified the majority really arn't that gullible.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
 Baby_Hitler
Magat Stalker
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 28,049
Loc: I'm right behind you, aren't I...
Last seen: 7 minutes, 31 seconds
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#1079802 - 11/23/02 04:29 PM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
We should also ban fertilizer, and fossil fuel.
Look what happened in Oklahoma city. That bomb, not including the truck, cost about $300.
Thank god they didn't have guns too, somebody might have gotten hurt!
--------------------
Morality is just aesthetics, meatbags.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#1079847 - 11/23/02 04:59 PM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well, aren't you special.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
mr crisper
.
Registered: 07/24/00
Posts: 928
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Phred]
#1080275 - 11/23/02 08:50 PM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
There is undoubtedly legislation being prepared right now to shut down all karate and jiu-jitsu dojos in the UK.
in singapore, if you want to learn martial arts, you must present yourself at the police station to be photographed and fingerprinted before permission is given. knowledge of martial arts is considered equivalent to possessing a deadly weapon. this is the country that banned chewing gum too.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: mr crisper]
#1080727 - 11/24/02 12:22 AM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Pink, there's no legislation whatsoever to ban Karate in the UK. Sorry.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 1 month
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: Xlea321]
#1081274 - 11/24/02 07:08 AM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
...there's no legislation whatsoever to ban Karate in the UK....
Yet.
pinky
--------------------
|
ruskifile
droog
Registered: 05/11/02
Posts: 258
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#1081363 - 11/24/02 09:24 AM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It's been claimed that since the introduction of the gun buy-back scheme in Australia, crime rates have substantially increased...
...I found this on the Urban Legends page; pasting here...
Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997
.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]
In reply to:
From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks,
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!
Origins: Although the old adage says that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," those who seek to influence public opinion often employ a variety of means to slant statistical figures into seemingly supporting their point of view:
Percentages by themselves often tell far from a complete story, particularly when they involve small sample sizes which do not adequately mask normal fluctuations or the potential influence of a number of extraneous factors affecting the phenomenon under study. A statement such as "The number of deaths attributable to cancer increased by 2% between 1973 and 1983" is probably much more significant if the number of cancer deaths increased by twenty thousand among a population of one million than if they increased by two among a population of one hundred. (In the latter case, for example, two people who already had cancer could have moved into an otherwise cancer-free small town, but it's far less likely that immigration would completely account for an increase of twenty thousand cancer cases amidst a city of one million.)
Context is especially important, and percentages alone don't provide context. A statement such as "The home run total in the American League jumped by an astounding 50% between 1960 and 1961" sounds misleadingly impressive if you don't know that after 1960, the American League expanded by two teams and increased the length of the schedule, thereby adding two hundred more games to the season.
Most importantly, percentages don't establish cause-and-effect relationships -- at best they highlight correlations which may be due to any number of factors. If (to continue our previous example), the total number of home runs hit by all teams increased by 30% from one year to the next while the number of games remained the same, a great many people might claim that the baseballs used in the latter year had obviously been "juiced" (i.e., manufactured in such a way as to cause them to travel farther when hit). But a number of other unconsidered factors (individually or collectively) might be responsible for the increase, such as an abundance of warm weather, or an expansion in the number of teams which brought more inexperienced and ineffective pitchers into the league.
In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor.
The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms -- even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.
Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback.
But beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.
For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program.
(The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which 35 people were killed.)
Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends. Moreover, the opening paragraph mixes two very different types of statistics -- number of homicides vs. percentage of homicides committed with firearms. In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. (In the former case, the absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.)
Other claims offered here, such as the statement that:
"While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly"
...are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all. Do they deal with absolute numbers, or percentages? Do they reflect all incidents of crime, or only those committed with firearms? How much of an increase constitutes a "dramatic" increase?
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of firearms used to commit armed robbery has actually declined over the last several years:
1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1%
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%
The ABS does report that the number of assaults on victims aged 65 and over has increased over the last few years, but hardly in a proportion one would describe as "dramatic":
Number of victims of assault aged 65 and over:
1996 - 1474
1997 - 1662 (12.8% increase from previous year)
1998 - 1663 (0.06% increase from previous year)
1999 - 1793 (7.8% increase from previous year)
The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here.
And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.
Last updated: 20 August 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/ausguns.htm
--------------------
(zhukov in a previous life....)
2SER FM underground radio
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Thank goodness the U.K. banned private guns. [Re: ruskifile]
#1081645 - 11/24/02 11:55 AM (22 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So one site says other than what quite a few say. So what?
I have spent some time searching the Ausrailian gov crime report web site just this morning. You should try it. The most interesting thing I found was that a search of the key words death, murder, homicide, firearm(s), gun(s), and armed show no returns. Try it yourself...
http://www.ocs.sa.gov.au//OCS_JJRSC.html
Now while Austrailia seems to be a nice place, what do you think the odds are that there were no crimes using any of the key words I listed? I did find a category called "Offences Against The Person" which clearly states except sexual offenses. Could this be the way they cover up the rate of firearms related crimes?
1996- 15,991
1997- 16,155
1998- 17,262
1999- 16,178
2000- 18,502
2001- 19,528
And as a further point, my view of armed crime in Austrilia came not from some bogus letter such as you pasted, but from Australian news reports.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
mr_kite
Ellis Dee
Solo
Sinistar