Russian gun laws become more permissive...

[grrclark]

People keep pointing to the UK's low gun crime compared to the US, and yeah that's true. But look at our violent crime? We are the most violent nation in Europe and WAY more violent than the USA. You don't need a gun to crack someones skull or stab them to death.

 

The US example certainly points out one thing, an armed society is a polite society.

 

As has been said a few times, the statistics of violent crime are only relevant when the make up of the total figure is also explained. For example in the UK robbery and burglary is recorded as a violent crime, each country categorises violent crime differently so a league table is meaningless unless the same measure is applied to every state.

 

If you take a look at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report, link to the 2013 report below, they do categorise violent crime in the same way for all countries, you will see that Europe has the lowest statistics of all gun crime globally and of course Europe has the highest rate of regulation, the UK is at the lower end of the European scale too.

 

In the overall table the UK figures well below average for violent crime, based on the UNODC categorisation, although it is interesting that Scotland and Northern Ireland have a higher rate than England. Perhaps especially pertinent that NI already has the ability to carry weapons for self defence if I read Ordnance's earlier posts correctly.

 

I would contest that the information presented in this report is precisely the opposite to your point, using the US example an armed society contributes to a substantially greater level of violence.

 

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

[The Mighty Prawn]

Also to make a correlation between increased CC and a reduction in violent crime is basic flawed use of statistics and you're mistaking correlation for causation - in the wonderful Freakanomics there is a whole section on why the crime rate dropped in the US at a constant rate despite the individual approaches of the various states and the single common factor was actually the legalisation of abortion, many of the people that would become criminals were therefore just not born and ergo less criminals means less crime.

 

By your rationale we could also argue that crime has fallen over the last few years as internet use has increased so would free broadband keep them all safer?

[grrclark]

Also to make a correlation between increased CC and a reduction in violent crime is basic flawed use of statistics and you're mistaking correlation for causation - in the wonderful Freakanomics there is a whole section on why the crime rate dropped in the US at a constant rate despite the individual approaches of the various states and the single common factor was actually the legalisation of abortion, many of the people that would become criminals were therefore just not born and ergo less criminals means less crime.

 

By your rationale we could also argue that crime has fallen over the last few years as internet use has increased so would free broadband keep them all safer?

 

Interesting insight, there is also a school of thought that the introduction of lead free petrol was a very significant contributor to the reduction in crime too. The correlation of lead accumulation in the brain and criminal behaviour is very strong indeed.

[The Mighty Prawn]

Interesting insight, there is also a school of thought that the introduction of lead free petrol was a very significant contributor to the reduction in crime too. The correlation of lead accumulation in the brain and criminal behaviour is very strong indeed.

Very true, in fact I think that also gets touched upon in Freakanomics too, my shooting buddy stopped casting his own ammo after he was tested for lead levels and was off the scale due to a mixture of casting and shooting in poorly ventilated indoor ranges. Only time will tell if all the home loaders are about to go postal en masse...

[bostonmick]

 

You are absolutely correct. My point whether put over correctly or not was to give a insight to what can happen when you put guns out in general circulation to the masses with almost no knowledge by the authorities of where these are.What has this got to do with CC? Who has suggested putting 'guns out in general circulation'? Who do you think allocates the CC permits?

will have a knock on effect to everyone As does crime in general.

.the police officer who shot the child was a fairly new recruit.so maybe training was an issue there. ​I have no idea; what if the childs gun had been real and he killed another child with it? What if, what if? The copper is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He made a decision, unfortunately the wrong one, but now he has to live with that for the rest of his life, as do the parents of the child. The incident still has nothing to do with CC.

the officers who behaved like tv stars spraying the road with bullets acted like idiots with no regard to anyone's safety.these are just two examples of those who should be at the top of the game with all the financial backing a government can give for training and the like are failing dreadfully. So what do you suggest Mick?

Perhaps the authorities in all countries should not arm any of their police.but then who would provide the deterant to those who would use guns against the innocent. Yes, who?

From some of the views in favour of CC and self defence I also get the impression that they would resent any training being given as they already believe they are better equipped to use firearms in a situation than police and in one post servicemen.Really?

it takes a special type to make calm decisions under extreme pressure which would be the scenario in cases of shooting for self or family defence and I am sorry but shooting a bit of game or a few targets could never give that. I don't believe anyone has claimed it could.

 

having a cc permit does not mean you own a gun it means you can carry one if desired and as they do not know if you own one seems a strange system at least. I thought you had read the bbc article where they gave the info that the officer who fired was only in the job for a year,is a year long enough to do all the training for all aspects of what is a very complex job.the child did not shoot any other children.no the officer did not know if the childs gun was real but he knew his gun was and one shot could be described as stopping but two is meant to kill.yes he will have to live with it.but as he is on admin duty while the investigation goes on and not sick leave where he feels any guilt or stress for his actions then I think he will cope.as for the two dirty harry types I would have thought they would have been dismissed for their foolishness.a high speed chase what would the outcome have been if there shower of lead had killed the driver a car going at high speed with a dead man at the wheel.pedestrians and other road users beware.what would be the down side to more control of guns there.after all they would still have the guns still have the choice of basically any firearm the fancy.except in a few states where there are some limits on automatic weapons.they could still carry their guns with them.all it would be is a little more controlled.and they would still be free to carry on shooting each other as is their right under law. and yes there was one post that claimed stats that the ordinary man was better than police and some servicemen in a situation I am not going to trawl back to find the post number.and yes the undertones of some posts are that some do not think they should have to have any trainingbut as you are a pro carry I doubt you will see it.i know I will never be able to be correct on the last point about being able to make a judged decision in a crisis as we will never have cc after all we don't even have handguns.and do we really need it as the stats show a steady decline in firearm crime over the past few years.be a bit pointless introducing loads of guns into a society that does not need them.as I said sporting and competition use great.taking life no thanks.does anyone know what happened to the Russians as they seem to have been forgotten and to be fair it was them who started this one.

[ordnance]

 

would still have the guns still have the choice of basically any firearm the fancy.except in a few states where there are some limits on automatic weapons.they could still carry their guns with them.all

The law regarding automatic firearms is a federal low so it applies to all states.

[bostonmick]

The law regarding automatic firearms is a federal low so it applies to all states.

 

I got the information from Wikipedia and it did say that although gun legislation was central some states had in fact put their own rules in place as well on some weapons.maybe the web site is due update.

 

no just checked it again and it is current.also most states have their own rules which most are tighter than federal law.some even require firearms to be registered to owners similar to our laws.

Edited November 24, 2014 by bostonmick

[ordnance]

 

no just checked it again and it is current.also most states have their own rules which most are tighter than federal law.some even require firearms to be registered to owners similar to our laws.

That's why talking about American as if they are all the same is misleading. Most states have different firearms laws. Automatic firearm can be owned in some states, but the conditions and cost puts them out of reach of most Americans.

[Steppenwolf]

 

Doesn't that open up a whole new series of arguments though, what constitutes a genuine threat to life. I am thinking back to the incident in Florida in the last year or two where a member of a neighbourhood watch scheme shot a teenager and killed him, the shooter claimed that his 'potential assailant' had a weapon and he was in fear of his life, the truth was that he didn't like the look of the lad so he shot him. There was absolutely no evidence that the teenager had any ill intention at all, just the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

The problem is this went to court and it was indicated that Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman, he was hitting his head into the pavement and at that point George zimmerman drew his gun and fired and fatally shot trayvon. The jury found out that was self-defense, it weas nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman didn't like the look of the lad and shot him in cold blod, that was not waht happened.

 

 

I believe that carrying a deadly weapon for defence is one end of the spectrum where having no defence is the opposite and pretty much where we are now. Any suggestion that goes from extreme to extreme and jumps over the middle ground is always going to be contentious as the middle ground will cater for 95% of our requirements.

 

I really don't think that we are at a point where we need to be at the opposite end of the spectrum to where we are now. Yes there are isolated incidents where an extreme measure could be argued, but thankfully they are so rare in our country that a wide scale extreme solution is just not justifiable.

 

I partially agree with you. I don't beleive UK is ready to recognize the full right to self-defense with say a gun so we should work to get pepper spray and taser legalized and maybe even traumatic pistols(rubber bullets) and then we can get real bullet guns legalized for carry.

 

[Steppenwolf]

 

As has been said a few times, the statistics of violent crime are only relevant when the make up of the total figure is also explained. For example in the UK robbery and burglary is recorded as a violent crime, each country categorises violent crime differently so a league table is meaningless unless the same measure is applied to every state.

 

If you take a look at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report, link to the 2013 report below, they do categorise violent crime in the same way for all countries, you will see that Europe has the lowest statistics of all gun crime globally and of course Europe has the highest rate of regulation, the UK is at the lower end of the European scale too.

 

In the overall table the UK figures well below average for violent crime, based on the UNODC categorisation, although it is interesting that Scotland and Northern Ireland have a higher rate than England. Perhaps especially pertinent that NI already has the ability to carry weapons for self defence if I read Ordnance's earlier posts correctly.

 

I would contest that the information presented in this report is precisely the opposite to your point, using the US example an armed society contributes to a substantially greater level of violence.

 

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Of course America has more shootings than the Uk it has more guns and peopel can carry guns for self-defense. I think the UN mistake justifiable homicide along with actual murder and other crimes. If in the US a man pulled a gun tos top his car getting stolen and then reported to the police that would count as "violent crime" or even as "violent gun crime" but of course we know that it was just him protecting himself.

 

I personally don't trust the UN to issue statistics of this kind, They are always biased towards the US since they want a complete worldwide gun ban and a lot of their statistics are going to be doctored to show that US has unbelievable amount of crime.

[Scully]

 

 

 

 

having a cc permit does not mean you own a gun it means you can carry one if desired and as they do not know if you own one seems a strange system at least. I'm finding it hard to follow your train of thought now Mick to be honest. It is increasingly difficult to debate with someone who asks questions but then simply ignores any answers given, and ignores questions in response but instead clouds the issue with more and more irrelevant comments. This is my last attempt to explain MIck as you are wearing me down. I don't know whether you simply don't understand, can't understand, or understand perfectly and are being deliberately obtuse. A gun owner applies to carry a concealed firearm on their person or in their vehicle; from the relevant authority. Who do you think authorises that permit? The woman serving chicken nuggets in the local KFC or a department authorised to do so by that states issuing office? The authority is now aware of that firearm and who owns it and where that person lives. They do not however, necessarily have any details of further firearms possessed by that person. This is how I understand it, but I may well be wrong.

I thought you had read the bbc article where they gave the info that the officer who fired was only in the job for a year,is a year long enough to do all the training for all aspects of what is a very complex job.I did read the BBC article; it was me who posted the link! What has the officers level of training got to do with CC?

the child did not shoot any other children.I know.

no the officer did not know if the childs gun was real but he knew his gun was and one shot could be described as stopping but two is meant to kill. I believe training consists of firing two shots. The method is known as 'double tap'.

yes he will have to live with it.but as he is on admin duty while the investigation goes on and not sick leave where he feels any guilt or stress for his actions then I think he will cope.I should imagine he will feel guilt and stress regarding the shooting for the remainder of his life, but police department therapists will be on hand to teach him how to cope with this.

as for the two dirty harry types I would have thought they would have been dismissed for their foolishness. We don't know they weren't dismissed.

a high speed chase what would the outcome have been if there shower of lead had killed the driver a car going at high speed with a dead man at the wheel. The car would have crashed.

pedestrians and other road users beware. Yep.

what would be the down side to more control of guns there.​ I have no idea Mick, do you?

after all they would still have the guns still have the choice of basically any firearm the fancy. But then that wouldn't be 'control' Mick, would it?

except in a few states where there are some limits on automatic weapons. So what effect does this 'control' have in these 'few states'?

they could still carry their guns with them.

all it would be is a little more controlled. So how does either of these comments equate to 'control' then?

and they would still be free to carry on shooting each other as is their right under law. Controlled freedom? How does that work then? You seem to have it sorted Mick; care to elaborate on your methods for a controlled freedom to shoot each other as opposed to an uncontrolled freedom to shoot each other.

and yes there was one post that claimed stats that the ordinary man was better than police and some servicemen in a situation I saw the post but haven't read the link, but if someone has done a study on the subject and there is no contrary evidence then, perhaps there's some truth in it. Who knows?

I am not going to trawl back to find the post number.and yes the undertones of some posts are that some do not think they should have to have any training Undertones? But no one has stated they should have no training?

but as you are a pro carry I doubt you will see it. I have seen the evidence that proves CC does and has in fact saved lives Mick. If you can provide evidence that proves CC in fact achieves the opposite then I'm prepared to listen.

i know I will never be able to be correct on the last point about being able to make a judged decision in a crisis as we will never have cc after all we don't even have handguns.Correct.

and do we really need it as the stats show a steady decline in firearm crime over the past few years. And yet in despite of that steady decline our Government has decided that more and more police ( but not all, before you claim I said so) are now carrying firearms. I wonder why?

be a bit pointless introducing loads of guns into a society that does not need them. But again, we see more and more armed police in our society, a society which those in authority obviously feels there is a need for. Strange indeed.

as I said sporting and competition use great.Why, because you ​own them? If firearms are the bane of society many would have us believe then would it not be better if ALL were banned ?

taking life no thanks. Again, and for the last time, it is not compulsory to take a life, bit sometimes necessary, as has been shown on many occasions, and not just in America.

does anyone know what happened to the Russians as they seem to have been forgotten and to be fair it was them who started this one. You tell me what happened to the Russians Mick; you have touched on many topics, the vast majority of which have had little to do with CC let alone the Russians.

Think we're done here Mick. You're never going to see the logic behind CC, despite the evidence.

 

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

 

 

 

having a cc permit does not mean you own a gun it means you can carry one if desired and as they do not know if you own one seems a strange system at least.

Unfortunately even in America if you apply for a CCW permit the police will know if you have guns. This seems to defeat the whole purpose of the Second Amendment. That is one of the problems that still needs to be rectified. That is why around 4 states have what is called Constitutional Carry. Meaning if you have no criminal record you can carry a gun on you openly or concealed no license. I support that.

 

I thought you had read the bbc article where they gave the info that the officer who fired was only in the job for a year,is a year long enough to do all the training for all aspects of what is a very complex job.the child did not shoot any other children.no the officer did not know if the childs gun was real but he knew his gun was and one shot could be described as stopping but two is meant to kill.yes he will have to live with it.but as he is on admin duty while the investigation goes on and not sick leave where he feels any guilt or stress for his actions then I think he will cope.as for the two dirty harry types I would have thought they would have been dismissed for their foolishness.a high speed chase what would the outcome have been if there shower of lead had killed the driver a car going at high speed with a dead man at the wheel.

I agree there, if they have acted wrongly then they of course should be dismissed. There is no need to fire at a car 130 times. You can use other tactics. You have to understand MIck that just because they are police and they have a gun and they misuse them that doesn't mean that you should punish everyone and ban gun carry because someone will abuse their situation.

 

pedestrians and other road users beware.what would be the down side to more control of guns there.after all they would still have the guns still have the choice of basically any firearm the fancy.except in a few states where there are some limits on automatic weapons.they could still carry their guns with them.all it would be is a little more controlled.and they would still be free to carry on shooting each other as is their right under law.

Again you're equating law abiding conceal carriers with criminals. If you have a look at US statistics you will see that something like the percentage of conceal carriers who have misused thier guns are something in the range of 0.008 %.

 

 

[Steppenwolf]

I can understand some of you are ideologically opposed to conceal carry that is fine, but why don't you just say so rather than try to twist statistics in your favour going as far as saying that more guns will cause more crime when the opposite is true done by every non biased study.

 

I also disagree with some that say that the crime statistics recorded are different so we shouldn't compare to America. It's actually much worse than that, in the Uk only solved crimes (where a conviction has been handed out) are counted down as "crimes" the rest are just incidents. In America all reported crime is put down as crime. In the Uk there could be very many unsolved crimes, murderes, rapes but because nobdy has been convicted of them it's officially not classed as crime. Mad eh?

[grrclark]

Steppenwolf, with respect to the Trayvon Martin case I shall look that up, if I have referenced something wrongly then I apologise. My recollection was that it is still subject to some dispute with claims of falsified evidence, etc, none the less I should not have mentioned it on the basis of memory alone.

 

I would be supportive of measures to introduce non lethal weapons for self defence such as pepper spray, not tazers and certainly not rubber bullets. In all cases I would be absolutely against it if it was simply as a pathway to introducing lethal weapons for self defence. If there is no justification for carrying lethal weapons as a self defence item then we don't need them, it is as simple as that.

 

The UN stats do recognise different types of crime, whether in self defence or otherwise. In any respect with reference to your example, with perhaps a very few exceptions I cannot see how lethal force could ever be a justification to stop car theft. Loss of a car, no matter how valuable cannot ever justify someone's death, no matter how unsavoury they may be.

 

I also believe that trying to discredit the UN as a global body studying a global issue as anti US gun culture propaganda is the defence of someone who just wants to introduce the ability to carry guns by any mechanism and anybody who disagrees is just biased. If you discredit the UN as partisan than you would also have to discredit the NRA or similar sources as they are very obviously partisan in the pro gun lobby.

 

It is fairly clear that you are very pro gun and fair enough, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion. I suspect that you are envious of the relative freedom of gun ownership in the US and I can understand that too. However, I suspect that you will favour every pro gun source that you can in order to further your argument in justification of your own individual desire to have one.

 

I am not anti gun, far from it, but I very much favour reasoned debate around the issue and I absolutely for the life of me cannot see any justification in the UK, as a whole, that would favour the introduction of firearms for self defence. It quite simply is not needed thankfully. It may be wanted or desired by some, but that cannot be mistaken for need.

 

If the background situation were to change to the point where it could be justified then I will support the cause as loudly as you.

 

This discussion is becoming a very circular one so I am going to drop out now and we shall have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 24, 2014 by grrclark

[bostonmick]

 

 

 

 

 

having a cc permit does not mean you own a gun it means you can carry one if desired and as they do not know if you own one seems a strange system at least. I'm finding it hard to follow your train of thought now Mick to be honest. It is increasingly difficult to debate with someone who asks questions but then simply ignores any answers given, and ignores questions in response but instead clouds the issue with more and more irrelevant comments. This is my last attempt to explain MIck as you are wearing me down. I don't know whether you simply don't understand, can't understand, or understand perfectly and are being deliberately obtuse. A gun owner applies to carry a concealed firearm on their person or in their vehicle; from the relevant authority. Who do you think authorises that permit? The woman serving chicken nuggets in the local KFC or a department authorised to do so by that states issuing office? The authority is now aware of that firearm and who owns it and where that person lives. They do not however, necessarily have any details of further firearms possessed by that person. This is how I understand it, but I may well be wrong.

I thought you had read the bbc article where they gave the info that the officer who fired was only in the job for a year,is a year long enough to do all the training for all aspects of what is a very complex job.I did read the BBC article; it was me who posted the link! What has the officers level of training got to do with CC?

the child did not shoot any other children.I know.

no the officer did not know if the childs gun was real but he knew his gun was and one shot could be described as stopping but two is meant to kill. I believe training consists of firing two shots. The method is known as 'double tap'.

yes he will have to live with it.but as he is on admin duty while the investigation goes on and not sick leave where he feels any guilt or stress for his actions then I think he will cope.I should imagine he will feel guilt and stress regarding the shooting for the remainder of his life, but police department therapists will be on hand to teach him how to cope with this.

as for the two dirty harry types I would have thought they would have been dismissed for their foolishness. We don't know they weren't dismissed.

a high speed chase what would the outcome have been if there shower of lead had killed the driver a car going at high speed with a dead man at the wheel. The car would have crashed.

pedestrians and other road users beware. Yep.

what would be the down side to more control of guns there.​ I have no idea Mick, do you?

after all they would still have the guns still have the choice of basically any firearm the fancy. But then that wouldn't be 'control' Mick, would it?

except in a few states where there are some limits on automatic weapons. So what effect does this 'control' have in these 'few states'?

they could still carry their guns with them.

all it would be is a little more controlled. So how does either of these comments equate to 'control' then?

and they would still be free to carry on shooting each other as is their right under law. Controlled freedom? How does that work then? You seem to have it sorted Mick; care to elaborate on your methods for a controlled freedom to shoot each other as opposed to an uncontrolled freedom to shoot each other.

and yes there was one post that claimed stats that the ordinary man was better than police and some servicemen in a situation I saw the post but haven't read the link, but if someone has done a study on the subject and there is no contrary evidence then, perhaps there's some truth in it. Who knows?

I am not going to trawl back to find the post number.and yes the undertones of some posts are that some do not think they should have to have any training Undertones? But no one has stated they should have no training?

but as you are a pro carry I doubt you will see it. I have seen the evidence that proves CC does and has in fact saved lives Mick. If you can provide evidence that proves CC in fact achieves the opposite then I'm prepared to listen.

i know I will never be able to be correct on the last point about being able to make a judged decision in a crisis as we will never have cc after all we don't even have handguns.Correct.

and do we really need it as the stats show a steady decline in firearm crime over the past few years. And yet in despite of that steady decline our Government has decided that more and more police ( but not all, before you claim I said so) are now carrying firearms. I wonder why?

be a bit pointless introducing loads of guns into a society that does not need them. But again, we see more and more armed police in our society, a society which those in authority obviously feels there is a need for. Strange indeed.

as I said sporting and competition use great.Why, because you ​own them? If firearms are the bane of society many would have us believe then would it not be better if ALL were banned ?

taking life no thanks. Again, and for the last time, it is not compulsory to take a life, bit sometimes necessary, as has been shown on many occasions, and not just in America.

does anyone know what happened to the Russians as they seem to have been forgotten and to be fair it was them who started this one. You tell me what happened to the Russians Mick; you have touched on many topics, the vast majority of which have had little to do with CC let alone the Russians.

Think we're done here Mick. You're never going to see the logic behind CC, despite the evidence.

 

I have got bored now with looking through American sites for the rules of cc in none of the sites does it state that the permit to carry has any specific gun tied to it.that is why I said it was a little strange.why permit them to carry a weapon yet not know what they are carrying. more control could be registering guns owned they would know who owned what.no harm in that and does not restrict the owner in any way.the states that restrict some automatic weapons is that they are banned so there is at least some control in a few states.the police well who knows the outcome of any of these cases not us for sure and we never will.my own and it is only my opinion is that there is a lot of people in this country who have no interest in any guns for sporting or competition use but would want one for bravado.these are the people who should never be allowed to own yet if they had no criminal record they could.the evidence you have seen to support that cc reduces gun crime does not apply here as we do not have cc yet gun related crime is falling so don't try and fix what aint broke.and lastly I know it is not compulsory to kill and I cant find where I ever said it was.so yes I agree we are done you do not have to respond to this as I have asked no questions.and yes you are correct I will never see the logic behind cc as I do not believe there is any need.regardless of stats that are easily manipulated to suit whatever you need.and that is in all things not just guns.it is well known that you cant trust stats alone.

 

Edited November 24, 2014 by bostonmick

[Steppenwolf]

I agree that stats are manipulated. How about arguing for concel cary from a fredom standpoint. Eg The govenrment has no right to tell another man how to defend themselves and with what, no matter what the statistics say on whether guns incerase violent crime or not.

 

Let's say guns increased violent crime (which I don't agree). Would they still be justified to be carried?

[deadeye18]

+1 on the freedom standpoint!

[bostonmick]

I agree that stats are manipulated. How about arguing for concel cary from a fredom standpoint. Eg The govenrment has no right to tell another man how to defend themselves and with what, no matter what the statistics say on whether guns incerase violent crime or not.

 

Let's say guns increased violent crime (which I don't agree). Would they still be justified to be carried?

 

at this moment in time you have the right to carry a concealed weapon everytime I leave home to go to a shoot my gun is carried by me and is concealed in its slip/case.what this thread has mostly been about is the fact that you cannot own/carry a handgun.that right was taken from us by the government of the day due to circumstances and public pressure and that is democracy.you vote for it.you also have the right to defend yourself using reasonable force and that could be disabling a would be attacker with your gun as long as it is in proportion to the situation.so now you have the right to carry and also the right to defend.

 

as for guns increasing violent crime well that is open to major abuse as I have said,lets look at the current amnesty being run by most forces.lets say over the country 500 items are handed in and we all know they will not all be guns.and also at the same time there is say a major sporting event on for a week so a lot of the would be criminals are sitting at home watching tv so fewer crimes as they are not on the street.but then up pops the police and government with the figures that since the amnesty there were 200 fewer crimes compared to the previous month whereby proving that guns being taken out of circulation reduces crime.i do not believe that any statistics are produced on a unbiased basis.most surveys are carried out by companies employed by another or a government to prove something and will be set to show the result you want.and as with searching the net for stats you can just keep searching until you find a set that suits your argument.as a footnote I notice another case from America this morning an unarmed teenager shot 12 times by a police officer 12 shots is that reasonable force.or is it a result of the fact that they can ccw that everyone is so jumpy in case the other has a weapon they shoot first and ask questions later.and in the case of mistakes they say sorry and tell the shot person to get up as it was not meant.i think that far from proving that ccw works the countries that have it prove how it does not work by the amount of deaths that should not happen.and as they are so called legal killings they are not recorded as crimes so therefore manipulating the stats again.

[Scully]

 

at this moment in time you have the right to carry a concealed weapon everytime I leave home to go to a shoot my gun is carried by me and is concealed in its slip/case.what this thread has mostly been about is the fact that you cannot own/carry a handgun.that right was taken from us by the government of the day due to circumstances and public pressure and that is democracy.you vote for it.you also have the right to defend yourself using reasonable force and that could be disabling a would be attacker with your gun as long as it is in proportion to the situation.so now you have the right to carry and also the right to defend.

 

as for guns increasing violent crime well that is open to major abuse as I have said,lets look at the current amnesty being run by most forces.lets say over the country 500 items are handed in and we all know they will not all be guns.and also at the same time there is say a major sporting event on for a week so a lot of the would be criminals are sitting at home watching tv so fewer crimes as they are not on the street.but then up pops the police and government with the figures that since the amnesty there were 200 fewer crimes compared to the previous month whereby proving that guns being taken out of circulation reduces crime.i do not believe that any statistics are produced on a unbiased basis.most surveys are carried out by companies employed by another or a government to prove something and will be set to show the result you want.and as with searching the net for stats you can just keep searching until you find a set that suits your argument.as a footnote I notice another case from America this morning an unarmed teenager shot 12 times by a police officer 12 shots is that reasonable force.or is it a result of the fact that they can ccw that everyone is so jumpy in case the other has a weapon they shoot first and ask questions later.and in the case of mistakes they say sorry and tell the shot person to get up as it was not meant.i think that far from proving that ccw works the countries that have it prove how it does not work by the amount of deaths that should not happen.and as they are so called legal killings they are not recorded as crimes so therefore manipulating the stats again.

Just so totally wrong and inaccurate on so many levels Mick. So many that I can't even be bothered to point them out to you. You have your opinions, which is fair enough, but that's all they are, opinions, but you seem to be unable to differentiate between your opinions and fact. If you refuse to accept factual information which is in the public domain for all to see regarding CC then that is your prerogative, but to openly deny that information because it doesn't sit well with you is simply puerile.

Here's just an example; figures have shown that in one recent year there were 29,513 stabbings in this country. In one year. Do you know how many that is a day MIck? That is despite Government initiatives through legislation to reduce knife crime. This is the reason none of us can carry certain types of knives on us in public without good reason Mick. Now as these are official figures, in the public domain for all to check and verify, and must be very damaging for politicians to hear, and bearing in mind you claim above that no statistics are produced on a unbiased basis, where would you say the bias is coming from concerning these figures?

You're going round in circles Mick in an attempt to prove a point, one which can't be proved as it isn't based on anything other than your own biased opinion. This thread has run its course Mick; and by suggesting any of us has the right to CC each time we leave our houses with a gun in a slip is, as you know, simply not the point that is being made. Frankly ridiculous. You're flogging a dead horse Mick. I'm out.

[bostonmick]

Just so totally wrong and inaccurate on so many levels Mick. So many that I can't even be bothered to point them out to you. You have your opinions, which is fair enough, but that's all they are, opinions, but you seem to be unable to differentiate between your opinions and fact. If you refuse to accept factual information which is in the public domain for all to see regarding CC then that is your prerogative, but to openly deny that information because it doesn't sit well with you is simply puerile.

Here's just an example; figures have shown that in one recent year there were 29,513 stabbings in this country. In one year. Do you know how many that is a day MIck? That is despite Government initiatives through legislation to reduce knife crime. This is the reason none of us can carry certain types of knives on us in public without good reason Mick. Now as these are official figures, in the public domain for all to check and verify, and must be very damaging for politicians to hear, and bearing in mind you claim above that no statistics are produced on a unbiased basis, where would you say the bias is coming from concerning these figures?

You're going round in circles Mick in an attempt to prove a point, one which can't be proved as it isn't based on anything other than your own biased opinion. This thread has run its course Mick; and by suggesting any of us has the right to CC each time we leave our houses with a gun in a slip is, as you know, simply not the point that is being made. Frankly ridiculous. You're flogging a dead horse Mick. I'm out.

 

oh well never mind.we will just have to see who's dead horse rises first.atb

[bostonmick]

Just so totally wrong and inaccurate on so many levels Mick. So many that I can't even be bothered to point them out to you. You have your opinions, which is fair enough, but that's all they are, opinions, but you seem to be unable to differentiate between your opinions and fact. If you refuse to accept factual information which is in the public domain for all to see regarding CC then that is your prerogative, but to openly deny that information because it doesn't sit well with you is simply puerile.

Here's just an example; figures have shown that in one recent year there were 29,513 stabbings in this country. In one year. Do you know how many that is a day MIck? That is despite Government initiatives through legislation to reduce knife crime. This is the reason none of us can carry certain types of knives on us in public without good reason Mick. Now as these are official figures, in the public domain for all to check and verify, and must be very damaging for politicians to hear, and bearing in mind you claim above that no statistics are produced on a unbiased basis, where would you say the bias is coming from concerning these figures?

You're going round in circles Mick in an attempt to prove a point, one which can't be proved as it isn't based on anything other than your own biased opinion. This thread has run its course Mick; and by suggesting any of us has the right to CC each time we leave our houses with a gun in a slip is, as you know, simply not the point that is being made. Frankly ridiculous. You're flogging a dead horse Mick. I'm out.

 

well as you brought some more of your stats in with ref knife crime here are some I found within the first site on the web.they list each London borough and I think we can both agree that London is most likely a high crime area. so here goes

 

brent 2008 504 2012 353

hackney 548 387

Lewisham 498 486

wandsworth 365 353

kens and Chelsea 186 159

hammersmith and Fulham 277 209

 

 

these are also official figures and as you can see on a downward trend,without ccw.i will concede that if these figures were increasing year on year then I might reconsider my opinion on cc but while violent crime is decreasing I do not see the need.this was as I say posted in answer to your latest stats.but as you said this one is dead in the water now.atb

[Steppenwolf]

 

at this moment in time you have the right to carry a concealed weapon everytime I leave home to go to a shoot my gun is carried by me and is concealed in its slip/case.what this thread has mostly been about is the fact that you cannot own/carry a handgun.that right was taken from us by the government of the day due to circumstances and public pressure and that is democracy.you vote for it.you also have the right to defend yourself using reasonable force and that could be disabling a would be attacker with your gun as long as it is in proportion to the situation.so now you have the right to carry and also the right to defend.

No you are not carrying a concealed weapon. It's a weapon only if you use it for such a thing. What you have is a cased/slipped sporting/hunting gun. It is not a weapon since you're not allowed to use it for self defense. CCW was banned in Britain in 1946 when the requirement disappeared from the FAC that a gun could be owned for sefl-defense, not in 1998 when Handguns were banned.

 

as for guns increasing violent crime well that is open to major abuse as I have said,lets look at the current amnesty being run by most forces.lets say over the country 500 items are handed in and we all know they will not all be guns.and also at the same time there is say a major sporting event on for a week so a lot of the would be criminals are sitting at home watching tv so fewer crimes as they are not on the street.but then up pops the police and government with the figures that since the amnesty there were 200 fewer crimes compared to the previous month whereby proving that guns being taken out of circulation reduces crime.i do not believe that any statistics are produced on a unbiased basis.most surveys are carried out by companies employed by another or a government to prove something and will be set to show the result you want.and as with searching the net for stats you can just keep searching until you find a set that suits your argument.

Yes I agree there, stats can be manipulated whichever way depending on what results you want to find out.

 

i think that far from proving that ccw works the countries that have it prove how it does not work by the amount of deaths that should not happen.and as they are so called legal killings they are not recorded as crimes so therefore manipulating the stats again.

Czech republic has CCW and has lower crime rate than UK. Then again it's statistics again.

[Steppenwolf]

 

 

these are also official figures and as you can see on a downward trend,without ccw.i will concede that if these figures were increasing year on year then I might reconsider my opinion on cc but while violent crime is decreasing I do not see the need.this was as I say posted in answer to your latest stats.but as you said this one is dead in the water now.atb

 

I thought you said we should ignore statistics since they can be used to twist facts either way, yet here you are using them to prove your point. If the statistics say they showed that knife crime was increasing you would just dismiss them or say something along the lines of: WE have bad knife crime in this coutnry and you want to give these people guns?

 

There is just no winning either way with you Mick.

[bostonmick]

 

I thought you said we should ignore statistics since they can be used to twist facts either way, yet here you are using them to prove your point. If the statistics say they showed that knife crime was increasing you would just dismiss them or say something along the lines of: WE have bad knife crime in this coutnry and you want to give these people guns?

 

There is just no winning either way with you Mick.

Not at all.Scully came out with the number for knife crime as an example of how violent this country is and to support his view that we would benefit from a reduction in violence if CCW were to be adopted.all I did was show some numbers that suit the opposite.As I said all stats are engineered. Also I have never said anyone is wrong in their opinion and do not seek to change anyone's.

[Steppenwolf]

I wonder how Russia is doing? Have they had wild west shootouts yet?