Gun Control

Here's a quick search of the local paper headlines:

Victims tied up during Mesa home invasion 04/03/2007Police: Victims tied up during Mesa home invasion, Four victims were tied up while as many as three men ransacked a Mesa house and stole one of the victim's cars on

Tuesday.Murder trial jury focuses on intent03/30/2007A bloody December 2005 home invasion ended two men's lives and left one Peoria police officer paralyzed. Now, a Maricopa County jury must decide if a reputed accomplice, who never fired a shot, sho...

Murder trial jury focuses on intent 03/30/2007Murder trial jury focuses on intent, A bloody December 2005 home invasion ended two men's lives and left one Peoria police officer paralyzed. Now, a Maricopa County jury must decide if a reputed ac...

Man gets 7 years for fatal shooting during home invasion 03/29/2007
TUCSON - A man who pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in connection with a fatal home invasion was sentenced to seven years in prison.

Gunmen flee after home invasion, police say 03/28/2007Gunmen flee after home invasion, police say, Two armed men eluded Glendale police Wednesday after they forced their way inside a home and held a number of women and children hostage, authorities said.»

INVASIONS STIR PRECAUTIONS IN SUN CITIES 04/05/2006A recent string of home invasions in Sun City has made residents more aware and cautious about their surroundings, resident Herb Kobetitch says. "Now people are locking their doors and people are w...

SLAYING SUSPECT TIED TO ROBBERY HIS FINGERPRINTS WERE FOUND AT HOME INVASION, POLICE SAY 01/22/1999An 18-year-old Tempe man committed one, possibly two, home-invasion robberies before he escalated to deadly violence in a drug-related killing at a Tempe park last month, authorities say. Phoenix p...MAN KILLED IN SUN CITY HOME
INVASION WHILE VISITING IN-LAWS 04/02/2006Authorities began intensive patrols Saturday to find the killers of a man who was shot to death earlier in the day in Sun City -- the third home invasion in a week in the area.

On average you can find at least one story of a home invasion style robbery per day. If I had to take a guess there are probably one or two others that don't get reported. These folks usually do their homework and look for places they are unlikely to meet resistance. They kind of have to; if they pick the wrong house they'll get shot.

When it comes to firearms, Arizona makes Texas look like a bunch of pikers. I think they issue you a firearm when you move here.
 
If violent crime is decreasing then why does your government say it isn't?
Year Total Violent Crime
1990     249,904
1991     265,085
1992     284,199
1993     294,231
1994     310,332
1995     310,936
1996     344,766
1997     347,064
1997/8     352,873
1998/9(old rules)     331,843
1998/9(new rules)59     605,797
1999/00     703,107
2000/01     733,387
2001/0269     813,121
2002/0369     1,004,599
2003/04     1,123,710
2004/0573     1,200,991
2005/06     1,220,198
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/100years.xls
 
This is the graph for the last couple of decades



notice the downward trend from 1995, the slight rise is due to a change in crime reporting. I honestly dont know what the hell was going on in the mid 1990's.

Now, thanks to our friends from the FBI we have some comparitive stats.

In the US firearms are used in ~65% of homicides compared to 9% in the UK.

There are ~5.5 murders per 100,000 people in the US (2004), compared to 1.44 per 100,000 in the UK (05/06) it is worth noting the actual figure is closer to 1.3 because Harold Shipman was credited with 52 murders even though they took place years earlier.


EDIT: By UK I mean England and Wales, we dont associate ourselves with the savages north of the wall. Graph might include Scotland, not sure.
 
Perhaps not. I think it's more the ease of purchase in the US that is the main problem. Selling guns in discount stores and on E-bay just sends people the wrong message. It trivialises the weight of responsibility that comes with owning such a destructive weapon.
How many gun store owners are going to be inclined to say "Sorry sir you failed the test. You may not pay me $250 for that shiny new pistol I'd really like to sell you".

That'd be like allowing a used car salesman conduct you're driving test. It needs to be independent of the point of sale otherwise temptation will get in the way.
Well why do you sit a different driving test for a car and a motor bike and a truck? They require different levels of skill to control. It's the same with a gun. The more powerful the weapon. The harder the test.

We determine gun control here in the UK has worked because by and large gun crime isn't a problem. If their is a storey on the news about a shooting in a school, it's an American school. In recent times there have only been a few high profile cases here in the UK.

When a major fire arms incident does happen here in the UK, the weapon is likely to be illegally owned. Which means laws and restrictions wouldn't have stopped those crimes anyway. In the US, most of the high profile cases that have made the news here in the UK. The guns were legally owned by some kids parents who saw fit to store the weapon under the bed or something.

I would say there's a huge difference in the nature of those crimes which can be addressed by proper and fair restrictions.

I think the most shocking thing about the school shootings that have taken place in the US are the sources of the guns, the people who have been able to get hold of them and the excuses offered up to explain this behaviour.

In most of the cases I can remember the guns belonged to the kids parents. The guns were kept in the house. Now you can debate all you like about the second amendment and self defence and such. But the fact of the matter is. If you keep guns in your house then you must make sure they are locked away where kids can't get to them. Which will probably negate the whole point of having them their.

Obviously it wouldn't have helped in some cases. But it would in others. People who own guns need to be made to take responsibility for their safe storage and use.

Even more disturbing is that the parents don't say "It's our fault. Our child grew up without a proper sense of right and wrong because we work all day and use TV and video games as a nanny". No, instead they say "18 rated violent video games that we bought our 15 year old son turned him into a murderer". And then the whole media frenzy starts up again about how video games are turning children into monsters.
 
Scotland has it's own figures. Virtually every statistic the UK government publishes excludes Scotland because Scotland has always been that little bit more independent than Wales. I think I'm also right in saying Northern Ireland is also excluded as they publish their own figures too.

And if you believe the media hype, the infamous "Samurai Sword" is the favoured weapon of thuggery in Scotland
 
Exactly my point. If you get a 9mm, prove you can use a 9mm. If you get a 38, prove you can use a 38.



I would say that the majority of the gun crimes on either side are illegally gotten. The idea that they stole them from the parents doesn't strike me as being a valid argument that they were legal. They still stole them.

As far as using guns for self defense and being locked up, my guns are locked in a case cabled to the bed so that you have to tear the whole bed apart to get it free. The case can be opened in 5 seconds with the combination. Another couple seconds to load.
 
You cannot sell firearms on e-Bay, firearm parts, firearm accessories but not the firearms themselves. They are not sold in discount stores either. Pawn shops, sporting good and some major department stores and of course gun stores do sell them under various state plus federal regulations.

It is not real easy to get a legal firearm; you must show proof of age (18 for rifles and 21 for handguns), in many states you must undergo a waiting period (usually around five to seven days) and a background check for having a history of criminal activity or mental illness and you fill out a bunch of paperwork that attests to the fact that you are not a criminal and are sane.

Having the store do these things works quite well because it is not just trusted that the store owners will comply. Sting operations are run routinely on people that sell alcohol, tobacco or firearms. If your employee fails to do the necessary steps you can expect massive fines and the possibility that you will no longer be able to sell these items. Most folks aren't willing to risk their business for a few hundred bucks.
 
Three important things to remember. The downward trend began before the gun ban. Second, that is a graph based on surveys not on reported crimes. It is also based on one number, not multiple divisions of crimes.

But even then, with your gun ban, your numbers are higher than most of the 80's. If you take those numbers from the 100years spreadsheet and run it back to 1980, only one year in that entire period does the number of violent crimes (column bs) run less than the year before. And that is a relatively small decrease.
 
And if the media is so accurate on reporting this, how accurate are they in other areas?
 
Those are violent crimes, not gun crimes, we are talking about gun crimes. I have given you comparable stats, address them. It is difficult to see how you could argue with them. 65% against 9% (Homicides committed with firearm), 5.5/100k against 1.3/100k (murders/people). The US has a problem on such a scale that for you to even be commenting on the state of the UKs crime stats makes me chuckle.
 
I think it's essential for a complete view of the effect of gun bans on crime. In some cases the level in the US is equal to or greater than that in the UK. For some crimes (e.g. burglary) the UK rate is double that of the US, according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita


It's never going to be conclusive, but prevention of all types of crimes is one of the main arguments for deregulation of firearms. So I think it at least has to be considered.
 
Just thought I'd halfway hijack this thread with something somewhat relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZpCLvXsoM

Machine guns are legal to own in a majority of states in the US. They're heavily regulated and incredibly expensive (have to have been in civilian hands since '86, for one), but legal nonetheless. Anyone care to guess how many murders have been committed with these "instruments of death" in the US since they started keeping track in the 1930s? The answer is one, and it was committed by a police officer.
 
Yes. That is what I have been saying since the very beginning. What good does it do you if you get killed by a knife or cricket bat instead of a gun? You are still dead.
 
How are we defining machine gun? Right off the top of my head there was the North Hollywood shootout in 97 or are we just talking about legally obtained fully automatic weapons?
 
I should have been more clear. I was talking about legally owned class III weapons which include select fire rifles and pistols, machine guns, and short barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressed weapons.
 
In which case the murder stats that have been posted answer that. Comparing violent crime would be a nightmare because you would have to adjust for different reporting methods. If anyone wants to give that a go, fine, but I am too busy.
 
And the murder stats have shown a rise. In the 90's, up until the ban, you saw numbers in the 600s and low 700's. After the ban, you saw numbers in the upper 700's, 800's, up to 1,041. In the last three years, it has dropped again to the high 700's for the last year. But it is still higher than pre ban.
 
those murder rates also included a serial killer with around 100 deaths attributed to him.
 
Back
Top