New Gun laws for US ?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Gotta agree, I'd pick being shot too. I was stabbed once and shot two different times, back in my bad old days. And if I had to defend myself I'd rather do it with a handgun. The older I get the less adept at knife fighting I am, it seems. I love a good blade but as a tool, not a weapon.

But what does that say about society as a whole? That they feel the need to own a gun for self defense? Self defense against what??!!

[spot]

Originally Posted by Raven

But what does that say about society as a whole? That they feel the need to own a gun for self defense? Self defense against what??!!

Oh, I can answer that one. Against the huge number of people in the US who are not law-abiding and also carry guns. In England they're very rare and we stand a far better chance of never encountering one than law-abiding citizens in the US do.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spot

Oh, I can answer that one. Against the huge number of people in the US who are not law-abiding and also carry guns. In England they're very rare and we stand a far better chance of never encountering one than law-abiding citizens in the US do.

It's a neverending cycle of human waste.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Raven

It's a neverending cycle of human waste.

But it's a very different situation, isn't it. In the UK the proportion of shooters is so small that we leave it to the police to arm themselves when people shoot, that being the way we minimise the number of people shooting. In the US guns are so ubiquitous that the same approach isn't an option. What the US currently lacks is sufficient law-abiding members of the community to carry concealed weapons on a regular basis that those engaged in criminal enterprise are deterred from doing the same. The US needs more weapons carriers, not fewer, hence my suggestion that it should be mandatory there in specifiable situations.

Saying that, I don't see that the licensing bill under discussion would do anything other than what it claims. It's an administrative measure with no capacity to reduce the number of guns on the streets.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spot

But it's a very different situation, isn't it. In the UK the proportion of shooters is so small that we leave it to the police to arm themselves when people shoot, that being the way we minimise the number of people shooting. In the US guns are so ubiquitous that the same approach isn't an option. What the US currently lacks is sufficient law-abiding members of the community to carry concealed weapons on a regular basis that those engaged in criminal enterprise are deterred from doing the same. The US needs more weapons carriers, not fewer, hence my suggestion that it should be mandatory there in specifiable situations.

Saying that, I don't see that the licensing bill under discussion would do anything other than what it claims. It's an administrative measure with no capacity to reduce the number of guns on the streets.

You could equate guns over there with knives over here. How would licensing undercover knife carriers slow the rate of knife crime? We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking. I mean as far as law abiding figures of higher standing, London, itself boasts very few.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Raven

You could equate guns over there with knives over here. How would licensing undercover knife carriers slow the rate of knife crime? We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking. I mean as far as law abiding figures of higher standing, London, itself boasts very few.

There are absolutely no legal carriers of offensive knives in England other than members of the British Armed Forces going about their duty, why on earth should we license them into existence?

"We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking." is completely untrue. Without checking (I'll check if you prefer) you're comparing annual figures of perhaps 50 per million in the US with 2 per million in the UK. It's not even as close as an order of magnitude. The numbers involved in the UK are vanishingly trivially small, the only reason you find it worrying is because the Daily Mail shouts so loudly to increase its bloodstained sales.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spot

There are absolutely no legal carriers of offensive knives in England other than members of the British Armed Forces going about their duty, why on earth should we license them into existence?

"We have as much death by knife crime as they have of gun crime over there. Proportionaly speaking." is completely untrue. Without checking (I'll check if you prefer) you're comparing annual figures of perhaps 50 per million in the US with 2 per million in the UK. It's not even as close as an order of magnitude. The numbers involved in the UK are vanishingly trivially small, the only reason you find it worrying is because the Daily Mail shouts so loudly to increase its bloodstained sales.

How on earth did you know I read the mail!

Seriously though, thats 2 per million out of a population of 6 million. Not quite sure of the population of the states, but I reckon it's more than 6 million. Now lets look at the number of deaths by knife/gun crime so far in London. In 2005 there were reported 37 GUN crimes per 10,000 of population.

http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/docs/...ons-report.pdf

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Raven

How on earth did you know I read the mail!

Seriously though, thats 2 per million out of a population of 6 million. Not quite sure of the population of the states, but I reckon it's more than 6 million. Now lets look at the number of deaths by knife/gun crime so far in London. In 2005 there were reported 37 GUN crimes per 10,000 of population.

http://www.london.gov.uk/gangs/docs/...ons-report.pdf

Now thats just based upon the premise that the UK homeoffice isnt fudging the figures, which is another debate. Here is the same statistics for Indianapolis in the same year.
This table is based on crime that took place in Indianapolis Indiana and is based upon a population of 800,589 served by the Indianapolis Police Department


http://www.disastercenter.com/indian...napolisPD.html

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Raven

Now thats just based upon the premise that the UK homeoffice isnt fudging the figures, which is another debate. Here is the same statistics for Indianapolis in the same year.
This table is based on crime that took place in Indianapolis Indiana and is based upon a population of 800,589 served by the Indianapolis Police Department


http://www.disastercenter.com/indian...napolisPD.html

Crime in the UK should be more easily controlled than it is in the USA. Who do you share orders with? Our southern border with Mexico may as well be wide open. And we have no control over who gets into Canada.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Crime in the UK should be more easily controlled than it is in the USA. Who do you share orders with? Our southern border with Mexico may as well be wide open. And we have no control over who gets into Canada.

We have an open and porous border with France via the Channel Tunnel. (and everyone else through Heathrow)
The NAFTA agreement pretty much shot the U.S. southern border control down.