Gun Ban

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 13, 2006, 3:33 pm

http://www.foxreno.com/news/9358918/det ... o&psp=news

SAN FRANCICSO -- A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.

Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.

In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

"My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."

The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

But years later, in 1998, a state appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on the sale of so-called Saturday night specials, small and cheap handguns that city leaders said contributed to violent crime. And three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles and Alameda counties, saying local governments could ban the possession and sale of weapons on government property, such as fairgrounds.

That decision, however, did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as outlined in the San Francisco law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also is considering a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.

The NRA lawsuit here avoided those allegations.

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

In November, San Francisco recorded its 90th homicide, up two from the previous year.

The case is Fiscal v. San Francisco 05-505960

I used to be surprised at how easily people are willing to give up their constitutional rights.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 13, 2006, 3:40 pm

I used to be surprised at news stories of people getting gunned down in the street or kids acidentally blowing themselves away.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 13, 2006, 4:06 pm

Historically, the second amendment made a lot of sense...

Fast forward 300+ years and the US is a very different place. People are (for the most part) a fuck of a lot more civilized and there is an organized police force and army.

Back in the 1700s you didn't nead to enlist and go to boot camp in order to fight for your country. All you needed was a pulse and a gun.

How many legal firearms owned by citizens of the USA are used in defense of the state?

I'd be interested in seeing a poll of how many americans are more willing to give up their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Look no further than Canada to see that gun control actually works.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 13, 2006, 5:02 pm

When Canada has little gangstas running around and the ghettos filled with crack selling people on every corner like most major cities in the US, then you can compare them. As it is, you have less citizens in all of Canada than there are in California. Cram everyone in your country into a section the size of Cali, then come telling me about how things work.

Do you have any idea of how much regard for the law most of these 15-25 year old thugs have? They would have to build 5x as many jails as we have right now to enforce a gun ban....and what good would it do when as soon sa they got out they would still be able to go get more?

the only people affected by bans are the people who would not break the law anyway.

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » June 13, 2006, 5:25 pm

You can disarm everyone in the country and youre just going to end up with people strangling eachother in the streets instead. Gun control cant be achieved just by banning them.. not at this point in the country's history.. maybe 50+ years ago, but not now.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 13, 2006, 9:53 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:When Canada has little gangstas running around and the ghettos filled with crack selling people on every corner like most major cities in the US, then you can compare them. As it is, you have less citizens in all of Canada than there are in California. Cram everyone in your country into a section the size of Cali, then come telling me about how things work.

Do you have any idea of how much regard for the law most of these 15-25 year old thugs have? They would have to build 5x as many jails as we have right now to enforce a gun ban....and what good would it do when as soon sa they got out they would still be able to go get more?

the only people affected by bans are the people who would not break the law anyway.

What the fuck do you know about major cities living in a state where the largest city barely has 700k people.

What the fuck do you know about Canada when 3 out of the top 5 largest cities in Canada/USA are in fucking Canada.

There are 9 American cities with over a million people.
There are 6 Canadian cities with over a million people.

90% of the population of canada is located in 10% of the country.
1/3 of the population of canada is located in a section of ontario that's about 1/3 the size of california.

What was your point anyway... aside from proving once again that you're a fucking tool?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 13, 2006, 10:12 pm

I think he likes the cock.

no, no, wait, he loooooves the cock.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 13, 2006, 11:20 pm

Guns don't kill people, People kill People...But I think the guns help!

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » June 14, 2006, 6:15 am

Guns don't kill people; it's just that certain noise they make.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 14, 2006, 7:33 am

Gun's don't kill people, bullets kill people.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 14, 2006, 9:46 am

Look no further than Canada to see that gun control actually works.

Was that supposed to be a funny?

Gun control, in the US anyway has consistently proven to be ineffective at best, and a contributing factor to rising crime rates at worst. As someone else said, it only impacts people who aren't going to break the law anyway.

It's like taking a leper who has a toe rotting off and treating that as the primary issue. Poverty, drugs and alcoholism are what need looked at, and something we as a society apparently have no clue how to deal with.

Guns are not the problem, they're just a symptom. And not one you can do much about at this stage of the game either.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 14, 2006, 11:37 am

Gun control, in the US anyway has consistently proven to be ineffective at best, and a contributing factor to rising crime rates at worst.

Bullshit.
The second amendment prevents any sort of meaningful gun control.
Having guns readily easily available to the general populace means more guns can fall into the hands of criminals.

They estimate that over 75% of the guns (usually handguns) used in the comission of a crime in Canada originated in the US.

The number of gun related deaths per capita in the US is roughly 400% higher than in Canada.

Why don't you look up the statistics regarding the use of a firearm in the comission of a crime. Compare Canadas statistics to the US.

Toronto (a city with over 4.5 million people) had 78 homicides last year. 52 of them were gun related. Why don't you dig up some figures on the number of gun related homicides in Los Angeles (a city with similar population).

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » June 14, 2006, 12:07 pm

I think one of the main reasons that the US hasn't been invaded by a foreign army is because so many people have guns. Or so I have heard.

Personally I seen no purpose for handguns in private hands. Granted all guns are designed for killing but handgun are designed for killing people. Shotguns and rifles are at least used for hunting.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 14, 2006, 12:23 pm

miir wrote:What the fuck do you know about major cities living in a state where the largest city barely has 700k people.

What the fuck do you know about Canada when 3 out of the top 5 largest cities in Canada/USA are in fucking Canada.

There are 9 American cities with over a million people.
There are 6 Canadian cities with over a million people.

90% of the population of canada is located in 10% of the country.
1/3 of the population of canada is located in a section of ontario that's about 1/3 the size of california.

What was your point anyway... aside from proving once again that you're a fucking tool?

And where the hell do you get your numbers?

Just looking at the population of counties sorted by 2005 estimates, there are 38 with over 1 million people:

Copy/paste the long-ass link

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GC ... ONTEXT=gct

If you want to look at large metropolitan areas that could span multiple counties see section 24 (starts on page 26) of the pdf at this link: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/pop.pdf

If you don't want to look through the pdf, I counted them for you: 50.

*edit* Had to go see what state Kil was from

Ohio has:
Cleveland 2.1 Mil+
Cincinnati 2 Mil +
Columbus 1.6 Mil +

Those can be found on the same pdf as above.

Where DO you get your numbers? Canada's last completed census in 1996 and 2001 Metropolitan numbers show:

Montreal 3.4 Mil +
Ottawa 1 Mil +
Toronto 4.6 Mil +
Vancouver 1.9 Mil +

Nothing else over 1 million...

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census0 ... =1&S=3&O=D

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 14, 2006, 1:28 pm

miir wrote: They estimate that over 75% of the guns (usually handguns) used in the comission of a crime in Canada originated in the US.

The number of gun related deaths per capita in the US is roughly 400% higher than in Canada.

Why don't you look up the statistics regarding the use of a firearm in the comission of a crime. Compare Canadas statistics to the US.

Toronto (a city with over 4.5 million people) had 78 homicides last year. 52 of them were gun related. Why don't you dig up some figures on the number of gun related homicides in Los Angeles (a city with similar population).

A city with similar population? So, I guess you think 2300 > 23000 too? The Los Angeles population is around three times the population of Toronto. Let's compare it with another city of comparable population. We could do Boston, Washington, Detroit, or even Atlanta!

Boston had 75 total homicides last year. I did not see any numbers specifically targetting gun-related homicides, and I admit that I grew bored of looking since you had so obviously not bothered to look for any numbers yourself.

Withefel · Post by **Withefel** » June 14, 2006, 1:43 pm

Nice job boog. WTF are you a retard or what miir? Just of the top of my head i could name 15 cities *at least* w/ over a million peeps here in the states. Come w/ some real numbers or stfu.

Anyway, heres the deal w/ gun control and the same goes for OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of laws as well. We dont have to worry about the people that follow the laws, they're not the ones gunning down people....for the most part, physos that'd do crazy shit are gonna do crazy shit with or without guns. The people we have to worry about and the ones that commit a huge majority of the crimes are the *CRIMINALS* that ignore the law anyway so have another statute on the books will do very little if anything to deter them.

For the most part, having more laws on the books just gives politicians something to thump thier chest about come election time and helps give all the soccer moms sitting in thier subburbs a false sense of security so they can sleep better at night.

The answer is this. Criminals involved in *using*, not just carring or owning, guns in an illegal manor need to be put the fuck away for a long time. When i say illegal manor, i mean in a way that is illegal in most states already, no some new law that is yet to be inacted. Those are the criminals that we should be worried about.

cadalano · Post by **cadalano** » June 14, 2006, 1:47 pm

uh manors arent illegal dude. theyre just houses

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 14, 2006, 1:54 pm

cadalano wrote:uh manors arent illegal dude. theyre just houses

They're close to being illegal in some neighborhoods here in Austin if they are too large for their lots

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 14, 2006, 2:05 pm

Guns are illegal in England, so there must be no violent crime there, right?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 14, 2006, 3:00 pm

About 75% of the homicides with guns in the US are committed by people who have already had a felony conviction on their record. Now are you ready for this: they are BY LAW not allowed to own any firearm with a felony conviction. So disarming everyone else would make a whole hell of a lot of sense.....them having the advantage of knowing they would never faced any armed resistance.

By the way.....seeing as how you STILL had 78 gun related homicides in Toronto with Canada's gun control, how exactly does that make us feel like it is WORKING? If you showed you had like 2 for a year then great.....but 78?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 14, 2006, 3:11 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:About 75% of the homicides with guns in the US are committed by people who have already had a felony conviction on their record. Now are you ready for this: they are BY LAW not allowed to own any firearm with a felony conviction. So disarming everyone else would make a whole hell of a lot of sense.....them having the advantage of knowing they would never faced any armed resistance.

By the way.....seeing as how you STILL had 78 gun related homicides in Toronto with Canada's gun control, how exactly does that make us feel like it is WORKING? If you showed you had like 2 for a year then great.....but 78?

no, he said there were 78 homicides and 52 were gun-related.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 14, 2006, 3:25 pm

Boogahz wrote:no, he said there were 78 homicides and 52 were gun-related.

Shhh, he's being self-righteously indignant.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 14, 2006, 3:37 pm

Ohio has:
Cleveland 2.1 Mil+
Cincinnati 2 Mil +
Columbus 1.6 Mil +

I was listing the populations of the actual cities not the county.

The 2003 population estimate of the city of Cleveland was 461,324.

The Los Angeles population is around three times the population of Toronto

The population of the city of Toronto is close to 5 million.
The population of LA County is almost 10 million.
The populaiton of the city of Los Angeles is roughly 3.8 million. (using the site/link you provided)
Metropolitan Toronto includes Toronto, Peel Region and York Region... the sprawl is so dense eastward you might even include Durham region. That would bring the population of Toronto and it's immediate suburbs to over 8 million.

Boston had 75 total homicides last year

Using Boogs US government link, the City of Boston has a population of 581,616.

of the top of my head i could name 15 cities *at least* w/ over a million peeps here in the states.

According to the US Government, as of 1990 there were 8 cities with over a million people.

1 New York city, NY *...... 7,322,564 308.9 23,705
2 Los Angeles city, CA..... 3,485,398 469.3 7,427
3 Chicago city, IL......... 2,783,726 227.2 12,252
4 Houston city, TX......... 1,630,553 539.9 3,020
5 Philadelphia city, PA.... 1,585,577 135.1 11,736
6 San Diego city, CA *..... 1,110,549 324.0 3,428
7 Detroit city, MI......... 1,027,974 138.7 7,411
8 Dallas city, TX.......... 1,006,877 342.4 2,941

Phoenix and San Antonio were pretty close to a million in 1990 so they have most definately hit the million mark since then. That makes 10. The 11th place city in 1990, San Jose has a population of 898,349 according to the US government.

Guns are illegal in England, so there must be no violent crime there, right?

The gun related homicide rate in England/Wales is 0.12 per 100k.
The gun related homicide rate in the USA is 4.08 per 100k.

Code: Select all

seeing as how you STILL had 78 gun related homicides in Toronto

Learn to read.

There were a total of 78 homicides in Toronto (pop 4,558,800)last year. 52 of them gun related.
In 2003, Chicago (pop 2,869,121) had FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE homicides total. The percentage of those which were gun related are roughly the same as Toronto @ 70%

The most most surprising thing about those stats is that Toronto residents (and Canadians in general) were outraged at that number of homicides last year. It has been a huge issue at all levels of government in Canada.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » June 14, 2006, 3:39 pm

What i would like to see is a statistic comparing how many guns that are used in spur of the moment crimes or accidents because they were available (as in domestic problems, kids playing with dads gun, jealous husband and so on) compared to how many guns are actually used by a person to defend himself against a crime.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 14, 2006, 3:42 pm

they are BY LAW not allowed to own any firearm with a felony conviction. So disarming everyone else would make a whole hell of a lot of sense.....

Logic like that is why your country is infested with handguns.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 14, 2006, 3:58 pm

miir wrote:According to the US Government, as of 1990 there were 8 cities with over a million people.

And before someone says something about 1990 being too long ago, cities are shrinking as well as growing. I know Detroit is no longer on the list of 1 Million plus, I think they were down around 900,000 last I heard.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 14, 2006, 4:07 pm

Sylvus wrote:And before someone says something about 1990 being too long ago, cities are shrinking as well as growing. I know Detroit is no longer on the list of 1 Million plus, I think they were down around 900,000 last I heard.

Using Booghaz link, Detriot has 911,402 as of 2003.

That makes 9.

Miir wrote:There are 9 American cities with over a million people.

I guess since I came up with some real numbers I dont have to STFU.... whew!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 14, 2006, 4:11 pm

miir wrote:
Sylvus wrote:And before someone says something about 1990 being too long ago, cities are shrinking as well as growing. I know Detroit is no longer on the list of 1 Million plus, I think they were down around 900,000 last I heard.
Using Booghaz link, Detriot has 911,402 as of 2003.

That makes 9.

Miir wrote:There are 9 American cities with over a million people.
I guess since I came up with some real numbers I dont have to STFU.... whew!

You do realize that US cities do cross county lines don't you? Do you also realize that a "city" does not necessarilly end when you cross into a suburb? That's why I included the Metropolitan populations. The Canadian statistics just did not break down in the same manner during limited time I looked through them.

Get your own stats honky!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 14, 2006, 4:25 pm

miir wrote:There were a total of 78 homicides in Toronto (pop 4,558,800)last year. 52 of them gun related.
In 2003, Chicago (pop 2,869,121) had FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE homicides total. The percentage of those which were gun related are roughly the same as Toronto @ 70%

Granted its only one data point but the fact that the percentage of the homicides being gun related are approximately the same would seem to cast doubt that the correlation between the existance of gun control and number of homicides per capita being that significant.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 15, 2006, 6:34 am

Chmee wrote:
miir wrote:There were a total of 78 homicides in Toronto (pop 4,558,800)last year. 52 of them gun related.
In 2003, Chicago (pop 2,869,121) had FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE homicides total. The percentage of those which were gun related are roughly the same as Toronto @ 70%
Granted its only one data point but the fact that the percentage of the homicides being gun related are approximately the same would seem to cast doubt that the correlation between the existance of gun control and number of homicides per capita being that significant.

I think the argument is about absolute numbers not per-capita ratios.

Anyone have the figures for the number of legally-owned guns that are stolen per year?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 15, 2006, 6:43 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:About 75% of the homicides with guns in the US are committed by people who have already had a felony conviction on their record. Now are you ready for this: they are BY LAW not allowed to own any firearm with a felony conviction. So disarming everyone else would make a whole hell of a lot of sense.....them having the advantage of knowing they would never faced any armed resistance.

By the way.....seeing as how you STILL had 78 gun related homicides in Toronto with Canada's gun control, how exactly does that make us feel like it is WORKING? If you showed you had like 2 for a year then great.....but 78?

And I suppose you expect me to believe that the majority of illegal handguns on the streets in the US were illegally imported into the US from somewhere else and not stolen from legal gun owners or directly from local factories/outlets?

PUH-FUCKING-LEASE.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 15, 2006, 8:04 am

Hey man but it's like their culture, they like totally enjoy murdering eachother with guns. Awesome!

miir · Post by **miir** » June 15, 2006, 10:40 am

cadalano wrote:You can disarm everyone in the country and youre just going to end up with people strangling eachother in the streets instead. Gun control cant be achieved just by banning them.. not at this point in the country's history.. maybe 50+ years ago, but not now.

There's a psychological reason why guns are favoured over every other weapon (by an astronomical margin) in a homicide.

There is a disconnect when using a gun. You don't have to have any physical contact with the victim. You don't have to exert any physical force. There is virtually no evidence left on the victim other than a bullet hole.

When you use a gun you don't have to get your hands dirty, so to speak.

There's been loads of studies done on the psychological effects of comitting a murder and the resulting mental stress/trauma.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 15, 2006, 11:20 am

miir wrote:
cadalano wrote:You can disarm everyone in the country and youre just going to end up with people strangling eachother in the streets instead. Gun control cant be achieved just by banning them.. not at this point in the country's history.. maybe 50+ years ago, but not now.

There's a psychological reason why guns are favoured over every other weapon (by an astronomical margin) in a homicide.

There is a disconnect when using a gun. You don't have to have any physical contact with the victim. You don't have to exert any physical force. There is virtually no evidence left on the victim other than a bullet hole.

When you use a gun you don't have to get your hands dirty, so to speak.

There's been loads of studies done on the psychological effects of comitting a murder and the resulting mental stress/trauma.

Plus, no collateral damage with strangling

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 15, 2006, 11:47 am

vn_Tanc wrote:
Chmee wrote:
miir wrote:There were a total of 78 homicides in Toronto (pop 4,558,800)last year. 52 of them gun related.
In 2003, Chicago (pop 2,869,121) had FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE homicides total. The percentage of those which were gun related are roughly the same as Toronto @ 70%
Granted its only one data point but the fact that the percentage of the homicides being gun related are approximately the same would seem to cast doubt that the correlation between the existance of gun control and number of homicides per capita being that significant.
I think the argument is about absolute numbers not per-capita ratios.

Anyone have the figures for the number of legally-owned guns that are stolen per year?

My point was if lack of gun control is indeed leading to a greater homicide rate I would expect for the percentage of gun related homicides to be higher. Unless the proposition is that no gun control increases the non-gun related homicide rate as well (which is possible I guess, but I would have to see some pretty solid supporting evidence and explanations of possible causation).

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 15, 2006, 1:23 pm

Chmee wrote:My point was if lack of gun control is indeed leading to a greater homicide rate I would expect for the percentage of gun related homicides to be higher. Unless the proposition is that no gun control increases the non-gun related homicide rate as well (which is possible I guess, but I would have to see some pretty solid supporting evidence and explanations of possible causation).

I'd imagine you'd have to go into the whole pre-meditated/not pre-meditated statistics to see where the real seperation of gun related crimes vs. other forms. You'd probably find that guns make up a good portion of the pre-meditated ones as opposed to crimes of "passion" so to speak.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 15, 2006, 2:37 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Chmee wrote:My point was if lack of gun control is indeed leading to a greater homicide rate I would expect for the percentage of gun related homicides to be higher. Unless the proposition is that no gun control increases the non-gun related homicide rate as well (which is possible I guess, but I would have to see some pretty solid supporting evidence and explanations of possible causation).
I'd imagine you'd have to go into the whole pre-meditated/not pre-meditated statistics to see where the real seperation of gun related crimes vs. other forms. You'd probably find that guns make up a good portion of the pre-meditated ones as opposed to crimes of "passion" so to speak.

This still doesn't address my point. According to miir's numbers, Toronto (pop 4,558,800) had 26 non gun related homicides. That means per capita you have 5.7 per million non gun related homicides. Chicago had roughly (using the 70 percent figure) 179 non gun related homicides for its population of 2,869,121 or 62 per million non gun related homicides. If you want to try use the comparitive homicide rates to prove anything to me about how superior gun control is, you need to take into account that the non gun related homicide rate for Chicago is ten times that of Toronto and somehow explain how whatever factor is causing this difference doesn't completely swamp whatever effect you are positing about gun control (or as I said earlier, explain how gun control legislation can have that huge of an effect on the non gun related homicide rate).

cid · Post by **cid** » June 15, 2006, 2:56 pm

Nick wrote:Hey man but it's like their culture, they like totally enjoy murdering eachother with guns. Awesome!

Yes we should just blow each other up like your countrymen? You are the biggest shit stain on this board.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 15, 2006, 3:26 pm

cid wrote:Yes we should just blow each other up like your countrymen? You are the biggest shit stain on this board.

The homicide rate in Ireland is about one third the homicide rate of the USA (1.4 vs 4.08 - per 100k).... dumbass.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 15, 2006, 3:32 pm

He's probably thinking like IRA, carbombs, etc... if that's the case, "countrymen" might be a bit of a misnomer.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 15, 2006, 3:35 pm

Sylvus wrote:He's probably thinking like IRA, carbombs, etc... if that's the case, "countrymen" might be a bit of a misnomer.

BUT THEY ARE MURDERING THEIR OWN PEOPLE!!!1!!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 15, 2006, 3:48 pm

I asked about England's violent crime rates, not their gun crime rate. The reason miir dodged that? Because violent crime has been going UP for almost a decade now.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 45,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... crim25.xml

In 2001, UK police recorded nearly 870,000 violent crimes.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 15, 2006, 3:59 pm

I wasn't dodging shit.

This thread was and is about guns, gun control and gun related crime.

If you want to make a topic about violent crime in the UK, click this

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 15, 2006, 4:32 pm

You just want to separate it because the fact that violent crime doesn't decline when firearms are removed from the equation invalidates the entire reason for gun control in the first place.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 15, 2006, 4:43 pm

Dear Cid,

A. The last bomb any Irish man killed another one with bombs was years ago.

B. The last fatal shooting in the USA was probably about 5 seconds ago.

C. The morons in my country who did commit bombings/murder weren't supported by the Government in their stupid mindless killing.

D. They aren't "my" countrymen anymore than they are yours. I, unlike you, don't side with murderous dickheads.

E. It's absolutely excellent to see you foaming at the mouth everytime your countries stupidest laws and ideals are rightfully mocked as nothing more than an outdated joke of a superpower gone completely fucking mental because otherwise I wouldn't get to feel so goddamn fucking intelligent everytime I read your posts.

thanks!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 15, 2006, 5:41 pm

So by your stats, the last fatal STABBING in England was about 2.5 seconds ago! BUT AT LEAST IT WASNT TEH EVIL FIREARMS THAT DID THAT MURDER!

miir · Post by **miir** » June 15, 2006, 5:42 pm

masteen wrote:You just want to separate it because the fact that violent crime doesn't decline when firearms are removed from the equation invalidates the entire reason for gun control in the first place.

Concerning violent crime in countries with strict gun laws, in the EU, England/Scotland is the exception. Not the rule.

Look it up for yourself.

Keep trying.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 15, 2006, 6:46 pm

There is no point in debating a fanatic. Here's a few more articles for you to ignore before you spew more bullshit rhetoric:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... per-capita

http://hnn.us/articles/871.html

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.1 ... detail.asp

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/conte ... p?aid=7862

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 15, 2006, 6:55 pm

England has less violent crime per person than America, which would pretty much sort of nullify your argument completely.....

I don't think anyone said England or anywhere else was crime free, but the US is infamous for it's violent streak, especially with guns.

Guns shouldn't be available to any old fuckwit, no matter what any constitution says, knives shouldn't be easy to get either frankly, but then this isn't about knives.

I think we can all agree shooting ppl is bad.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 15, 2006, 7:02 pm

Well...according to these figures, the ban we need should be banning young black men from cities.

Yet young urban Afro-Americans -- with far fewer guns per capita -- have a murder rate nine times higher than that of young rural Afro-Americans. Like demographics, geographic patterns of gun ownership relate inversely to crime: "areas in England, America and Switzerland with the highest rates of gun ownership are in fact those with the lowest rates of violence." This is true of Canada also.