Should the UK loosen handgun restrictions?

[Chernoslavia]

That's exactly what you did.

No, I compared two countries with correct facts which can be measured similarly.

If you get your facts from a meme, which was deemed false by PolitiFact, especially when each country defines "violent crime" differently, that is apples to oranges. Cross-country comparison isn't comparing apples to oranges.

A gun homicide is the same everywhere - a violent crime is not.

I mean, atleast use correct facts.

1. No, you did not compare facts, you did not even posted links to your so-called ''facts''.

2. Your telling him to use correct facts but that's not what your doing, which is total hypocrisy on your part.

3. Politifact is known to not put sources for their claims, and they advocate policy, which makes them even more distrusting.

[Exogenous Imperium]

They want to out law the carrying of knives and do this? It is a little inconsistent.

If we want to deal with this problem we have to admit that all people are not equal. Guns in the hands of most people are fine. It is just a small group that pose a threat with them. In the USA the vast majority of gun crime is committed by poor people and those suffering mental problems who are sometimes related to wealthier people.

[Chernoslavia]

England and Wales alone has a crime record of over 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000. Now add Scotland and Norther Ireland and it gets even higher so, yes. Loosen restrictions on handguns, with some exceptions of course.

Create a licensing system for the possession and public carry of handguns. Include mandatory training on the safe use and storage of handguns. And require people to pass a background check.

You can't compare apples to oranges. Firstly, the USA and the UK define a "violent crime" very differently.

Secondly, that number comes from a meme, which PolitiFact gave a rating of "False".

I believe he was comparing it to the US due to the US being an obvious example of a nation that had legalized firearms.

That's correct.

Basically, there is no evidence to suggest loosening handgun restrictions will decrease gun violence or decrease overall violent crime.

And there is no evidence to suggest that legalizing them would increase the murder rate. The gun murder rate in the UK has always been low for a very long time, even before the Dunblane massacre which caused politicians to ban handguns.

[Libertarian California]

I think so.

[Chernoslavia]

What the Firearms Act of 1997 did not only banned the sale and transactions of handguns to civilians. It also banned the possession of them, so the government confiscated the handguns from people that rightfully owned them.

This draconian law did nothing but violated property rights by confiscating their privately owned firearms, and was not effective at all at reducing gun murders. The UK's firearm homicides were tremendously low even before this law went into effect.

[The UK in Exile]

Then the same could be said for comparing violent crime rates.



I mean, it is not just a coincidence that the United States ranks #1, and the UK ranks #24 among developed countries.

Again, i'll repeat it so it sticks :

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A COINCIDENCE.

I do however believe that the cause of the matter may not simply be gun legislation and therefore altered legislation in the UK need not produce a massive rise in gun crime.

Maybe not, but are we really so desperate for one more olympic medal that its worth tinkering with?

[Atlanticatia]

Then the same could be said for comparing violent crime rates.

(Image)

I mean, it is not just a coincidence that the United States ranks #1, and the UK ranks #24 among developed countries.

Again, i'll repeat it so it sticks :

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A COINCIDENCE.

I do however believe that the cause of the matter may not simply be gun legislation and therefore altered legislation in the UK need not produce a massive rise in gun crime.

I just fail to see a point in repealing a law, regardless of its effectiveness, that could result in more handguns in peoples' hands. What's the point of repealing it, when there's a chance it could lead to more gun violence?
As I said before - "if it ain't broke - don't fix it".

[Salandriagado]

You can't compare apples to oranges. Firstly, the USA and the UK define a "violent crime" very differently.

Secondly, that number comes from a meme, which PolitiFact gave a rating of "False".


That's correct.

Basically, there is no evidence to suggest loosening handgun restrictions will decrease gun violence or decrease overall violent crime.

Apples to oranges? Fucking seriously? Your one to talk!

1. No they don't. The laws defining violent crimes are similar, the only difference is how they are worded.

2. And memes don't just come out of nowhere, the meme you are reffering to came from this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0812.pdf

3. Now let's compare the U.S. crime rate to that of only half the UK shall we?

UK

England and Wales Population: 56,000,000

Violent Crime Offenses: 762,515

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 1,361

This is 3.5 times the rate of the entire US.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

So, less guns doesn't mean less violence. The UK does have less gun murders, but there's a whole lot of other factors people should look at when comparing crime to other countries, and I don't think you people take any of this into consideration.

Credits for discovering these statistics goes to AmidsTheNoise.

It does, however, mean a much lower rate fatality rate from those violent crimes.

[Chernoslavia]

Again, i'll repeat it so it sticks :

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A COINCIDENCE.

I do however believe that the cause of the matter may not simply be gun legislation and therefore altered legislation in the UK need not produce a massive rise in gun crime.

I just fail to see a point in repealing a law, regardless of its effectiveness, that could result in more handguns in peoples' hands. What's the point of repealing it, when there's a chance it could lead to more gun violence?
As I said before - "if it ain't broke - don't fix it".

It is broke because for one, it lead to the confiscation of privately firearms. Your talking about taking away something isn't rightfully yours. And two, it wont increase a chance of gun homicides because gun homicides have always been almost non existant even before the prohibition of handguns.

[Chernoslavia]

Apples to oranges? Fucking seriously? Your one to talk!

1. No they don't. The laws defining violent crimes are similar, the only difference is how they are worded.

2. And memes don't just come out of nowhere, the meme you are reffering to came from this: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... sb0812.pdf

3. Now let's compare the U.S. crime rate to that of only half the UK shall we?

UK

England and Wales Population: 56,000,000

Violent Crime Offenses: 762,515

Violent Crimes per 100,000: 1,361

This is 3.5 times the rate of the entire US.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

So, less guns doesn't mean less violence. The UK does have less gun murders, but there's a whole lot of other factors people should look at when comparing crime to other countries, and I don't think you people take any of this into consideration.

Credits for discovering these statistics goes to AmidsTheNoise.

It does, however, mean a much lower rate fatality rate from those violent crimes.

Which has always been low even before the ban.

[Angleter]

Again, i'll repeat it so it sticks :

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A COINCIDENCE.

I do however believe that the cause of the matter may not simply be gun legislation and therefore altered legislation in the UK need not produce a massive rise in gun crime.

I just fail to see a point in repealing a law, regardless of its effectiveness, that could result in more handguns in peoples' hands. What's the point of repealing it, when there's a chance it could lead to more gun violence?
As I said before - "if it ain't broke - don't fix it".

It wasn't broke when we banned handguns in the first place.

[Chernoslavia]

The statistics can't be interpreted in a vacuum. To try and do so is intellectually dishonest.

Then the same could be said for comparing violent crime rates.



I mean, it is not just a coincidence that the United States ranks #1, and the UK ranks #24 among developed countries.

There's also a cultural difference that must be taken into account. Along with the fact that the US has one of the largest metropolitan areas, and a much larger population than the UK.

[Nimzonia]

1. No they don't. The laws defining violent crimes are similar, the only difference is how they are worded.

That's a pretty big difference. The UK definition of a 'violent crime' is significantly broader than the US definition. The US figures only count aggravated assault as a violent crime. The UK figures include any common assault even if doesn't result in an injury. Therefore it is totally disingenuous to compare the two figures as if it means anything.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The statistics can't be interpreted in a vacuum. To try and do so is intellectually dishonest.

Then the same could be said for comparing violent crime rates.



I mean, it is not just a coincidence that the United States ranks #1, and the UK ranks #24 among developed countries.

Why isn't Honduras on that list? They have the highest murder rate per capita in the world.

Edit: Developed world, not sure Honduras counts in that category.

[Atlanticatia]

1. No they don't. The laws defining violent crimes are similar, the only difference is how they are worded.

That's a pretty big difference. The UK definition of a 'violent crime' is significantly broader than the US definition. The US figures only count aggravated assault as a violent crime. The UK figures include any common assault even if doesn't result in an injury. Therefore it is totally disingenuous to compare the two figures as if it means anything.

Yup.

"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

[Chernoslavia]

I just fail to see a point in repealing a law, regardless of its effectiveness, that could result in more handguns in peoples' hands. What's the point of repealing it, when there's a chance it could lead to more gun violence?
As I said before - "if it ain't broke - don't fix it".

It wasn't broke when we banned handguns in the first place.

Yes it was because it didn't really do anything to reduce crime. All it did was just made the government seize people's private possession. That's never a good thing, no matter what you say to justify it. If the British wanted to distinguish themselves so much from the US, then congrats to them because they've already achieved that with their bullshit authoritarian government.

[Greed and Death]

Then the same could be said for comparing violent crime rates.



I mean, it is not just a coincidence that the United States ranks #1, and the UK ranks #24 among developed countries.

Again, i'll repeat it so it sticks :

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A COINCIDENCE.

I do however believe that the cause of the matter may not simply be gun legislation and therefore altered legislation in the UK need not produce a massive rise in gun crime.

The gini coefficient relation to violent crimes can not be ignored.

[The UK in Exile]

It wasn't broke when we banned handguns in the first place.

Yes it was because it didn't really do anything to reduce crime. All it did was just made the government seize people's private possession. That's never a good thing, no matter what you say to justify it. If the British wanted to distinguish themselves so much from the US, then congrats to them because they've already achieved that with their bullshit authoritarian government.

we don't shoot each other in face either. So, there's that.

[Salandriagado]

It does, however, mean a much lower rate fatality rate from those violent crimes.

Which has always been low even before the ban.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The ban (given all above assumptions) results in lower rates of murders. That is a clear, definite, and significant benefit.

[Chernoslavia]

Yes it was because it didn't really do anything to reduce crime. All it did was just made the government seize people's private possession. That's never a good thing, no matter what you say to justify it. If the British wanted to distinguish themselves so much from the US, then congrats to them because they've already achieved that with their bullshit authoritarian government.

we don't shoot each other in face either. So, there's that.

Well, atleast not on a high scale. And once again, even before the ban, the gun homicide rate was and still is low, so absolutely nothing has changed. Why must I always repeat myself?

[Frazers]

The gini coefficient relation to violent crimes can not be ignored.

Non related esoteric phrases to attempt to confuse the issue. Classic.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's a pretty big difference. The UK definition of a 'violent crime' is significantly broader than the US definition. The US figures only count aggravated assault as a violent crime. The UK figures include any common assault even if doesn't result in an injury. Therefore it is totally disingenuous to compare the two figures as if it means anything.

Yup.

"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "

For comparison purposes, murder and attempted murder are also excluded from British figures in "violent crime".

[Chernoslavia]

Which has always been low even before the ban.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The ban (given all above assumptions) results in lower rates of murders. That is a clear, definite, and significant benefit.

BULLSHIT.

You honestly think that before the Dunblane massacre and handgun prohibition that people were running around shooting each other on a high scale? Get the hell out of here with that!

[The UK in Exile]

we don't shoot each other in face either. So, there's that.

Well, atleast not on a high scale. And once again, even before the ban, the gun homicide rate was and still is low, so absolutely nothing has changed. Why must I always repeat myself?

Well, you could stop.

That would be an improvement.

[Chernoslavia]

Well, atleast not on a high scale. And once again, even before the ban, the gun homicide rate was and still is low, so absolutely nothing has changed. Why must I always repeat myself?

Well, you could stop.

That would be an improvement.

No, then you wont learn anything. You on the other hand could do your part and prove how my statements are wrong, which you aren't doing... though not to my surprise.