Should the UK loosen handgun restrictions?

[Jamjai]

yea, the UK should loose the restrictions

[Angleter]

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.

That's what I was saying - there was no need to 'fix' anything by banning handguns back in '97. It's ironic that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' should be invoked now in favour of keeping that ban in place.

[The UK in Exile]

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.

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

[Chernoslavia]

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.

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

Yes, I'm sure the IRA has stopped buying illegal guns for their attacks on military forces because of this law.

[Frazers]

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.

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

Could I ask a favour. I may have missed it earlier but could you :

a) Source that

b) Demonstrate the link between the gun ban and the reduction

[Chernoslavia]

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

Could I ask a favour. I may have missed it earlier but could you :

a) Source that

b) Demonstrate the link between the gun ban and the reduction

I was just about to ask him the same thing, thanks for saving me time.

...that has now gone to waist.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

Yes, I'm sure the IRA has stopped buying illegal guns for their attacks on military forces because of this law.

Cuz terrorists like to follow laws

[Chernoslavia]

Yes, I'm sure the IRA has stopped buying illegal guns for their attacks on military forces because of this law.

Cuz terrorists like to follow laws

Well, I doubt terrorism fits their cause, but yeah agreed.

[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.

That's what I was saying - there was no need to 'fix' anything by banning handguns back in '97. It's ironic that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' should be invoked now in favour of keeping that ban in place.

Sorry to have misunderstood.

[The UK in Exile]

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

Could I ask a favour. I may have missed it earlier but could you :

a) Source that

b) Demonstrate the link between the gun ban and the reduction

A)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

B) search me guvnor, however, since the only way to prove it would be to repeal the ban, like I said: I'm not desperate enough for the UK to net the Gold Medal in shooting to find out.

[Frazers]

since the only way to prove it would be to repeal the ban, like I said: I'm not desperate enough for the UK to net the Gold Medal in shooting to find out.

I doubt that's the case. I'm sure there are plenty of economists and statisticians willing and able to make a strong case for or against the link.

[The UK in Exile]

since the only way to prove it would be to repeal the ban, like I said: I'm not desperate enough for the UK to net the Gold Medal in shooting to find out.

I doubt that's the case. I'm sure there are plenty of economists willing and able to make a strong case for or against the link.

As am I, but thats rather the problem isn't it? there are plenty of economists willing to make a strong case for or against the link.

If there was actually a strong case, they'd all be taking the same side.

[Chernoslavia]

Could I ask a favour. I may have missed it earlier but could you :

a) Source that

b) Demonstrate the link between the gun ban and the reduction

A)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

B) search me guvnor, however, since the only way to prove it would be to repeal the ban, like I said: I'm not desperate enough for the UK to net the Gold Medal in shooting to find out.

A) Okay fair enough, though I dont trust your bbc source as they fail to cite their sources and they advocate policy. Citizensreport on the other hand seems more trusting.

B) Agreed.

[Frazers]

I doubt that's the case. I'm sure there are plenty of economists willing and able to make a strong case for or against the link.

As am I, but thats rather the problem isn't it? there are plenty of economists willing to make a strong case for or against the link.

If there was actually a strong case, they'd all be taking the same side.

Which suggests any changes aren't particularly significant one way or the other.

[The UK in Exile]

A)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html

B) search me guvnor, however, since the only way to prove it would be to repeal the ban, like I said: I'm not desperate enough for the UK to net the Gold Medal in shooting to find out.

A) Okay fair enough, though I dont trust your bbc source as they fail to cite their sources and they advocate policy. Citizensreport on the other hand seems more trusting.

B) Agreed.

Not only does the BBC article linked cite it's source, it actually links to the source in question.

[The UK in Exile]

As am I, but thats rather the problem isn't it? there are plenty of economists willing to make a strong case for or against the link.

If there was actually a strong case, they'd all be taking the same side.

Which suggests any changes aren't particularly significant one way or the other.

It suggests the issue of what causes homicides and gun homicides is sufficently complex as to elude a simple causal relationship.

[Frazers]

Which suggests any changes aren't particularly significant one way or the other.

It suggests the issue of what causes homicides and gun homicides is sufficently complex as to elude a simple causal relationship.

Exactly. Any effect of gun legislation either produces insignificant change by itself or is sufficiently augmented by other factors so as to make the effect negligible.

[The UK in Exile]

It suggests the issue of what causes homicides and gun homicides is sufficently complex as to elude a simple causal relationship.

Exactly. Any effect of gun legislation either produces insignificant change by itself or is sufficiently augmented by other factors so as to make the effect negligible.

Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

[Chernoslavia]

A) Okay fair enough, though I dont trust your bbc source as they fail to cite their sources and they advocate policy. Citizensreport on the other hand seems more trusting.

B) Agreed.

Not only does the BBC article linked cite it's source, it actually links to the source in question.

Yea but I doubt the reduction in the murder rate has anything to do with the Firearms Act of 1997.

[Frazers]

Exactly. Any effect of gun legislation either produces insignificant change by itself or is sufficiently augmented by other factors so as to make the effect negligible.

Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

Which, as Angleter pointed out, is funny given it's an equal argument against the initiation of the restrictions in the first place.

[The UK in Exile]

Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

Which, as Angleter pointed out, is funny given it's an equal argument against the initiation of the restrictions in the first place.

He's free to use it on his message board that posts exclusively in 1997.

[New Aerios]

Exactly. Any effect of gun legislation either produces insignificant change by itself or is sufficiently augmented by other factors so as to make the effect negligible.

Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

Therefore there was no good reason to ban handguns. And as the decision to limit freedom for no benefit is clearly a bad thing unless you're Kim Jong-Un, the handgun ban should be repealed.

[Chernoslavia]

Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

Therefore there was no good reason to ban handguns. And as the decision to limit freedom for no benefit is clearly a bad thing unless you're Kim Jong-Un, the handgun ban should be repealed.

Agreed.

[Horizont]

Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

Therefore there was no good reason to ban handguns. And as the decision to limit freedom for no benefit is clearly a bad thing unless you're Kim Jong-Un, the handgun ban should be repealed.

No, because the situation has stabilized as it is so the argument does in fact work for maintaining the status quo.

[Nimzonia]

Because its irrelevant, It was low, its now lower and the number of fatalities, as opposed to the number of incidents, has declined also.

Yes, I'm sure the IRA has stopped buying illegal guns for their attacks on military forces because of this law.

What attacks on military forces?