Summations Only

You can be sure you needn't bother to offer any more of the kind of statistics that have been passed off as *evidence* on this thread for gun control as the solution to gun crimes.The evidence in the UK definitely seems to be that gun control has caused gun crime to rise and has victimized law-abiding citizens. You may quibble about this or that aspect of the facts if you like but the overall thrust of the evidence is that the UK has crippled itself and the same mentality wants to cripple the US, and there are a bunch of you in the US working in that direction.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And here's another report on the same situation in Australia

The article looks like good journalism to me. I'm sure it's only toilet paper to the idiot Left.I only pasted the top part of the article figuring you could follow the link to the rest. Thanks for the nasty suspiciousness though, it really dignifies the discussion.Too bad your criminals have our criminals as their model but you already had your criminals no matter who they decided to emulate.You guys need your guns back.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's a quote from Tangle, not from the article, with the usual questionable statistics.The point is the general point that gun crime has been rising contrary to the claims of the gun control crowd.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You guys live in lala land. The police are having to use high powered weapons they never had to use before. That's a measure of the rise in VIOLENT crime.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The reduction in gun crimes according to that report is only over the last few years, which is a reduction from an enormous high that followed on the gun ban and not a reducton from the gun ban itself. So this is rather misleading since we are talking about the effect since the gun ban some 15 or so years ago.If you look at the chart given in the report it shows a huge increase in gun crime AFTER the gun ban, increasing by some 10,000 incidents a year if I'm reading it correctly to a peak in 2003-4 and then starting to come down. But it didn't even come down to the level of the year of the gun ban until last year. Now this year apparently it's finally gone below that by a small amount. After 15 years you get a tiny reduction after years of huge increases. What kind of proof is that of crime reduction from gun control?Is that what you expect of gun control, that it will produce that much MORE crime for that long before it finally starts to drop? Why bother taking away people's guns if the best that's been accomplished is a return to the same level at the year they were banned some 13 years later? What kind of accomplishment is that?Also of course the report could drown a person in numbers and I didn't read through the whole thing, just skimmed to the bottom to see if they offered any explanation for the fall of such crimes over the last few years and didn't see any. Perhaps it could be explained by the increase in high-powered police weapons as reported in the article and video I posted? If so then you've armed your police at the expense of your citizens. what really have you accomplished? Nothing but putting power in the hands of government and taking it out of the hands of the people WITHOUT anything at all to show for your vaunted crime reduction rate. Again, the drop over the last few years probably has nothing to do with the gun ban itself, but I'd guess with the increase in police arms made necessary by the increase in crime made necessary by disarming your law-abiding citizens. While meanwhile you've made sitting ducks of the people and even begun to criminalize them for defending themselves. That looks to me like a very very sick society.If there's more to that welter of numbers that I'm overlooking I hope maybe crash or someone else will take on the challenge of figuring it out tomorrow.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The report clearly SAYS the reductions are, first, between this and the last year and then the one before that, but you hadn't bothered to explain that, you just made it sound like there's a clear decrease as if it were the result of the gun ban. SSo I had to go look to find out: reductions from what level.Real numbers, population increase, etc, do not allow you to call an increase a reduction. The way you guys talk gun crime should have immediately decreased with the gun ban, because you think the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens is the problem, crazy though that idea is. So you take them away and gun crime does NOT go down, it actually increases above the pattern of increase up until that time. What was a steady rise up to that point becomes a steep ascent. According to your claims, shouldn't it have at least leveled off some?The graph shows a fall only since 2004, and that's CAN'T be due to the gun ban which occurred seven years before the peak. The gun ban itself OBVIOUSLY stimulated an INCREASE. Why would there be a period of feeling things out? Either the possession of guns by the citizens was the problem or it was not. Obfviously it was not. So I suggest the later decrease is due to the arming of the police. Enough firepower is bound to be a deterrent, has nothing to do with disarming the poor citizens and not only was taking away their guns ineffective according to your claims, but you're letting them be helpless victims of crime and even criminalizing them for defending themselves.That report does not show ANY kind of benefit from disarming the people, not one tiny benefit, and the pain and suffering and increased vulnerability inflicted on the nation ought to have you all hanging your heads in shame. In fact I think all you UK leftists ought to dedicate yourselves to freeing that poor man Tony Martin who is wrongfully sitting in jail.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not comparing the US with the UK, I was trying to understand what happened when the UK took away people's guns, and the material I found plus the statistics Tangle posted all suggest they got an increase in gun crime during the years immediately following the ban. That includes the graph in the report he posted. If the graph doesn't give an accurate picture then somebody needs to post statistics that actually reflect something meaningful. So far all the statistics posted here look untrustworthy.

Then why add yours to the bunch? Lotta clever logic there. The reality is something quite different, ACCORDING to the citizens of the UK and of Australia who were deprived of their guns, who were interviewed on the videos I linked somewhere back there.The reality is that law-abiding gun-owning citizens have been deprived of their means of self-defense while crime has risen and made them and everybody else victims of criminals.It could be, very likely could be, that forces of tyranny against the entire nations of the UK and Australia are just waiting in the wings to bring you all into bondage, tyrannies that few have the sense to anticipate these days, that laws allowing citizen possession of guns are meant to restrain. Too late now. You're all sitting ducks now.It could happen very soon in the US as well, certainly looks like the Left is building up to that and soon the Second Amendment will be history. Sad to see the west go down like this but we've seen it coming for years, at least Christian have, who are the only ones who have any idea WHY all this is happening.=======
ABE: And just as an afterthought, I was responding to statistics posted by Tangle, and if they didn't reflect the REAL effect of a real rise in criminality from the gun ban but only this nonsense about some irrelevant initial fake effect, this illusion of higher criminality, WHY POST SUCH STATISTICS AT ALL?This is what I was complaining about way back there. The statistics are not to be trusted, as in this case they don't really reflect anything meaningful; also you can find statistics on both sides of this, and on top of that it looks like anyone can come along and make them mean whatever you want them to mean anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I still think a teacher or two from each school should have a gun. Certainly the Principal who died trying to stop the Connecticut shooter would have been well served to have one. And shopkeepers in malls and someone in every business and every home. \
\
BUT schools could at least hire security guards. That's not too outlandish an idea, no need to deprive the millions of law-abiding citizens of their guns, just a little common sense here.

The more I read the posts on this thread the more I worry about the disaster coming if Americans are disarmed.Much of the thinking here is absurd. You know that when the UK and Australia were disarmed crime went up, particularly home invasions, but all people here care about is the specific number of deaths, other kinds of crimes are treated as trivial although they victimize innocent people and can ruin their lives. You have the nerve to suggest that's caring too much about "things." No, that's caring about personal security, FREEDOM, safety, JUSTICE, a civilized society. You all want barbarianism and social chaos apparently.And you aren't even asking WHAT deaths, do you include criminals killed in the act or what? And someone actually says he cares as much about the death of the criminal as the victim. It sounds like you guys have a terrible time telling the difference and you really don't care. The guy killing someone in the defense of his house is as bad as the guy breaking in. This is crazy. No wonder the west is going down.To prevent the murders we've been seeing more and more of the solution is NOT gun bans and gun control. The solution is to have some kind of security in place to stop such things from happening, whether that means allowing the arming of personnel or hiring security guards.The crazies are choosing the locations where guns are not allowed because they can get away with their murders there but everybody irrationally screams MORE GUN CONTROl anyway.In two of those cases there were initial reports of a second shooter, at Connecticut and at Aurora. Anybody wonder why those second parties disappeared from the news? Let me guess that the second party could be a provocateur and the intention was to provoke the murderous rampage by the first and then disappear, and the ultimate objective is to kill the second amendment, to disarm the country and set us up for government or other tyranny. Yes, I suspect a conspiracy, could be wrong, could just be lone crazies, but I suspect it, largely because of this illogical but predictable cry for gun control after every such incident.And now it looks like they are going to do it to us, they've got the momentum they wanted from this evil murderous rampage, they've got people crying for gun control over the most hideous nightmarish murder imaginable so they've got the excuse they've been looking for and they're now going to take some of our guns away from us.In reality preventing such occurrences really is as simple as I suggest above, and gun control is only going to set the country up for more crime and probably some horrible kind of really really serious curtailment of our freedoms in the near future.To reduce crime you need to protect the rights of the citizens who do have guns. Instead we're stupidly restricting their rights and criminalizing them when they defend themselves. Yes sometimes people overreact but that's a matter of training. MORE TRAINING< fine, more training in judging situations, when to shoot, protecting people in the background, keeping guns from people with mental instability, all of that. But crime would GO DOWN if citizen gun owners' rights were defended instead of restricted to the point that guns aren't available or usable when needed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's possible of course but then wouldn't there be reports correcting the previous reports of another shooter and explaining the error? Instead there seems to have been a total absence of such reports.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hello Straggler:Did you watch the video where UK citizens who had been deprived of their guns talked about how they feel they've been victimized by their government? Message 374Same thing in Australia. Message 377Are you aware of any of the history of the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms? We got it from you. Message 57 article at bottom

If there are laws that favor criminals obtaining weapons, those need to be changed.The problem is that when this subject comes up it's the law-abiding citrizens who are targeted by the gun control fanatics.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And that gives you an excuse to take the guns away from millions of other law-abiding citizens, right? You'd all prefer that to arming a few principals and teachers or installing a security guard in every school and business.Point stands: tighten laws that make it easy for criminals to get guns. Leave the upright citizens alone. We have the Second Amendment for very good reason. The UK and Australia are now in terrible shape because of their gun bans.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.