Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do you believe the UK did the right thing by banning guns?
What do you think America would be like without guns?
How would people react to such a law if it were put into effect in the U.S.?

Wow. You opened a can of worms with that post.

See my sig for how I feel.

I think violent crimes would get worse. common sense dictates that banning guns only allows criminals more targets in knowing law abiding citizens will not be armed.
Beside criminals arent going to stop commiting crimes because of one more. no criminal not going to rob a bank because he doesnt want to break a gun law.

In before fatewea... Damnit.

There are too many guns in circulation for this to be feasible.

There are also too many gun-nuts in circulation for this to be feasible.

I dont believe the people would except it. Evan if it was forced upon them im sure we would see a lot more zip guns.

Fortunately there aren't enough anti-gun nuts to make this feasible.

Fateweaver wrote:Fortunately there aren't enough anti-gun nuts to make this feasible.

Thank God!

Hmmm,this thread should be interesting.
I will first attempt to answer the OPs questions as best I can.

1.Whether I belive the UK did "the right thing" in banning guns is irrelevent,it's their system and I suppose it works for them.

2. If America was totaly "disarmed" (no criminals with guns,no citizens with guns and no cops with guns)who knows,things might be better.

3.People would go apegak.

I am a gun owner who doesn't particularly "like" guns,I own guns because I want to be able to protect my family if the need arises,and have no real faith in police to do so.

Putting your faith in the police is like putting your family jewels in the mouth of an alligator. Might seem like the right thing to do at the time but it's going to come back to bite you and in a painful way.

blood red 1 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Fortunately there aren't enough anti-gun nuts to make this feasible.

Thank God!

Did you start a question thread while having your mind already totally made up?

Putting your faith in the police is like putting your family jewels in the mouth of an alligator. Might seem like the right thing to do at the time but it's going to come back to bite you and in a painful way.

When your son doesn't shoot himself in the face on accident when he's five and eventually grows up to overthrow and devour you!

ShumaGorath wrote:

blood red 1 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Fortunately there aren't enough anti-gun nuts to make this feasible.

Thank God!

Did you start a question thread while having your mind already totally made up?

Putting your faith in the police is like putting your family jewels in the mouth of an alligator. Might seem like the right thing to do at the time but it's going to come back to bite you and in a painful way.

When your son doesn't shoot himself in the face on accident when he's five and eventually grows up to overthrow and devour you!

No but im glad to see my base opinion is shared.

Fateweaver wrote:Putting your faith in the police is like putting your family jewels in the mouth of an alligator. Might seem like the right thing to do at the time but it's going to come back to bite you and in a painful way.

I have to agree with you here Fate,far to many times I have seen police arive just in time to help no one and wander about trying to sound "official" while attempting to figure out "what happened."
I just don't have any faith at all in "serve and protect".

ShumaGorath wrote:

blood red 1 wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Fortunately there aren't enough anti-gun nuts to make this feasible.

Thank God!

Did you start a question thread while having your mind already totally made up?

Putting your faith in the police is like putting your family jewels in the mouth of an alligator. Might seem like the right thing to do at the time but it's going to come back to bite you and in a painful way.

When your son doesn't shoot himself in the face on accident when he's five and eventually grows up to overthrow and devour you!

Would never happen as A) I'd never leave a loaded gun where my son could access it and B) Well, B is irrelevant as A would prevent any accidents.

Fateweaver wrote:Putting your faith in the police is like putting your family jewels in the mouth of an alligator. Might seem like the right thing to do at the time but it's going to come back to bite you and in a painful way.

When does putting your balls in an alligator's mouth seem like the right thing to do? You're fething weird, man.


I'm telling.

I bet someone drunk enough has done that. I haven't since no alligators in Mn but I have done things I would never want on youtube.

Honestly I feel that its a terrible idea. Having an armed population is a good deterrent to potential invaders (see Afghanistan), and it also help keep the government honest.

I imagine it would be nearly impossible for the majority population of the UK to overthrow their government at this point. (see Burma, North Korea, 90% of the African nations, etc.)

An armed populace is hardly a deterrent for invaders.

The billions of dollars worth of tanks, planes, and bombs, are a deterrent for invaders.

I am "pro gun" in the same sense that I am "pro skillet" or "pro chalkboard eraser" and think that banning guns in the US would have a similar effect on violent crime rates as banning either of those items. Perhaps things are different in the UK. Wouldn't know and don't particularly care.

Economic globalization is a deterrent to war (war not crimes, dumb typo), as are supercruising jets with a radar signature the size of a metal marble. An armed populace has never really been a significant deterrent in light of an intended invasion. If the civilian population itself is a deterrent to invasion than your military force doesn't have the projection capability to likely take the military of the country you are invading regardless. In which case you will just use other artifacts of war, such as air or sea supremacy to force surrender. Things civilians really can't do anything about.

I am "pro gun" in the same sense that I am "pro skillet" or "pro chalkboard eraser" and think that banning guns in the US would have a similar effect on violent crime rates as banning either of those items. Perhaps things are different in the UK. Wouldn't know and don't particularly care.

Depends on the type of crime. Banning guns would likely appreciably reduce the number of fatal crimes of passion and would loogically lead to a higher percentile of arrests concerning those that sell guns illegally (It's much easier to track the flow of an illegal commodity when it has no legal system to hide in). It would likely not appreciably lower actual crime statistics for a number of years though it would certainly enable convictions for crimes involving guns in light of the reduced field on which they have to be searched.

Doesn't matter though, it's not going to happen. There's no massive anti gun majority and whats there is fairly fracturous.

ShumaGorath wrote:Economic globalization is a deterrent to crimes, as are supercruising jets with a radar signature the size of a metal marble. An armed populace has never really been a significant deterrent in light of an intended invasion. If the civilian population itself is a deterrent to invasion than your military force doesn't have the projection capability to likely take the military of the country you are invading regardless. In which case you will just use other artifacts of war, such as air or sea supremacy to force surrender. Things civilians really can't do anything about.

+1

If you manage to get through the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, armed civilians are easy mode.

From my own experience, I think the amount of crime resulting from passion and involving guns is just a sliver of the violent crime pie (yes, appreciably larger than those involving skillets and chalkboard erasers ). Crimes of passion are also rarely the forte of repeat offenders. The other categories (illegal gun trade convictions, etc.) are a bit truistic, as I think you recognize.

Manchu wrote:From my own experience, I think the amount of crime resulting from passion and involving guns is just a sliver of the violent crime pie. Crimes of passion are also rarely the forte of repeat offenders. The other categories (illegakl gun trade convictions) are a bit truistic, as I think you recognize.

Certainly, though the fact remains that it is easier to track gun runners when they are running a commodity that is entirely illegal than it is to track them when most wouldn't give their commodity the time of day. The number would certainly rise as those who once acted legally begin to act illegally, but the same holds true for those who were always working outside the law.

“I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not
spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly
throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies
shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.” 37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all lawabiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40… ‘

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The availability of firearms has nothing to do with the violent crime or murder rate.
IN the UK, gun deaths have gone UP since they were banned.

“THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures – which exclude crimes involving air weapons – show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day. “


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

IG_urban wrote:“I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not
spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly
throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies
shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.” 37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all lawabiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40… ‘

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The availability of firearms has nothing to do with the violent crime or murder rate.
IN the UK, gun deaths have gone UP since they were banned.

“THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures – which exclude crimes involving air weapons – show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day. “


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

I'm not sure that's true because most recent statistics show that England and Wales is at 1.37 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants and in 1998 they were at 1.45 per 100,000 people.

You seem to be confusing overall deaths with the number of gun related deaths. The two aren't necessarily connected. One can go up while the other goes down, and vice-versa.

Ahtman wrote:You seem to be confusing overall deaths with the number of gun related deaths. The two aren't necessarily connected. One can go up while the other goes down, and vice-versa.

I guess you're right then, but less homicides overall does make UK a safer place, doesn't it?

Cheesecat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You seem to be confusing overall deaths with the number of gun related deaths. The two aren't necessarily connected. One can go up while the other goes down, and vice-versa.

I guess you're right then, but less homicides overall does make UK a safer place, doesn't it?

But tying that to the illegal status of guns creates a false corollary that implies that the lack of legal firearms increases gun deaths when rapidly shifting british urban society is much more likely to blame.