The 2nd Amendment

[spartan]

Just look at those poor Brits getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions in England! If only they had more guns there!

England has had strict regulations placed on firearms since the beginning of the 20th century, yet only in recent years has the crime rate reached higher proportions there than in the US. Now, logic would suggest that this means the rise in crime there would appear to be in no way related to stricter gun laws, or the lack thereof. Especially since gun laws in the US have gotten tighter in recent years than in past years, yet the crime rate here has been declining.

Actually, yes they are (getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions.)

You are correct that gun laws in the UK have been stricter than the US for a long time, over 100 years, but the epidemic you reference only seems to have started after all firearms were essentially banned. And, I would also like to point out that once again you are correct that violent crime has decreased - in States where CCW permits have increased dramatically!!!!

[Dolorous Jason]

spin spin spin spin spin spin...

[olafberserker]

spin spin spin spin spin spin...

wait .... are you the first to say that?

[dalbuc]

Just look at those poor Brits getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions in England! If only they had more guns there!

England has had strict regulations placed on firearms since the beginning of the 20th century, yet only in recent years has the crime rate reached higher proportions there than in the US. Now, logic would suggest that this means the rise in crime there would appear to be in no way related to stricter gun laws, or the lack thereof. Especially since gun laws in the US have gotten tighter in recent years than in past years, yet the crime rate here has been declining.

Actually, yes they are (getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions.)

You are correct that gun laws in the UK have been stricter than the US for a long time, over 100 years, but the epidemic you reference only seems to have started after all firearms were essentially banned. And, I would also like to point out that once again you are correct that violent crime has decreased - in States where CCW permits have increased dramatically!!!!

Just to add some reportage to this comment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

[Durango 95]

The point being is that many people living in the UK fear just walking their own streets.

They've been rendered completely impotent to provide in their own self defense. The criminals are well aware of that which emboldens them to run rough-shot over the citizenry. Couple that w/ that fact that some crimes are (by policy) ignored by police. Also, sentencing and imprisonment have been effectively emasculated. In other words it's idiotic liberalism run wild, in essence, the kind of society some on this board are advocating through their own gun control hysteria.

* Britannia may have once ruled the waves but now it can't even rule its own streets.

[CBWx2]

Just look at those poor Brits getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions in England! If only they had more guns there!

England has had strict regulations placed on firearms since the beginning of the 20th century, yet only in recent years has the crime rate reached higher proportions there than in the US. Now, logic would suggest that this means the rise in crime there would appear to be in no way related to stricter gun laws, or the lack thereof. Especially since gun laws in the US have gotten tighter in recent years than in past years, yet the crime rate here has been declining.

Actually, yes they are (getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions.)

You are correct that gun laws in the UK have been stricter than the US for a long time, over 100 years, but the epidemic you reference only seems to have started after all firearms were essentially banned. And, I would also like to point out that once again you are correct that violent crime has decreased - in States where CCW permits have increased dramatically!!!!

Crime stats in the UK have risen, but I'd hardly classify it as an epidemic. That was Durango's characterization. He was also wrong about the rape statistics. The statistics he used were of the percentage of the population that identified themselves as rape victims, not the actual number of reported rapes.  Even though incidents of rape are on the rise in the UK, the incident rate there is still far lower than it is in the US. The latest available statistics show that 30 of every 100,000 people in the US were victims of rape as opposed to 14 of every 100,000 people in the UK.

Also, the most recent gun ban to go into effect in the UK was in 1997. That ban affected roughly 0.1% of the population. The likelihood of a criminal being shot by a victim was virtually unaffected by this ban due to the fact that so few people in the UK owned firearms anyway.

Finally, this from the article that dalbuc just posted:

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray (a public altercation that disturbs the peace) is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.

But Police Minister David Hanson said: "These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behavior that we would categorize as violent crime."

I wonder what a comparison of violent crime between the UK and the US would reveal if only the US qualifications of what constitutes a violent crime were used? I suspect that such a comparison would only serve to further weaken your argument.

That aside, I wouldn't wish to impose the type of restrictions that the UK has. I don't think an all out ban is neccessary. Just common sense monitoring and distribution, similar to what is currently practiced in Norway, albeit with slightly more stringent requirements due the the relatively higher rate of violent crimes in occurrence here than what exists there.

For example:

A) In 33 states, firearms can be purchased without even so much as showing an ID. 80% of the firearms used in violent crimes are obtained in this fashion. This practice needs to be deemed illegal, and violators need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The goal should be that no one should be in possession of a firearm that cannot be directly traced back to them. Existing gun laws don't even promote something as common sense as that.

B) Laws in Israel put a cap on the number of gun ownership and require an expressed need be displayed before licenses are even granted. Something similar to this would be beneficial. One non-semi automatic firearm per licensee can be distributed for the purposes of self defense. This is more than sufficient. Other forms of weaponry, such as hunting rifles should require specific licensing for purchase, and the number allowed per licensee should also be limited. 

C) Technology currently exists that would encode ammunition with a traceable serial number. This should be required by federal law. Bullets should be just as traceable to a specific owner as guns should.

D) High volume magazine clips should be banned, and the sale and distribution of standard clips should be heavily regulated. These should be encoded with serial numbers as well. If we can keep track of the amount of cold medicine a person buys, we should be able to keep track of the amount of guns, ammunition, and ammunition clips a person buys.

In terms of the causation debate, the answer to that is simple. Countries that have the highest levels of egalitarianism and the least amount of income and resource disparity also have the lowest levels of crime and mental health disorders. That "European socialism" that you all are so fond of demonizing happens to boast the safest, healthiest, and happiest societies in the world. They even manage to maintain that safety without an armed populace. Imagine that.

[Chief Joseph]

 " That "European socialism" that you all are so fond of demonizing happens to boast the safest, healthiest, and happiest societies in the world "

Your agenda is showing, ma'am.

[CBWx2]

 " That "European socialism" that you all are so fond of demonizing happens to boast the safest, healthiest, and happiest societies in the world "

Your agenda is showing, ma'am.

Who would have thunk me of all people would be an advocate of European socialism? Nothing gets past you, Columbo.

[Dolorous Jason]

Europe is going broke faster than we are. No wonder the black hole is such a fan.

[spartan]

"In Britain, an affray (a public altercation that disturbs the peace) is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured."

Generally speaking an affray in the UK is a violent act that is more than 2 people having a fight but less than a riot. More often than not it is accompanied with a charge of a section 5 assault which is greater than bruising (black eye etc) but less than serious bodily harm (carted off on a stretcher). Broken nose, drawing blood etc are common evidence of section 5. So, yes it is a violent act.

[spartan]

Just look at those poor Brits getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions in England! If only they had more guns there!

England has had strict regulations placed on firearms since the beginning of the 20th century, yet only in recent years has the crime rate reached higher proportions there than in the US. Now, logic would suggest that this means the rise in crime there would appear to be in no way related to stricter gun laws, or the lack thereof. Especially since gun laws in the US have gotten tighter in recent years than in past years, yet the crime rate here has been declining.

Actually, yes they are (getting raped and assaulted in epidemic proportions.)

You are correct that gun laws in the UK have been stricter than the US for a long time, over 100 years, but the epidemic you reference only seems to have started after all firearms were essentially banned. And, I would also like to point out that once again you are correct that violent crime has decreased - in States where CCW permits have increased dramatically!!!!

Crime stats in the UK have risen, but I'd hardly classify it as an epidemic. That was Durango's characterization. He was also wrong about the rape statistics. The statistics he used were of the percentage of the population that identified themselves as rape victims, not the actual number of reported rapes.  Even though incidents of rape are on the rise in the UK, the incident rate there is still far lower than it is in the US. The latest available statistics show that 30 of every 100,000 people in the US were victims of rape as opposed to 14 of every 100,000 people in the UK.

Also, the most recent gun ban to go into effect in the UK was in 1997. That ban affected roughly 0.1% of the population. The likelihood of a criminal being shot by a victim was virtually unaffected by this ban due to the fact that so few people in the UK owned firearms anyway.

Finally, this from the article that dalbuc just posted:

But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.

In Britain, an affray (a public altercation that disturbs the peace) is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.

But Police Minister David Hanson said: "These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behavior that we would categorize as violent crime."

I wonder what a comparison of violent crime between the UK and the US would reveal if only the US qualifications of what constitutes a violent crime were used? I suspect that such a comparison would only serve to further weaken your argument.

That aside, I wouldn't wish to impose the type of restrictions that the UK has. I don't think an all out ban is neccessary. Just common sense monitoring and distribution, similar to what is currently practiced in Norway, albeit with slightly more stringent requirements due the the relatively higher rate of violent crimes in occurrence here than what exists there.

For example:

A) In 33 states, firearms can be purchased without even so much as showing an ID. 80% of the firearms used in violent crimes are obtained in this fashion. This practice needs to be deemed illegal, and violators need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The goal should be that no one should be in possession of a firearm that cannot be directly traced back to them. Existing gun laws don't even promote something as common sense as that.

B) Laws in Israel put a cap on the number of gun ownership and require an expressed need be displayed before licenses are even granted. Something similar to this would be beneficial. One non-semi automatic firearm per licensee can be distributed for the purposes of self defense. This is more than sufficient. Other forms of weaponry, such as hunting rifles should require specific licensing for purchase, and the number allowed per licensee should also be limited. 

C) Technology currently exists that would encode ammunition with a traceable serial number. This should be required by federal law. Bullets should be just as traceable to a specific owner as guns should.

D) High volume magazine clips should be banned, and the sale and distribution of standard clips should be heavily regulated. These should be encoded with serial numbers as well. If we can keep track of the amount of cold medicine a person buys, we should be able to keep track of the amount of guns, ammunition, and ammunition clips a person buys.

In terms of the causation debate, the answer to that is simple. Countries that have the highest levels of egalitarianism and the least amount of income and resource disparity also have the lowest levels of crime and mental health disorders. That "European socialism" that you all are so fond of demonizing happens to boast the safest, healthiest, and happiest societies in the world. They even manage to maintain that safety without an armed populace. Imagine that.

Have you been to Europe?

The egalitarian eutopia that you describe bears no resemblance to the place I lived in for 33 years.

[Durango 95]

For example:

A) In 33 states, firearms can be purchased without even so much as showing an ID. 80% of the firearms used in violent crimes are obtained in this fashion. This practice needs to be deemed illegal, and violators need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The goal should be that no one should be in possession of a firearm that cannot be directly traced back to them. Existing gun laws don't even promote something as common sense as that.

B) Laws in Israel put a cap on the number of gun ownership and require an expressed need be displayed before licenses are even granted. Something similar to this would be beneficial. One non-semi automatic firearm per licensee can be distributed for the purposes of self defense. This is more than sufficient. Other forms of weaponry, such as hunting rifles should require specific licensing for purchase, and the number allowed per licensee should also be limited. 

C) Technology currently exists that would encode ammunition with a traceable serial number. This should be required by federal law. Bullets should be just as traceable to a specific owner as guns should.

D) High volume magazine clips should be banned, and the sale and distribution of standard clips should be heavily regulated. These should be encoded with serial numbers as well. If we can keep track of the amount of cold medicine a person buys, we should be able to keep track of the amount of guns, ammunition, and ammunition clips a person buys

-------------------


There you have it.

Just the first-step towards stripping you of your fundamental liberties.

Liberties to be sacrificed for the socialist's promise of a safer society.

If you don't like this then you won't like what follows.

[CBWx2]

For example:

A) In 33 states, firearms can be purchased without even so much as showing an ID. 80% of the firearms used in violent crimes are obtained in this fashion. This practice needs to be deemed illegal, and violators need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The goal should be that no one should be in possession of a firearm that cannot be directly traced back to them. Existing gun laws don't even promote something as common sense as that.

B) Laws in Israel put a cap on the number of gun ownership and require an expressed need be displayed before licenses are even granted. Something similar to this would be beneficial. One non-semi automatic firearm per licensee can be distributed for the purposes of self defense. This is more than sufficient. Other forms of weaponry, such as hunting rifles should require specific licensing for purchase, and the number allowed per licensee should also be limited. 

C) Technology currently exists that would encode ammunition with a traceable serial number. This should be required by federal law. Bullets should be just as traceable to a specific owner as guns should.

D) High volume magazine clips should be banned, and the sale and distribution of standard clips should be heavily regulated. These should be encoded with serial numbers as well. If we can keep track of the amount of cold medicine a person buys, we should be able to keep track of the amount of guns, ammunition, and ammunition clips a person buys

-------------------


There you have it.

Just the first-step towards stripping you of your fundamental liberties.

Liberties to be sacrificed for the socialist's promise of a safer society.

If you don't like this then you won't like what follows.

Ah I see. You asked me to post what I'd advocate so that you can argue against a new straw man. Kinda like that whole "idiotic liberalism" nonsense you posted a few quotes earlier. What a joke you have become.

[CBWx2]

Have you been to Europe?

The egalitarian eutopia that you describe bears no resemblance to the place I lived in for 33 years.

Given how wildly different your concept of America is to my own, a place I'm fairly certain I've lived in longer than you, I'd venture to guess that you and I wouldn't see it the same way regardless of that fact.

[Durango 95]

For example:

A) In 33 states, firearms can be purchased without even so much as showing an ID. 80% of the firearms used in violent crimes are obtained in this fashion. This practice needs to be deemed illegal, and violators need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The goal should be that no one should be in possession of a firearm that cannot be directly traced back to them. Existing gun laws don't even promote something as common sense as that.

B) Laws in Israel put a cap on the number of gun ownership and require an expressed need be displayed before licenses are even granted. Something similar to this would be beneficial. One non-semi automatic firearm per licensee can be distributed for the purposes of self defense. This is more than sufficient. Other forms of weaponry, such as hunting rifles should require specific licensing for purchase, and the number allowed per licensee should also be limited. 

C) Technology currently exists that would encode ammunition with a traceable serial number. This should be required by federal law. Bullets should be just as traceable to a specific owner as guns should.

D) High volume magazine clips should be banned, and the sale and distribution of standard clips should be heavily regulated. These should be encoded with serial numbers as well. If we can keep track of the amount of cold medicine a person buys, we should be able to keep track of the amount of guns, ammunition, and ammunition clips a person buys

-------------------


There you have it.

Just the first-step towards stripping you of your fundamental liberties.

Liberties to be sacrificed for the socialist's promise of a safer society.

If you don't like this then you won't like what follows.

Ah I see. You asked me to post what I'd advocate so that you can argue against a new straw man. Kinda like that whole "idiotic liberalism" nonsense you posted a few quotes earlier. What a joke you have become.

"Who would have thunk me of all people would be an advocate of European socialism?"

Your words not mine....another self indictment you can't run from.