Opinion on the ban
British- Handguns should be legal
8.6% (20)
8.6% (20)
British- Handguns shouldn
38.6% (90)
38.6% (90)
Country with legal handguns- Handguns in Britain should be legal
30% (70)
30% (70)
Country with legal handguns- Handguns in Britain shouldn
5.6% (13)
5.6% (13)
Country without legal handguns- Britain should have legal handguns
2.1% (5)
2.1% (5)
Country without legal handguns- Britain shouldn
13.7% (32)
13.7% (32)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: UK Pistol Ban: Opinions

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 15 NEXT
 

I live in the Britain, and so I've been cut off from (real) handguns for my entire life. I understand why handguns are banned in Britain, but I believe that the decision to confiscate them was a knee-jerk reaction fuelled by the public's misapprehension that anyone who owned a pistol or revolver, whether for self-defence or for sport, was a psychopathic murderer like Thomas Hamilton. (For those who don't know, Hamilton murdered sixteen five-year olds and their teacher, an act which led to all handguns being banned in Britain.) I've heard arguments for the ban, mainly centering on 'Pistols kill. We don't need them in the UK', but the amount of gun crime has increased since they were banned, because now law abiding Joe Public has no way to defend himself against an armed robber. And the police are always going to take at least ten to fifteen minutes to arrive. Anyway, I was wondering what the general consensus was on The Escapist, where most people can actually form a decent argument. And when you post (if you do), can you state your nationality, or if your nation has legal pistols. Also, don't bother trying to insult me saying how I'm insane if you don't have a good argument.

And another thing I nearly forgot, is anyone else thinking it's a bit thick that the UK shooting team for the Olympics has to practice abroad?

EDIT: The poll has messed up slightly, options 2, 4, and 6 are against handguns.

Dutch, not to sure about the laws regarding handguns here but you can't buy them in the supermarket. I think they should be legal.

Our rate of gun homicides is incredibly low. More than twice as low as Germany and more than thirty times lower than the US and ours is currently falling (all this is as of a 3/4 years ago, might have changed since then but likely not drastically).

If someone robs a store with some imitation hand-gun that probably doesn't even fire, I believe that counts as a gun crime but I'd much prefer that to happen than for someone to actually be shot and die with a real gun.

We should be proud of what banning guns has done.

I don't really think there's any need for them beyond competitive shooting, and you don't need to personally own one for that. You can still legally own a shotgun, which is fairly suitable for home defense, and actually has a legitimate use if you're living on a farm.

I'm actually not sure what I think about it. On the one hand, when you ban guns, all you're doing is making sure the only people who own guns are criminals. I don't think someone who wants to use a gun for less than legal things will let a ban stop him - hell, if I really really wanted one and had a few more Euros lying around I could probably buy one within the next week, and I'm not even that well connected.

I know for a fact it's as simple as going up to someone and asking in Manchester for example, although theres a good chance you'll just get robbed.

On the other, how high are the gun crime rates in the US? I've seen a lot of statistics that are manipulated in one way or another (for instance, a lot of these gun crime statistics count suicide as a shooting).

The real question is; would legalizing guns increase criminal activity and lead to a rise in violence? Guns do make murder, robbery and what not a lot more easy to pull off, although again, you might be out of luck if the guy you're trying to rob pulls a gun too....

Australia here, it was because of a similar incident in which a deranged psychopath decided to take a high powered firearm and kill a bunch of people (The Port Arthur massacre) that we have possibly the most restrictive access to firearms in the world. You can get hold of a gun, but there are massive restrictions and licensing required before you even get to fire a pistol in a shooting range. There are also laws in place restricting magazine capacity, ammunition caliber, gun type and barrel length.
While I don't think firearms should be totally banned, I do support the very strict laws in place to govern their ownership. While it is very true that guns don't kill people, a nut job that can only access a .32 caliber pistol with ten rounds is going to be doing a hell of a lot less damage than one armed with an assault rifle and a backpack of ammo.

Although I think that handguns were banned for the wrong reason - knee jerk "think of the children" bullshit - I can't honestly say anything of value has been lost in their absence. I quite like living in a country (the UK) where I can be fairly confident that I have very little chance of ever having a gun pulled on me. Yes, guns get used in gang shootings, but they're mostly used in inter-gane violence, and much less commonly in burglaries or robberies.

I've never supported the idea that "making guns illegal only hurts the law-abiding citizen, since criminals don't follow the law". The ease with which you can get your hands on a gun, and the number of guns in circulation, is surely proportional to the frequency of guns used illegally.

Taham:
And another thing I nearly forgot, is anyone else thinking it's a bit thick that the UK shooting team for the Olympics has to practice abroad?

Citation please? Pistol shooting clubs still exist in the UK, and what's more I visited what IIRC is the home of British Olympic shooting a few years back (unhelpfully I can't remember the name for the life of me).

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
The real question is; would legalizing guns increase criminal activity and lead to a rise in violence? Guns do make murder, robbery and what not a lot more easy to pull off, although again, you might be out of luck if the guy you're trying to rob pulls a gun too....

The UK has one of the harshest set of gun laws in the world and according to the British Crime Survey it has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths, which are measured in dozens of incidents across the entire country per year rather than hundreds or thousands.

Coming from Australia we have 765,000 people that own and operate firearms. Most of these people are farmers or live on the frontier and thus require such firearms for culling kangaroos, Boars and Crocs. Or just getting a meal. Whatever the case I don't understand the purpose of a handguns circulating in public ownership, specifically that of city folk.

Handguns are designed as backup weapons for professional soldiers and are thus design not to 'defend' or intimidate but to kill, most in production in today are double action or semi-automatic which makes them over powered for the purposes of game hunting or plinking targets appropriate to their caliber.

If you want a 'defensive' firearm than single or double barreled shotguns would suffice. To be brutally honest I don't think that the general public should have access to any semi-automatic. double action or automatic firearms of any sort. Bolt action and muzzle loaded firearms only.

The big stuff should be left to the Govt.

I don't see any particular reason to lift firearms controls in the UK. I quite like living in a country where gun crime is minimal.

Now we just wait for the American posters to break the relative consensus in this thread...

Being from the only nation that has it as a constitutional right to own firearms (Heller vs. DC cemented that and legally the "militia argument" cannot be used to regulate firearms ever again), and being a Libertarian, I do think people should legally be allowed to own pistols and other firearms.

Overhead:
Our rate of gun homicides is incredibly low. More than twice as low as Germany and more than thirty times lower than the US and ours is currently falling (all this is as of a 3/4 years ago, might have changed since then but likely not drastically).

If someone robs a store with some imitation hand-gun that probably doesn't even fire, I believe that counts as a gun crime but I'd much prefer that to happen than for someone to actually be shot and die with a real gun.

We should be proud of what banning guns has done.

No, not true.

Here is a study done by Harvard (a well respected university with 0 ties with the NRA or any other firearm lobbying group or maker) found that the ease of legally aquiring firearms does NOT increase the murder rate.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Batou667:
Although I think that handguns were banned for the wrong reason - knee jerk "think of the children" bullshit - I can't honestly say anything of value has been lost in their absence. I quite like living in a country (the UK) where I can be fairly confident that I have very little chance of ever having a gun pulled on me. Yes, guns get used in gang shootings, but they're mostly used in inter-gane violence, and much less commonly in burglaries or robberies.

I've never supported the idea that "making guns illegal only hurts the law-abiding citizen, since criminals don't follow the law". The ease with which you can get your hands on a gun, and the number of guns in circulation, is surely proportional to the frequency of guns used illegally.

Taham:
And another thing I nearly forgot, is anyone else thinking it's a bit thick that the UK shooting team for the Olympics has to practice abroad?

Citation please? Pistol shooting clubs still exist in the UK, and what's more I visited what IIRC is the home of British Olympic shooting a few years back (unhelpfully I can't remember the name for the life of me).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4162498.stm

I've noticed that people often reference the USA in their argument, but the USA has few restrictions on handguns,(remember that 'legal handguns' does not mean they can't be heavily licensed) and is not the only country with them available.

Question: why would you need handguns?

Apart from that no answer to that question can possibly outweight the massive downsides, why on earth would you need handguns? Sport doesn't count because you can in a very tightly regulated environment too.

Taham:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4162498.stm

How odd. That article is dated 2005, but even so, strange to think that this was the case.

Also, if the Oly team could legally train on the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, why travel all the way to Switzerland...?

Batou667:

Taham:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4162498.stm

How odd. That article is dated 2005, but even so, strange to think that this was the case.

Also, if the Oly team could legally train on the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, why travel all the way to Switzerland...?

Because the Swiss are really, REALLY good at shooting. Every citizen is required to keep their marksmanship skills sharp (the entire nation is always ready for war at any time, and has ben for centuries) so if you want to train your ability to shoot things, train with the Swiss.

Not G. Ivingname:
Because the Swiss are really, REALLY good at shooting. Every citizen is required to keep their marksmanship skills sharp (the entire nation is always ready for war at any time, and has ben for centuries) so if you want to train your ability to shoot things, train with the Swiss.

That's stuff that's on par with 'North Korea has the greatest army on the planet, every citizen will fight the Americans when the Great Leader only gives thew word'.

With the exception that North Koreans have somewhat 'recently' shown they can actually fight, so it can't be all nonsense, whereas Switserland, what have they done anywhere recently on the world stage besides be glad with all the gold their friendly nazi buddies gave them?

Blablahb:

Not G. Ivingname:
Because the Swiss are really, REALLY good at shooting. Every citizen is required to keep their marksmanship skills sharp (the entire nation is always ready for war at any time, and has ben for centuries) so if you want to train your ability to shoot things, train with the Swiss.

That's stuff that's on par with 'North Korea has the greatest army on the planet, every citizen will fight the Americans when the Great Leader only gives thew word'.

With the exception that North Koreans have somewhat 'recently' shown they can actually fight, so it can't be all nonsense, whereas Switserland, what have they done anywhere recently on the world stage besides be glad with all the gold their friendly nazi buddies gave them?

You mean these 'friendly nazi buddies'?

OT: To be honest I'm not sure what making handguns available to the public would achieve. If you want to defend your home, then shotguns serve perfectly well.

Fuck no, chavs already stab enough people, we don't need to give them the ability to stab at long range too.

If guns were legalised here, I don't think I'd ever enter a deprived area like Newham again.

The only people who need guns are farmers - and that's rifles.

Mr Cwtchy:
You mean these 'friendly nazi buddies'?

Yes those. One click away from what you googled up:

"Between 1940 and 1945, the German Reichsbank sold 1.3 billion francs worth of gold to Swiss Banks in exchange for Swiss francs and other foreign currency, which were used to buy strategically important raw materials like tungsten and oil from neutral countries.[19] Hundreds of millions of francs worth of this gold was monetary gold plundered from the central banks of occupied countries. A total of 581,000 francs' worth of "Melmer" gold taken from Holocaust victims in eastern Europe was sold to Swiss banks."

Also the nazi family values caught on pretty good in Switserland; women's voting rights are dated 1990. The last country in Europe to have women's voting rights. Women also inherit their husband's academic titles in Switserland, because after all, what could a useless woman ever accomplish in education? Then again, if she gets too many clever ideas, just take your army issue rifle and kill her, or her and your children. The rate of family slayings in Switserland is catastrophically high. Even three times as many as in the US with it's gun culture and rampant violence. Apparently the rate of family massacres is the highest anywhere in Europe.

Not G. Ivingname:
Being from the only nation that has it as a constitutional right to own firearms (Heller vs. DC cemented that and legally the "militia argument" cannot be used to regulate firearms ever again), and being a Libertarian, I do think people should legally be allowed to own pistols and other firearms.

Overhead:
Our rate of gun homicides is incredibly low. More than twice as low as Germany and more than thirty times lower than the US and ours is currently falling (all this is as of a 3/4 years ago, might have changed since then but likely not drastically).

If someone robs a store with some imitation hand-gun that probably doesn't even fire, I believe that counts as a gun crime but I'd much prefer that to happen than for someone to actually be shot and die with a real gun.

We should be proud of what banning guns has done.

No, not true.

Here is a study done by Harvard (a well respected university with 0 ties with the NRA or any other firearm lobbying group or maker) found that the ease of legally aquiring firearms does NOT increase the murder rate.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Which bit are you saying no to? All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK.

Blablahb:

Not G. Ivingname:
Because the Swiss are really, REALLY good at shooting. Every citizen is required to keep their marksmanship skills sharp (the entire nation is always ready for war at any time, and has ben for centuries) so if you want to train your ability to shoot things, train with the Swiss.

That's stuff that's on par with 'North Korea has the greatest army on the planet, every citizen will fight the Americans when the Great Leader only gives thew word'.

With the exception that North Koreans have somewhat 'recently' shown they can actually fight, so it can't be all nonsense, whereas Switserland, what have they done anywhere recently on the world stage besides be glad with all the gold their friendly nazi buddies gave them?

Umm... not quite.

They avoided being invaded by the Nazi's (which, as another noted, the Nazi's planned too) was to make it clear they would retreat into fortesses deep in the mountains, with everyman ready and willing to fight to the death, making any invasion a complete waist of time. During the war, the Swiss were the launching point for the Red cross and many organization to make sure the POW's of the allies were treated well and to the place for downed airmen to escape. The Allies repaid this gratitude by bombing the neutral nation several times. The same held true for the All the men of the nation have an Assault Rifle in the home, BY LAW. Even before the modern age, Swiss Pikemen were the most feared units on a battlefield. First army to beat an army made of only Swiss mercenaries was a French army 15 times larger. Their is a reason the Pope's official guards are still Swiss Pikemen.

North Korea, on the other hand, has all the men being reserves, but most of those reserves are just old men and boys with BLADED weapons. Most of the men on patrols with guns (given to the only sometimes) a very rarely given AMMO. If the South invaded the North, the North's army would most likely surrender or try to use their 50 year old rifles as clubs.

Overhead:
[

Which bit are you saying no to? All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK.

1. I was saying no to the idea the pistol ban and gun control has decreased the crime and/or murder rate.

2. You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Besides the first poll (which a note said only included continental Europe), the study then went on to note several correlations that included the U.K. that goes in the face of YOUR claim that British gun control has decreased the murder rate.

Now, where is your evidence to back up your claim that gun control have decreased the murder rate and/or the violent crime rate in the U.K.?

Overhead:

Not G. Ivingname:
Being from the only nation that has it as a constitutional right to own firearms (Heller vs. DC cemented that and legally the "militia argument" cannot be used to regulate firearms ever again), and being a Libertarian, I do think people should legally be allowed to own pistols and other firearms.

Overhead:
Our rate of gun homicides is incredibly low. More than twice as low as Germany and more than thirty times lower than the US and ours is currently falling (all this is as of a 3/4 years ago, might have changed since then but likely not drastically).

If someone robs a store with some imitation hand-gun that probably doesn't even fire, I believe that counts as a gun crime but I'd much prefer that to happen than for someone to actually be shot and die with a real gun.

We should be proud of what banning guns has done.

No, not true.

Here is a study done by Harvard (a well respected university with 0 ties with the NRA or any other firearm lobbying group or maker) found that the ease of legally aquiring firearms does NOT increase the murder rate.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Which bit are you saying no to? All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK.

Ahaha, wait it gets better. Although they don't include the UK in their main analysis of statistics for the basis of the report which you can look up in the appendix, they do bring it up briefly in the middle. They go over the history of it, sourcing their comments about how it was instituted because of this killing on this date [150] and this law was introduced on this date then then they cap it all off with a single unsourced sentence of "Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have not curbed crime. "

They then go on to fudge figures by pretending that increases were caused by laws, even though the increases had started years before the laws were enacted and they then compare to the US stating that the US homicide rate is decreasing, but failing to mention that it's still way higher than the UK rate. Bwahaha, what a joke.

Overhead:
Our rate of gun homicides is incredibly low. More than twice as low as Germany and more than thirty times lower than the US and ours is currently falling (all this is as of a 3/4 years ago, might have changed since then but likely not drastically).

If someone robs a store with some imitation hand-gun that probably doesn't even fire, I believe that counts as a gun crime but I'd much prefer that to happen than for someone to actually be shot and die with a real gun.

We should be proud of what banning guns has done.

I'm not sure if you'll ever realize this, but your handgun ban didn't reduce gun crime. Your handgun laws were already very strict before the ban and all your ban did was screw over the decent people who jumped through the numerous hoops to legally own them.

The Plunk:

The only people who need guns are farmers - and that's rifles.

That's the difference between statists and non-statists. Statists think they are in change of deciding who needs what.

Not G. Ivingname:

Overhead:
[

Which bit are you saying no to? All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK.

1. I was saying no to the idea the pistol ban and gun control has decreased the crime and/or murder rate.

2. You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Besides the first poll (which a note said only included continental Europe), the study then went on to note several correlations that included the U.K. that goes in the face of YOUR claim that British gun control has decreased the murder rate.

Now, where is your evidence to back up your claim that gun control have decreased the murder rate and/or the violent crime rate in the U.K.?

1) I was talking about gun homocides. You're trying to change it to violent crime and murder in general. You're trying to move the goal posts and talk about something completely different.

2) That isn't from Harvard university, it's from Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy which is a Libertarian student publication. You could just as easily link to something from the Kato Foundation if you're loking for biased sources.

3) Research is based on scientific consensus, not cherry picking. To whit, I say we double each other's references with each post. You posted one so I post two showing gun control works. In your next post you put down four new ones showing gun control doesn't work and then in my post after I'll do eight that show it does, etc. We'll see who runs out first or at what point we agree there's a hell of a lot of evidence backing up both sides and a closer analysis is needed rather than just spouting research links!

My goes:

http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/content/12/6/365.abstract
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=61941

What would be the purpose of loosening regulations? Seems Britain is doing fine with their current regulations, leave them be.

I don't think I'll ever understand advocacy for handguns. Advocacy for the legalization of handguns makes some sense on a purely philosophical level, but think for a moment - what is a handgun good for that a larger weapon isn't? Oh yeah. Hiding it and using it to kill people.

JRslinger:

The Plunk:

The only people who need guns are farmers - and that's rifles.

That's the difference between statists and non-statists. Statists think they are in change of deciding who needs what.

Well, y'see, I'm a socialist, so calling me a statist isn't going to offend me very much at all I'm afraid.

Laws exist to protect people. I'd rather have the right to walk down the street without the fear of being shot than have the right to possess something which serves no practical purpose other than for killing people.

American, Texan and yes pistols are legal.

Pistols are extremely useful tools and are great competitive arms.

Stagnant:
what is a handgun good for that a larger weapon isn't? Oh yeah. Hiding it and using it to kill people.

Or, carrying around a firearm capable of stopping a wild animal attack without being weighed down with a cumbersome rifle/shotgun. Or, shooting on the cheap (a 9mm round is a lot cheaper than a .223). Also pistol competitions. Also for those who need protection but have weaker arms.

Plus, you have the basic fact that "pistol" is (legally) defined by barrel length. Some rifles are made too long so they are not categorized as pistols. The fact is that if the barrel is too long then you are losing accuracy (the powder has burned off and friction is slowing the round down).

Stagnant:
I don't think I'll ever understand advocacy for handguns. Advocacy for the legalization of handguns makes some sense on a purely philosophical level, but think for a moment - what is a handgun good for that a larger weapon isn't? Oh yeah. Hiding it and using it to kill people.

If I never have to kill another human being with my Colt 1911, I'll die a happy man. But if someone decides one of us will die, I would prefer to have the means to either change his mind or make it him. Lethal force isn't restricted to firearms. It can easily consist of things found around the average home. Worst case, it's an unpleasant combination of his fist, my head, and the pavement. I'm in good shape, but am of average height and smaller than average frame, and I know there are many more like me. As long as there are those who are perfectly capable of murdering people like me with their bare hands, I will advocate our having the means to even the odds without them knowing it.

Overhead:

Not G. Ivingname:

Overhead:
[

Which bit are you saying no to? All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK.

1. I was saying no to the idea the pistol ban and gun control has decreased the crime and/or murder rate.

2. You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Besides the first poll (which a note said only included continental Europe), the study then went on to note several correlations that included the U.K. that goes in the face of YOUR claim that British gun control has decreased the murder rate.

Now, where is your evidence to back up your claim that gun control have decreased the murder rate and/or the violent crime rate in the U.K.?

1) I was talking about gun homocides. You're trying to change it to violent crime and murder in general. You're trying to move the goal posts and talk about something completely different.

2) That isn't from Harvard university, it's from Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy which is a Libertarian student publication. You could just as easily link to something from the Kato Foundation if you're loking for biased sources.

3) Research is based on scientific consensus, not cherry picking. To whit, I say we double each other's references with each post. You posted one so I post two showing gun control works. In your next post you put down four new ones showing gun control doesn't work and then in my post after I'll do eight that show it does, etc. We'll see who runs out first or at what point we agree there's a hell of a lot of evidence backing up both sides and a closer analysis is needed rather than just spouting research links!

My goes:

http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/content/12/6/365.abstract
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=61941

1. Alright, although how much of is changing goal posts than changing weapons? Why is a murder with a knife worse than one than one with a gun? Also, if you only reduced the number of deaths via firearm, and not the entire murder and or violent crime rate, what really have you achieved?

2. I never noted their political leaning, I just noted, AGAIN, that they are not affliated with ANY gun group directly. You are also changing the goal post by doing that, as well.

3. True, these things need to be peer reviewed and studied. However, your first two studies don't meet the metrics of quality you were wrongly cited mine from not following, which you said, "All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK," which NEITHER of your studies even dealt with, one was about Australia and one was about Massachusetts. The latter wasn't about limiting access to any kind of firearm, but an increase in the mandatory sentence if you carry a gun (which includes pistols) without a license. That isn't an increase in gun control, nor is it about a reduction in access to a pistol or a firearm, it was taking an already illegal action and just added to how long you spend time in jail for it.

The former doesn't site it's sources, only stating it's using "official statistics." Official statistics from where? The Australian Government? The UN? Where is it getting that information from.

Yes, cherry picking is wrong, but quanity doesn't equal quality either. Your two studies barely qualify, they are neither relevant to the issue at hand (which, as per the OP and your original statements, is about handgun ownership in the U.K.). One of them breaks the very core rules about statistics and journalism, notably citing your sources. My study does cover handgun ownership in the U.K., my evidence is there are you haven't shown why it either isn't factual or true. Either show why it isn't, or give me studies that are relevant to handgun ownership in the UK and have not broken any of the rules of journalism or study making.

Stagnant:
I don't think I'll ever understand advocacy for handguns. Advocacy for the legalization of handguns makes some sense on a purely philosophical level, but think for a moment - what is a handgun good for that a larger weapon isn't? Oh yeah. Hiding it and using it to kill people.

We don't want to lug around a heavy shotgun through town, nor can most ways of carrying a shotgun or a rifle can rapidly react to danger. In close quarters, such as a your home, a long gun can be more easily be taken away or pushed to the side than a pistol held close to the body.

Also, pistols and their ammo are often a lot cheaper than longer guns.

I think that there is no point to having a handgun besides shooting other people, so why not just take it off the table. I've never understood people attachment to guns, unless its a family heirloom (I'll likely be inheriting some), it really serves no purpose unless you live way out in the middle no where. Most advocates claim that they need them for defensive purposes, or because when they are all gone, only the criminals will have them, but ultimately the odds of you being attacked in a way that would require you to use a gun are pretty slim, and in most cases are situations that a knife would work just fine in.

Not G. Ivingname:

Overhead:

Not G. Ivingname:

1. I was saying no to the idea the pistol ban and gun control has decreased the crime and/or murder rate.

2. You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Besides the first poll (which a note said only included continental Europe), the study then went on to note several correlations that included the U.K. that goes in the face of YOUR claim that British gun control has decreased the murder rate.

Now, where is your evidence to back up your claim that gun control have decreased the murder rate and/or the violent crime rate in the U.K.?

1) I was talking about gun homocides. You're trying to change it to violent crime and murder in general. You're trying to move the goal posts and talk about something completely different.

2) That isn't from Harvard university, it's from Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy which is a Libertarian student publication. You could just as easily link to something from the Kato Foundation if you're loking for biased sources.

3) Research is based on scientific consensus, not cherry picking. To whit, I say we double each other's references with each post. You posted one so I post two showing gun control works. In your next post you put down four new ones showing gun control doesn't work and then in my post after I'll do eight that show it does, etc. We'll see who runs out first or at what point we agree there's a hell of a lot of evidence backing up both sides and a closer analysis is needed rather than just spouting research links!

My goes:

http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/content/12/6/365.abstract
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=61941

1. Alright, although how much of is changing goal posts than changing weapons? Why is a murder with a knife worse than one than one with a gun? Also, if you only reduced the number of deaths via firearm, and not the entire murder and or violent crime rate, what really have you achieved?

2. I never noted their political leaning, I just noted, AGAIN, that they are not affliated with ANY gun group directly. You are also changing the goal post by doing that, as well.

3. True, these things need to be peer reviewed and studied. However, your first two studies don't meet the metrics of quality you were wrongly cited mine from not following, which you said, "All of the above is factually correct and that study covers some EU nations but doesn't include the UK," which NEITHER of your studies even dealt with, one was about Australia and one was about Massachusetts. The latter wasn't about limiting access to any kind of firearm, but an increase in the mandatory sentence if you carry a gun (which includes pistols) without a license. That isn't an increase in gun control, nor is it about a reduction in access to a pistol or a firearm, it was taking an already illegal action and just added to how long you spend time in jail for it.

The former doesn't site it's sources, only stating it's using "official statistics." Official statistics from where? The Australian Government? The UN? Where is it getting that information from.

Yes, cherry picking is wrong, but quanity doesn't equal quality either. Your two studies barely qualify, they are neither relevant to the issue at hand (which, as per the OP and your original statements, is about handgun ownership in the U.K.). One of them breaks the very core rules about statistics and journalism, notably citing your sources. My study does cover handgun ownership in the U.K., my evidence is there are you haven't shown why it either isn't factual or true. Either show why it isn't, or give me studies that are relevant to handgun ownership in the UK and have not broken any of the rules of journalism or study making.

1) You're presumably making the assumption that deaths which would otherwise have been caused by a gun are now being caused by knives or whatever, I assume? There are other possibilities, like that knife crime, etc would be rising anyway due to rising inequality and socio-economic condition and the like. I'm making a claim about gun crime in isolation. If you want to try and attach that to a larger narrative about how different types of crime interrelate then make that case.

2) You made an appeal to authority by stating it was by Harvard. It's not by the university itself, its by a politically biased student group. Does this mean I can quote Socialist and Communist journals? I normally wouldn't because I know they're biased sources, but if that kind of thing is fine...

3) Fair enough:

http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd26/jawa/articulo8.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=235315
(Bonus gun suicide one I came across) http://msl.rsmjournals.com/content/44/4/295.short

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked