Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (
More info?)
"greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
news:41d9e067$0$21328$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Mort <TZW> wrote:
>> "greebo_Brat" <mo@mo.com> wrote in message
>> news:41d6d16f$0$21323$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>The gun ban is working to prevent gun crime, this is why since the gun
>>>ban has been in place gun crime has risen, as has illegal gun ownership,
>>>as has deaths resulting from crimes. This is why every two years the
>>>police have a gun amnesty , the first such amnesty 40,000 firearms (and
>>>legal replica's) were handed in, the 2nd, over 50,000. You expect me to
>>>take anyone who believes banning guns cuts gun crime seriously when the
>>>facts blatantly show that it doesnt?
>>
>>
>> In an average year in the USA there are about 10,000 firearms homicides
>> In the UK in 2004 there were ~70 (down from 82 in 2003) according to
>> govt. stats
>
> Not relevant, I dont care if the US has had more house fires than the UK
> per head of population, if the one goes up next me I'm worried.
But it is relevant at the societal level. The level of gun ownership in the
USA is fuelling a casualty rate comparable to a continuous low-level civil
war. I see no reason for us to emulate that in the UK.
>
> You can't pass off the fact that the gun ban has failed to cut gun crime,
> and that is all that is important, not comparing stats with a foriegn
> nation that has a different set of problems, culture, ethos etc etc.
Don't get me wrong here I'm an FAC holder in the UK. I regularly participate
in practical & highpower rifle shooting and practical shotgun/clay pigeon
shooting.
But the 1988 ban on self loading rifles and the 1997 ban on handguns were
not introduced as attempts to bring down firearms crime per se but in
response to spree shootings carried out by people who were FAC holders using
legally held firearms. I personally regret those bans as I would like to be
able to have more toys to play with on the range but I have to acknowledge
that the bans have so far been 100% successful in preventing spree shootings
by rogue FAC holders using legal firearms (which was their main aim).
>
> Some people support the gun ban because they believe it cuts gun crime,
> the facts do not suggest this.
That depends on the type of crime. IIRC correctly the term 'gun crime' in
the UK is used in the media etc to refer to what the govt records as
'firearms related incidents'. These are incidents in which police armed
response is called and include incidents where replicas are used or
suspected of being used, incidents in which no real or replica firearms or
used as well as a minority of incidents in which real firearms are
brandished or used. The police have in the past conflated all these together
under the umbrella term of gun crime (for empire building purposes?) but it
now seems to be backfiring on them as the hysteria about the apparently high
numbers is making them look incompetent!!!!!
As such, why should I take this person to
> be a credible source? Same as the comment on being religious or not
> religious having any meaning on intelligence (which was the point of my
> rant to begin with, I know the gun ban is a lost cause in the UK as most
> of the population hold a rather uninformed view on firearms .. guns evil
> waaaaaah .. etc).
>
>> That suggests that, given the USA population is ~5x larger than the UK,
>> that in a given year someone in the US is ~29x more likely to be murdered
>> with a firearm than in the UK.
>
> Off topic, but obviously it's far more civilised to be murdered with
> knife, by far the done thing old boy.
Even with all the guns that they supposedly have for self defence Americans
are still ~3x more likely to be murdered by any means than Britons in any
given year.
>
> How many of these deaths are as the result of violent crime with intent,
> in which case, some other method would be used, or an illegally owned gun
> would be used anyway.
>
>> It should also be remembered that as firearms have NEVER been licensed
>> for use in self defence in the UK (with the exception of handguns for
>> certain people in NI) then the banning of certain forms of them couldnot
>> be expected to have an influence on gun crime either way as less than 1
>> in 1000 people in the UK were legal handgun owners before the ban in
>> 1997.
>
> From stats I've heard, shooting was the 2nd most popular participatory
> (spelling) sport in the UK, after fishing. They accurate? dont know ..
> Just saying what I've heard.
Well there are still AFAIK about 500,000 SGC holders and about 120,000 FAC
holders in the UK so its still up there. My local newsagent stocks several
shooting magazines so there's obviously still a market. It's important to
remember that ~50,000 people lost their handguns in 1997 but it doesn't mean
they gave up shooting with other types of firearms.
>
> BTW, Bows, crossbows, rapiers, shotputs, discusses, javelins, all weapons
> designed for one purpose originally (to kill), not for self defence, also
> as far as I know not that many people are into, say fencing or archery
> ..common perhaps? but not that common I guess these will be banned next
> *sarcasm*.
Well I hope not
🙂 I think the British govt may have learn't its lesson
over the futility of that kind of thing with the total horlicks they made
over the banning of Brocock air pistols.
>
>> It just so happens that the UK (along with everywhere else) has seen an
>> increase in the illegal drug trade in recent years the notion that those
>> 1 in 1000 people could have somehow deterred the illegal drug trade if
>> their sporting handguns had not been banned is fanciful to say the least.
>
> Never argued that gun ownership could deter a rise in drug trade crime. I
> dont even argue that gun ownership will deter crime in general (although
> many americans argue that it does). A handgun isn't the most effective
> self defence weapon anyway (apparently a shotgun is).
>
> Thats not my argument against the gun ban laws, my argument is very
> simple, if it's not actively damaging someone's health, there is no reason
> to ban it.
But the problem is that a couple of nutters used legally held firearms to
severely damage the health of a lot of innocent people.
>
> There is a stronger case for banning smoking in a public place than there
> is for banning firearms. I could carry a concealed gun and sit next to you
> in a confined area for 3 or 4 hours, no harm to you what so ever.
>
> I sit next to you and smoke for ten hours in a confined space, yes, your
> health has been damaged (albeit not by much) as would your personal
> comfort if you have problems in smokey areas (I do).
Personally I don't smoke but I've never been bothered by people who do.
>
> So, logically, ban smoking in public places and remove the ban on handguns
> as there is no logical reason to ban such weapons anyway but some to ban
> public smoking.
>
> For the record, I am not religious, I have been an athiest since I can
> remember, I find the concept of a god to be rather silly .. personal
> belief.
>
> Nor do I yet support a ban on smoking in public places, it's one of those
> topics I havent yet been able to make up my mind, to trade of a civil
> liberty (right to do to ones body as one chooses) against the right for
> someone to not have to put up with an unhealthy atmosphere caused by
> someone elses habit.
>
> I also know that what ever I say, the gun ban will not be removed, it's a
> sad fact of life that people like authoritarian societies.
>
> What I am trying to argue is, just because you think something is stupid
> (belief in god, being religious) is no call for you to call someone else
> stupid, chances are that you yourself hold a belief that can be construed
> by others to be stupid, and this is certainly true of society as a whole.
But it's the stupidity of religious people that has caused more wars
throughout human history than anything else. I make no apologies for
regarding such people with contempt. If you don't like it - tough. I'm sure
I can learn to live with you disagreeing with me
🙂
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram