Well one way to work it out is to look at what has changed from one year to the next and see if it has any impact on the figures. Anything that hasnt changed or wouldnt provide any substantial effect on society in question, naturally wouldnt alter the figures to any great extent.

How convenient - you missed off the bit of the Home Office press release which stated that the system of counting had changed enormously, and when that was taken into account the rise was only around 4% -which, as I said, is not "going through the roof".

The pro-gun lobby's arguments are nothing but sophistry at it's worst. And that's giving it a polite name.

The facts are:

gun crime deaths in the US in 1 year (no gun control): 11,348
gun crime deaths in the UK in 1 year (gun control): 97

and those are the facts that the gun lobby tries to hide, refuses to discuss, and will do anything to obfuscate.

Thats the US though. The US has crime levels that needs to be maintained in a different way to other countries. Different problems, different factors are in place that would require different solutions than would be applicable to other cultures.

Heh it not like the murder level has never risen without handgun ban in place, that the police wouldnt have done something if they saw you carrying a gun around before then and its not that the UK makes a point of using handguns to defend themselves anyway.

What the hell's that got to do with gun control?

Fact: fewer guns due to gun control = fewer people killed by guns.

The proof:

gun crime deaths in the US in 1 year (no gun control): 11,348
gun crime deaths in the UK in 1 year (gun control): 97

And, yes, I'll keep repeating those figures because they mean a lot.

As I said, the pro-gun lobby will do anything to avoid the deadly truth in those figures - they'll obfuscate the issue with any arguments they can - try and fudge their statistics by including non-gun violence, or whatever - but the difference between those two figures says everything.

I refuse to get diverted from the truth by your obfuscating tangential rhetoric whose only purpose is to try and hide the truth of the difference in the numbers of gun crime murders between our two countries. The pro-gun lobby has simply lost the argument - and it should drag it's bullet-riddled corpse somewhere quiet to join the other 11,348.

Wasn't there a thread about non-gun assaults on the rise in the UK too?

You can defend youself with some force but only to a extent. No shooting people in the back as they run away for instance.
Every state that isnt really the Uk. Logic would suggest that one situation demands a different solution than another.
Logic would demand that you prove that is a cause and not just a coincidenal rise. I could say that the crime levels have risen because of the lowering of musical quality in the UK. Both have happened but they do not effect each other.
Was that all that happened? No other factors involved at all? and what is that 300% rise? It could be 3 more or 3000 more.
What did they have beforehand? A very low one?

It is in some cases and some cultures.
Nothing to do with possession being a crime all of a sudden? Anyway overall crime lowered for quite a few years after the UK ban, there were small drops year after year for a while there. So saying every statistic rose is wrong.
I`m not and what happened to my other questions?

Ok. Have fun.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The UK numbers were BETTER when there were no gun control laws on the books.

Red, you once made the comment somewhere that 'I'd much rather have one dead relative than several beaten ones,' or something along those lines.

It ain't that simple a trade-off. For one you'd be getting alot more than simply more assaults. You'd also be giving up peace of mind; the worry of being victimized tends to weigh more heavily on a person's mind if assaults increase in occurance in his or her neighbourhood. I imagine it would be all the more troubling if the person had no means to defend themselves.

You'd be defining your role as a victim; you're taking away an individual's position of power of self-defense in the hopes that 1) you'll take away the criminals position of power to cause serious harm and death, and 2) you'll give the criminal less of a reason to harm or kill you, because you can't harm him.

Well, 1) only works on the law-abiding criminals, and those can still harm and kill you without a gun. 2) seems to be a sign of battered-wife syndrome. It's not a good way of thinking at all, it only facilitates the continuation of the problem and will probably make it worse.

Guns are neither good nor evil, simply powerful. The individual with the gun decides on the good or evil. Laws should address behavior, not potential behavior.

I actually have peace of mind believe it or not. The crime levels in the city I`m in dont give me any reason to need lethal force to protect myself and since when do you think that anyone who is so afriad of street crime to need that protection wouldnt break a simple handgun law anyway? Or just get a different type of gun.
1) There are law abiding criminals now? I think you mean non violent criminals, since those ones do in fact exist. Your first 2) Is a bad thing now? You`d rather have that criminal have more of a reason to harm you and expect them to have a behavioural change somehow?
So you`re saying its easier and therefore more effective for the law to change behaviour rather than try to limit the destructive force of that behavouir?
Now why would we ever try to limit the destructive force countries have when we could just be working on adapting their behaviour? Why try to limit them in any shape or form if they are only going to potentially abuse that power?

As would arming the potential perpetrators.
So you expect to change their behaviour through force? You`d have to if, as you say, that was the only thing they can understand.
That it does, threats to its power and also threats to its own safety and that of those it is responsable for. Ah the militia reasoning. Still think you can beat your own army eh?

Most of them arent here.

Good luck.
and it was neutral.

Didnt Hitler state himself to respect the neurality of the Swiss? I recall reading something about that a year or two ago.

France wasnt neutral when they were invaded, they declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.

Because of the political indifference of the Swiss in almost everything. and they didnt declare war on Germany like France, thats always a plus.
They didnt maintain their neutrality. As you said they had a reason to give it up that the Swiss apparently didnt.
Weakness doesnt cause any violence, strength with a lack of morality causes it. Removing weakness wouldnt increase safety, since that newfound strength can be used for good or ill.

I bank on their morality, on the law, but most of all on the improbability of certain situations occuring. If they are all gone then I`ll feel the need to protect myself further than I usually do.

The swiss also controlled all of germanies money and laundered money to arms and equipment druing the repressive eyars leading up to world war 2 as well as selling on Jewish loot during the holocaust.

The swiss had FINANCIAL power.

I also grew up in Meadowell in the North East. Not as violent as certain Ghetto's I admit, but a violent urban slum which my parents worked damn hard to escape.

HItler invaded france because of the way they humiliated german after WWI

in 2001 (Sorry can't get more up to date US Stats)
the number of violent crimes 100,000 people in the US was 4160.05
In the UK it was then per every 100,000 people it a mere 1904.00

We have already seen the Handgun statstics and the violent crime statstics now show the US is far more violent a place.

Yet for all out lack of guns we still have a less violent existance then the US. Out chances of dying by being shot are still in ordinately less.

Of the 15,000 or so murders in the US in 2001, 11,000 were from guns

of the 768 Murders in the UK at that time 93 were from Handguns

Okay. I've said it loud and clear now so that everyone can see.

Of the majority of murders in the US are caused by guns. This figure which is inordinately higher then the UK 768 to 15,000, bucks the population dfifferential (US having 3 times the population of the UK)

I would expect a top-line of about 2300 Murders in the US if crime were balanced.

It should be apparent to all but the most beligerent of people that the gun legality is causing a massive increase in violent crime.

Now before you start spouting the same odl tired criminals will get guns even if you ban them line I will say this

Yes, they will. However If you ban them they are harder to get.....

In England they are banned and therefore harder to get and our percentile death by shooting rate and overall murder rates are far smaller

if only someone could show us how this data corrolates...

Neon

The IRA and the paramilitaries have no problem acquiring weapons.