Gun Crime up 340% in England since gun ban in 1998.

[Nagalfar]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

John R. Lott Jr.: D.C. Gun Ban Proponents Ignore the Facts

For gun control proponents and opponents a lot is riding on a former security guard for the Supreme Court Annex. Next Tuesday , the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and its requirement that any rifles or shotguns remain locked violates the plaintiff, Dick Heller's, constitutional rights.

Whatever the court decides, no one expects them to end gun control any more than the First Amendment's "congress shall make no laws" has prevented the passage of campaign finance regulations. The decision is likely to be limited to just whether a ban "infringed" on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

If the D.C. ban is accepted by the court, it is hard to believe that any gun regulation will ever be struck down. If the court strikes it down, where the courts draw the line on what laws are considered "reasonable" regulations will take years to sort out .

Thus far the District of Columbia has spent a lot of time making a public policy case. Their argument in their brief to the court is pretty simple : "banning handguns saves lives."

Yet, while it may seem obvious to many people that banning guns will save lives, that has not been D.C.'s experience.

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

Was there something special about D.C. that kept the ban from working? Probably not, since bans have been causing crime to increase in other cities as well. D.C. cites the Chicago ban to support its own. Yet, before Chicago's ban in 1982, its murder rate, which was falling from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years, suddenly stopped falling and rose slightly to 23 per 100,000 in the five years afterwards.

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared ? the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

How could this be? D.C. officials say that the ban will disarm criminals. But who follows a ban and turns their guns in? Criminals who would be facing long prison sentences anyway if they were caught in a crime, or typically law-abiding citizens? By disarming normal people, a gun ban actually makes crime easier to commit.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has actually sided with D.C. in important parts of the case, and the court has granted Solicitor General Paul Clement 15 minutes to make his argument. While largely paying lip service to the Second Amendment being an "individual right," the Department of Justice brief argues that an "unquestionable threat to public safety" from unregulated guns requires a lower standard must be adopted in defending it than is used to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights. But if they really believed that their evidence showed this, just as with the classic exception for the First Amendment of "falsely shouting fire in a theater," it wouldn't be necessary to treat the Second Amendment differently .

But what has not gotten much attention is that for the first time in U.S. history an administration has provided conflicting briefs to the Supreme Court. Vice President Dick Cheney has put forward his own brief arguing that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that is no different than freedom of speech.

The DOJ constitutional argument is similar to that of D.C. It argues that since the government bans machine guns, it should also be able to ban handguns. And they claim that D.C. residents still retain a right to self-defense because the city doesn't ban locked shotguns and rifles. Locks, they claim , "can properly be interpreted" as not interfering with using guns for self-protection.

Factual errors underlie the rest of the argument ? for in D.C., rifles and shotguns become illegal as soon as they are unlocked. That means the city can prosecute anyone who uses one in self-defense, even if it was locked before the incident. Is that a "reasonable" restriction on self-defense? Gunlock requirements are also associated with more deaths and more violent crime as they make defensive gun uses more difficult. Machine guns are also not banned .

It makes sense that the DOJ is backing the ban, given that it would lose regulatory power if it were struck down. As the DOJ lawyers note in the brief, striking down this ban could "cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation."

The Department of Justice and D.C. politicians can talk all they want about how necessary handgun bans are to ensure public safety and the "reasonableness" of the restrictions. But hopefully the Supreme Court will see past that. At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide.

Gun control really does effect crime rates, wouldnt it be nice if they just told the truth.. now that would be a real change.

[blockmonkey]

Labour failed to realise that those pesky criminals would not hand in their illegal weapons when the ban came into place Add to that the fact that it is as easy to buy an illegal gun off one of the former soviet bloc criminals than it is to buy a can of stella these days.....

[GermanNexus]

reccomend everyone watch THIS someone please embed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBx...eature=related

[Nagalfar]

reccomend everyone watch THIS someone please embed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBx...eature=related

Good video.. hope we are smart enough to learn from their sacrifice..

[photomasterx]

That proganda piece is incorrect about the UK.

1) Gun's are not banned in the UK. Only certain weapons are on a list. You can still go out and buy a .50 BMG anti material rifle. And you can also get shotguns. For example I posted a link a while back which showed over 50,000 shotguns registered in just one small area of England alone.

2) Most of the ban actually applied to full auto rifles, machine pistols, semi-auto rifles with large magazines and hand pistols.

3) Shotguns, Bolt actions rifles, straight pull assault rifles and long barrel revolvers are still allowed.

4) None of this should matter because even before the ban you could not shoot anybody with your gun even for self-defence. This means that the gun ban has nothing to do with crime statistics since the guns could not be used.

5) The gun ban afected the rural area's of the UK aka farmlands and country estates. If you take a look at the statistics the gun crime increase is in the urban area's of the UK with black youths and east european criminals who have never lived in country estates or farmlands.

Conclusion :

The gun ban in the UK has nothing to do with gun crime increase.

The gun crime increase is due to criminals from Jamaica and Eastern Europe(Russians, Bulgerians, Polish, Czechs) comming in to the UK with full auto machine pistols for drug related crimes.

.

[HELIX35]

4) None of this should matter because even before the ban you could not shoot anybody with your gun even for self-defence. This means that the gun ban has nothing to do with crime statistics since the guns could not be used.

.

I didn't know that. To what extent was it enforced? You weren't allowed to use a gun in self defense at any time or was it situational?

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

[Nagalfar]

That proganda piece is incorrect about the UK.

1) Gun's are not banned in the UK. Only certain weapons are on a list. You can still go out and buy a .50 BMG anti material rifle. And you can also get shotguns. For example I posted a link a while back which showed over 50,000 shotguns registered in just one small area of England alone.

2) Most of the ban actually applied to full auto rifles, machine pistols, semi-auto rifles with large magazines and hand pistols.

3) Shotguns, Bolt actions rifles, straight pull assault rifles and long barrel revolvers are still allowed.

4) None of this should matter because even before the ban you could not shoot anybody with your gun even for self-defence. This means that the gun ban has nothing to do with crime statistics since the guns could not be used.

5) The gun ban afected the rural area's of the UK aka farmlands and country estates. If you take a look at the statistics the gun crime increase is in the urban area's of the UK with black youths and east european criminals who have never lived in country estates or farmlands.

Conclusion :

The gun ban in the UK has nothing to do with gun crime increase.

The gun crime increase is due to criminals from Jamaica and Eastern Europe(Russians, Bulgerians, Polish, Czechs) comming in to the UK with full auto machine pistols for drug related crimes.

.

All the people in the protests waning their guns back are liars? if not, explain why they are saying one thing and you are making claim to another..

[photomasterx]

I didn't know that. To what extent was it enforced? You weren't allowed to use a gun in self defense at any time or was it situational?

I saw it in a documentry a while back so I can't remeber to what extend it was enforced.

But wiki says :

Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun.

.

[Billy Bonds]

Isn't the gun crime rate here still far, far lower than what it is in the US though?

I don't get your point OP.

Edit: Well, I do get your point... What brought into action the bans in DC and elsewhere though? Could the resulting increases just have followed on from an earlier trend?

[Apeus]

Isn't the gun crime rate here still far, far lower than what it is in the US though?

Two things.

Yes, it is higher but America is a completely different culture than England.

Most gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms, so banning law abiding citizens only makes them easier targets.

[HELIX35]

I saw it in a documentry a while back so I can't remeber to what extend it was enforced.

But wiki says :




.

Well, that says it's not a valid reason to own one, which just means someone has to say it's for anything else. I'm more interested in statistics of those that did use one in self defense and were punished for it.

[photomasterx]

All the people in the protests waning their guns back are liars? if not, explain why they are saying one thing and you are making claim to another..

Because those guys are full of sh*t.

They can go out and get a .308 sniper rifle if they want.

For example here is the offical seller for Russian 7.62x54r Dragunov SVD sniper rifles in the UK :

http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/firearms_svd.htm

And here you can get 5.56 NATO AK-101 straight pull rifles :

http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/firearms_ak101.htm

[nutsy54]

Isn't the gun crime rate here still far, far lower than what it is in the US though?

I don't get your point OP.

Edit: Well, I do get your point... What brought into action the bans in DC and elsewhere though? Could the resulting increases just have followed on from an earlier trend?

The point is the change that occurred. Less legal guns = more violent crime. The same story wherever it's tried.

[photomasterx]

Well, that says it's not a valid reason to own one, which just means someone has to say it's for anything else. I'm more interested in statistics of those that did use one in self defense and were punished for it.

We get documentaries and news reports in the UK on these types of subject by channels such as BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc... Some of them have covered the ban before in their news.

I don't really know where to look on the internet for this information.

[Billy Bonds]

The point is the change that occurred. Less legal guns = more violent crime. The same story wherever it's tried.

I don't understand... Why would that change occur though? Maybe you can explain that to me because I'm not sure at all...

[nutsy54]

Because those guys are full of sh*t.

They can go out and get a .308 sniper rifle if they want.

Have you ever tried walking around with a .308 sniper rifle in a concealed-carry holster?

Do you honestly believe a rifle is the most effective option for self-defense, whether that's in or outside of your home?

Can you, right now, living in England, purchase and own a handgun, and have it loaded & readily available to immediately grab and fire inside your home, and in a concealed holster whenever you leave your home? (Legally, of course).

If not, then please don't lecture us on your great "gun rights". A locked up, unloaded gun sitting at home is nothing more that a useless piece of metal.

[nutsy54]

I don't understand... Why would that change occur though? Maybe you can explain that to me because I'm not sure at all...

Because criminals love it when they know their victims are disarmed and defenseless.

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

[HELIX35]

I don't understand... Why would that change occur though? Maybe you can explain that to me because I'm not sure at all...

Think about it. Is a criminal intending to break the law going to stop and say "oh wait I can't use a gun, that would be illegal."

Criminals don't lose weapons under gun control, everyone else does.

[photomasterx]

Have you ever tried walking around with a .308 sniper rifle in a concealed-carry holster?

Do you honestly believe a rifle is the most effective option for self-defense, whether that's in or outside of your home?

Can you, right now, living in England, purchase and own a handgun, and have it loaded & readily available to immediately grab and fire inside your home, and in a concealed holster whenever you leave your home? (Legally, of course).

If not, then please don't lecture us on your great "gun rights". A locked up, unloaded gun sitting at home is nothing more that a useless piece of metal.

You do realise the UK is a fu*ked up incompetent country?

The goverment can't get anything right.

(now I know you will say this is more reasons to own a gun)

I strongly disagree with that for the following reasons :

1) The goverment is worthless. Legal guns will just end up in the hands of criminals because the goverment cannot monitor anything in this country. Criminals get a hold of legal passports, drivers licences etc... in the UK all the time because the goverment facilities are run by morons.

2) Our houses are fooking small compared to most other countries. The distance between one house to another is less then 6 meters in most cases.(100% serious). I sure as hell do not want some low-class drunk bastard with a gun whose bedroom is less then 6 meters away from my bedroom with a loaded gun.

etc...

If the UK goverment had it's **** together and our houses were like 50 meters apart. I would openly support legal gun rights but not under the current circumstances.

.

[Nagalfar]

Have you ever tried walking around with a .308 sniper rifle in a concealed-carry holster?

Do you honestly believe a rifle is the most effective option for self-defense, whether that's in or outside of your home?

Can you, right now, living in England, purchase and own a handgun, and have it loaded & readily available to immediately grab and fire inside your home, and in a concealed holster whenever you leave your home? (Legally, of course).

If not, then please don't lecture us on your great "gun rights". A locked up, unloaded gun sitting at home is nothing more that a useless piece of metal.

Something akin to having 2 cars and a motorcycle in the garage but having no keys and no gas for none of them...

[nutsy54]

1) The goverment is worthless. Legal guns will just end up in the hands of criminals because the goverment cannot monitor anything in this country.

It seems you missed the whole point of the OP: The criminals are already getting all the guns they want! All these absurd laws do is ensure that their victims are still defenseless - guaranteed and enforced by the very government that's supposed to be protecting its citizens, not leaving them to the mercy of criminals and thugs.

So, you want to prevent every law abiding adult in your country from owning a firearm, because one of them might get drunk and act stupid? By extension, do you also support banning all cars? One of those can cause a hell of a lot more damage when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel - and clearly we must ignore all the benefits, and work to eliminate absolutely any shred of possible risk.

[photomasterx]

It seems you missed the whole point of the OP: The criminals are already getting all the guns they want! All these absurd laws do is ensure that their victims are still defenseless - guaranteed and enforced by the very government that's supposed to be protecting its citizens, not leaving them to the mercy of criminals and thugs.

So, you want to prevent every law abiding adult in your country from owning a firearm, because one of them might get drunk and act stupid? By extension, do you also support banning all cars? One of those can cause a hell of a lot more damage when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel - and clearly we must ignore all the benefits, and work to eliminate absolutely any shred of possible risk.

Most of the killings and shooting are black on black and eastern euro on eastern euro. It's mostly gang violence. The majority of the population is not exposed to the crime.

Rather then legalising guns, I would rather those those nitwitts in the goverment to control immigration and increase laws for possesion of guns. Right now you could have a full auto MAC-10 and you will get the same prison time as a guy with a single shot .22lr pistol. And prison time is a joke it's supposed to be 5 years but most people don't even do half of that.

Most people in the UK are too uncultured(sad to say this but it's true) to own a weapon let alone a plastic spoon. The people have no sense of responsiblity left in this country. The last thing you want to do is give these worthless drunks and cultural turds a firearm.

I have lived in a few countries(and even houses which contained firearms) in mutiple countries with guns. The UK is pretty much at the bottom of the list of countries that should allow people to own firearms just one country above Pakistan. The other countries I had no problem with because the populations are mostly well behaved.

.

[Billy Bonds]

Because criminals love it when they know their victims are disarmed and defenseless.

I suppose but I always took for granted that most gun related murders occurred between gangs or people who were up to no good rather than criminals against the general, innocent population. That might be wrong though.

That's why I don't understand the big increases.

[OatsandSteak]

Most of the killings and shooting are black on black and eastern euro on eastern euro. It's mostly gang violence. The majority of the population is not exposed to the crime.

Rather then legalising guns, I would rather those those nitwitts in the goverment to control immigration and increase laws for possesion of guns. Right now you could have a full auto MAC-10 and you will get the same prison time as a guy with a single shot .22lr pistol. And prison time is a joke it's supposed to be 5 years but most people don't even do half of that.

Most people in the UK are too uncultured(sad to say this but it's true) to own a weapon let alone a plastic spoon. The people have no sense of responsiblity left in this country. The last thing you want to do is give these worthless drunks and cultural turds a firearm.

I have lived in a few countries(and even houses which contained firearms) in mutiple countries with guns. The UK is pretty much at the bottom of the list of countries that should allow people to own firearms just one country above Pakistan. The other countries I had no problem with because the populations are mostly well behaved.

.

So your solution is to ban immigration, because it's all their fault?

[jimbob007]

The gun laws were bought in after the Dunblaine Massacre of 1996, there are very strict rules on keeping guns legally.

However most of the crime is from people who operate 100% outside of the law- mostly gang members in places like London & Notts & robbers who stick banks & securicor drivers up.

[anonymous]

I didn't know that. To what extent was it enforced? You weren't allowed to use a gun in self defense at any time or was it situational?

Nope. If you shot an armed, cracked-out home invader in self defense in the UK you would go to jail, and if they survived they would recieve legal aid to sue you.

I only hope the US sees the light and realizes it's out of step with the rest of the world.

[-click_here-]

I watched a documentary about the armed response police force which roams London (CO19). They said on the show that black people (who make up 2% of the UK population) make up 10% of the population of London and yet are 50% of the perpetrators of gun crime and 40% of the victims.

They said 10-15 years ago people would settle disputes with their fists or a baseball bat. Now everyone is armed. Gangland violence, drugs etc

[stealth_swimmer]

That proganda piece is incorrect about the UK.

1) Gun's are not banned in the UK. Only certain weapons are on a list. You can still go out and buy a .50 BMG anti material rifle. And you can also get shotguns. For example I posted a link a while back which showed over 50,000 shotguns registered in just one small area of England alone.

2) Most of the ban actually applied to full auto rifles, machine pistols, semi-auto rifles with large magazines and hand pistols.

3) Shotguns, Bolt actions rifles, straight pull assault rifles and long barrel revolvers are still allowed.

4) None of this should matter because even before the ban you could not shoot anybody with your gun even for self-defence. This means that the gun ban has nothing to do with crime statistics since the guns could not be used.

5) The gun ban afected the rural area's of the UK aka farmlands and country estates. If you take a look at the statistics the gun crime increase is in the urban area's of the UK with black youths and east european criminals who have never lived in country estates or farmlands.

Conclusion :

The gun ban in the UK has nothing to do with gun crime increase.

The gun crime increase is due to criminals from Jamaica and Eastern Europe(Russians, Bulgerians, Polish, Czechs) comming in to the UK with full auto machine pistols for drug related crimes.

.

Hand pistols are banned? I'm pretty sure that's the most popular gun for self-defense because of easy maneuverability. If those are banned, then yes some can defend themselves with a shotgun but the person with a pistol is gonna have a natural advantage at being faster.