Why gun laws (or lack thereof) don't work in the US:

[Napoleon Ier]

to be fair napoleon not two posts before hand, you cite israel as a place that because it has relatively lax gun laws, it is a safe place to live. Or at least thats your extension by coupling it in with the swiss.

Clearly when i think of peaceful places to live that dont have problems, israel is on the top of my list.

pot meet kettle.

To e afir though, that's due to terrorism, not gun crime between Israeli citizens.

[got tonkaed]

to be fair napoleon not two posts before hand, you cite israel as a place that because it has relatively lax gun laws, it is a safe place to live. Or at least thats your extension by coupling it in with the swiss.

Clearly when i think of peaceful places to live that dont have problems, israel is on the top of my list.

pot meet kettle.

To e afir though, that's due to terrorism, not gun crime between Israeli citizens.

well im just saying thats a bit of unnecessary sloppyness in terms of semantics now isnt it.

and if they started acting reasonable and gave citizenship to the palestinans like they probably should have rougly 60 years ago...it would be between citizens wouldnt it?

[Napoleon Ier]

to be fair napoleon not two posts before hand, you cite israel as a place that because it has relatively lax gun laws, it is a safe place to live. Or at least thats your extension by coupling it in with the swiss.

Clearly when i think of peaceful places to live that dont have problems, israel is on the top of my list.

pot meet kettle.

To e afir though, that's due to terrorism, not gun crime between Israeli citizens.

well im just saying thats a bit of unnecessary sloppyness in terms of semantics now isnt it.

and if they started acting reasonable and gave citizenship to the palestinans like they probably should have rougly 60 years ago...it would be between citizens wouldnt it?

Mmmm...no semantics...gun crime in the occupied territories, granted, but in Israel...only Hama rocket fire. Different.

[got tonkaed]

it certainly does count if you are going to cite israel in the way you did. And to claim that israelis or at the very least that the israeli gov is beyond reproach is also a bit of wishful thinking as well.

[heavycola]

Then somehow expect me to take seriously the notion that the acid test for gun regulation.

Again, i have no idea what this means. If I thought you did, i might indulge you. But i don't.

[Napoleon Ier]

Then somehow expect me to take seriously the notion that the acid test for gun regulation.

Again, i have no idea what this means. If I thought you did, i might indulge you. But i don't.

Again, you can only pick up on typos. Not actually say anything serious, apart from skirt around the real issue, pick up on typos, not use proper punctuation, and tiptoe around all the hard stats, and through around puerile insults. It's getting quite sad really.


Look, I'd love to see you invent innovative and increasingly amusing ways to refute evidence as the evening progresses but I have a meeting on how est to exploit starving African children producing AK-47s for us. Good evening sir.

[Neutrino]

So what? Does this have any relevance to anything? Guns are being used increasingly, does it matter? Seriously, learn to apply analytical thinking to these prolems, not post whatever first comes into your otherwise dull and vacuous mind.

My point was, that while, guns are being used increacingly in the UK, the vast, vast majority of this extra usage was threatening only and that a 23% increace in actual gun crime fell well and truly into the same category that you had just dismissed as "not a serious statistic".

Anyways, I am going to do what Napoleon seems content to refuse to do; compare UK and US gun crime levels. According to Wikipedia, London recorded 1.7/100 000 murders (2005/2006), while New York (similar population) recorded 6.9/100 000 (2004). That's more than 4 times the murders for a similar population. Explain that away, Napoleon...

[Napoleon Ier]

So what? Does this have any relevance to anything? Guns are being used increasingly, does it matter? Seriously, learn to apply analytical thinking to these prolems, not post whatever first comes into your otherwise dull and vacuous mind.

My point was, that while, guns are being used increacingly in the UK, the vast, vast majority of this extra usage was threatening only and that a 23% increace in actual gun crime fell well and truly into the same category that you had just dismissed as "not a serious statistic".

Anyways, I am going to do what Napoleon seems content to refuse to do; compare UK and US gun crime levels. According to Wikipedia, London recorded 1.7/100 000 murders (2005/2006), while New York (similar population) recorded 6.9/100 000 (2004). That's more than 4 times the murders for a similar population. Explain that away, Napoleon...

My point was, that you're twisting statistics. There has been a continuous rise in UK gun crime which is "a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation". The fact that some of it was only "threat of violence" doesn't matter, the same method has been applied to obtain heavycola's statistics which he has analysed stupidly anyway, in his last ditch attempt to run from the incontravertible evidence.

You can't just take any two countries that take your fancy, compare them, and say that they prove your point, when you're not taking into account any other factors. You want me to explain a 4* higher gun crime rate? I can't honestly say I'm criminolgist, but I can say beyond a shadow of doubt there are more factors incolved in crime rates than just gun control.

But hey, why don't we owhat you clowns are doing, take two random countries and compare : Switzerland, where every able-bodied male owns an M-57 semi-automatic rifle in his home. They recorded 37 homicides in a single year. They don;t even keep statistics on gun crime, there's solittle problem with it.

[Guiscard]

to be fair napoleon not two posts before hand, you cite israel as a place that because it has relatively lax gun laws, it is a safe place to live. Or at least thats your extension by coupling it in with the swiss.

Clearly when i think of peaceful places to live that dont have problems, israel is on the top of my list.

pot meet kettle.

To e afir though, that's due to terrorism, not gun crime between Israeli citizens.

And earlier you likened the terrorist attacks in London to school shootings in America. Double standards somewhat?

[Napoleon Ier]

to be fair napoleon not two posts before hand, you cite israel as a place that because it has relatively lax gun laws, it is a safe place to live. Or at least thats your extension by coupling it in with the swiss.

Clearly when i think of peaceful places to live that dont have problems, israel is on the top of my list.

pot meet kettle.

To e afir though, that's due to terrorism, not gun crime between Israeli citizens.

And earlier you likened the terrorist attacks in London to school shootings in America. Double standards somewhat?

Not really, I was referring to the way young teenagers are driven to multiple homicide through psychological factors the world over, though using different methods.

Gun Crime between Israeli citizens is a different matter altogether, however.

We first need to make a distinction between teenagers who have been driven to terrorism in the UK, and Hamas in Israel, who operate within what is virtually their own state as a foreign standing army.

You should also understand that when discussing terrorism in the UK, I was making the point that gun laws weren't necessarily going to end all violence. I obviously believe that allowing people to own firearms for self-defence will reduce the number of innocent people who die at the hands of armed criminals, but in Israel, the situation is extremely different, obviously owning fire-arms does nothing against Hamas rocket fire.

However, in a scenario in which Hamas tried to attack Israeli citizens, should they be armed, they would be able to defend themselves. As it happens, Hamas prefer bombs and rockets to kill Israelis, meaning we can dissociate victims of terror from those of gun crime in Israel.

[Colossus]

The discussion point of the thread, Nappy, was regarding gun violence in the US. The issue of gun laws relating to crime rates was raised using the UK as an example of a place with much stricter gun laws and a much lower rate of gun-related violent crime. This comparison was not 'just taking two countries that you fancy', it was raised as an apropos comparison because the thread is about the US, and the country most of you all are from happens to be the UK. We need look no farther to find some good reasons why gun laws and lower gun-violence rates correlate. Obviously, stricter gun laws are not the only solution to reducing gun violence in the US, but they are an integral part.

I wonder what kinds of guns are typically used in the gun-related crimes in the UK and how they compare to the typical guns used in the US. I really don't know where to find such a statistic, but I can tell you that when I watch the evening news here in Philly, there are at least 3-5 stories per week of the police raiding houses and finding caches of assault-style weapons. I'm sure you won't argue that there is a difference in the level of violence achievable with an automatic pistol versus a revolver. Surely stricter gun laws that are enforced will make it more difficult for 'criminals' to get automatic or semi-automatic weapons, right?

I agree that there is a lot more in American culture that needs to change for the crime rates to go down. Curmudgeonx brought up the very valid point regarding the power of the gun lobby in America. That is certainly a factor. In my opinion, however, the biggest barrier to effective enactment of gun laws and the resultant reduction in gun-related crime is the simple fact that gun-toting is glorified in American society. This is especially true in the areas where the educational standard is low. I think there is a very strong correlation there. Gun laws should help, but they won't do much without at the same time addressing the socioeconomic differences that perpetuate the current stratification that has arisen in American society (or some might say has persisted). When you take a child and put them in an environment where they have two choices to get ahead,

A. Study hard, work their asses off, and defy all the odds of a system that is stacked against them and makes it incredibly hard for them to get an education or to get opportunities to better their lives in adulthood.

B. Join a gang, get a gun, and be a modern day warrior.

For the most part, they'll choose B every time. Choosing B isn't easier necessarily, but it's certainly held in higher esteem in the inner city. The kid who chooses A might make his mom very proud, but he won't have any friends at all, not to mention the fact that he'll need to make sure the gang-bangers don't kill him while he's trying to work his way out of the 'hood.

So, I think your point, Nappy, about gun laws not being all there is to gun crime is absolutely right. There are lots of other aspects of American society that need to change before gun crime will really drop, but making it harder for the kid who chooses option B to get a gun into his hand can only help.

[Napoleon Ier]

Interesting analysis, but I still think taking the UK as a sole point of comparison is

1/Misleadingly simplistic
2/Actually not even real evidence against liberal gun laws.

The reasons are that other countries such as Israel and Switzerland have hugely lax policies yet extremely low gun crime (between citizens anyway), and that despite successive tightenings of law in Britain, gun crime has enjoyed a steady rise, even though with normal statistical fluctuations.

Now asfor what regards gangs, I am persuaded that given their increasing internationalization, they will alays be able to get their hands on guns. Some of these gangs operate as massive multi-nationals, and the black market is huge. You need only look at how in London, guns are readily available for gangs despite tight restrictions.

[Colossus]

You keep saying that 'liberal gun laws' won't work....I'm curious as to what you think would work.

[heavycola]

Then somehow expect me to take seriously the notion that the acid test for gun regulation.

Again, i have no idea what this means. If I thought you did, i might indulge you. But i don't.

Again, you can only pick up on typos. Not actually say anything serious, apart from skirt around the real issue, pick up on typos, not use proper punctuation, and tiptoe around all the hard stats, and through around puerile insults. It's getting quite sad really.


Look, I'd love to see you invent innovative and increasingly amusing ways to refute evidence as the evening progresses but I have a meeting on how est to exploit starving African children producing AK-47s for us. Good evening sir.

Throwing insults around? So far in this thread, you whining, screechy little fannyturd, you have called guiscard deluded, neutrino dull and vacuous, i'm a pathetic clown, etc etc. You bring the insults raining down upon yourself, and although taking the piss out of someone half my age is hardly something to be proud of, it makes me feel good. And your insufferable hubris pretty much sits up and begs for it.

I didn't suggest that gun laws are the only factor in gun crime statistics, because I am not that simple minded . They are, however, a factor. There is a growing gang problem in the UK and a subsequent growing demand for guns. Do I believe that gun controls limit the number of guns in the gang members' hands? Yes. Do i believe that the school shootings in the US have, in some part, lax gun laws to blame for their severity? Yes. Was there a fall in gun crime between 1004/5 and 2006/7 in the UK? yes. Was it an anomaly? i don't know, and neither do you.

If you want to debate, then debate But don't accuse me of running scared from your devastating, fireproof insights, because that is frankly laughable. Every time you try and patronise anyone on here, it's llike watching a midget being held at arm's length while he swings wildly away with his little fists. It's funny and a little pathetic at the same time.

And talk about 'laughable analysis' - you have managed to deduce, eslewhere in this forum, that i am a 'mainstream liberal', whatever that is, simply because I called your post ridiculous. Ha ha ha. I am glad i irritate you, nappy, because the ridiculously misplaced high regard in which you hold yourself sure does irritate the hell out of me.

[Snorri1234]

My point was, that you're twisting statistics. There has been a continuous rise in UK gun crime which is "a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation".

Stop quoting Wiki all the time.

Who says it's unaffected by the legislation? Just because guncrime increases does not mean gun laws don't have an effect.

You can't just take any two countries that take your fancy, compare them, and say that they prove your point, when you're not taking into account any other factors. You want me to explain a 4* higher gun crime rate? I can't honestly say I'm criminolgist, but I can say beyond a shadow of doubt there are more factors incolved in crime rates than just gun control.

But you are missing the point. You can compare countries, just as long as you account for all factors in your comparison. The UK is way more comparable to the US than Switzerland is. They both don't have mandatory military training, they both have a culture that glorifies somewhat guns, they both have heavily populated cities with gettos and so on.

Switzerland is basically the opposite of them. The neutral, secretive country with a high standard of living and low density cities.

It is, quite frankly, ridiculous to assume the UK-US comparison is random. Noone is saying crime rates are only influenced by gun control laws, but when you have a society that has all the factors needed for a heavy crimerate it seems stricter gun laws do lessen the violent crime rate somewhat. Ofcourse, this does not mean banning guns in the USA is neccesarily the best idea at this time.

[greenoaks]

Australia is a country that has tightened its guns laws.

gun-related crimes dropped immediately. i think the decrease was 40% but i can't be bothered going through all those pages of the other thread, 'the right to bear arms', to find the link to the stats.

[Napoleon Ier]

I have no wish to speak with heavycola any more. His contributions to this thread have stemmed little more than a desire to descend what was a serious argument into a exchange of childish insults. I have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge him.

However, snorri has for once decided to critique intelligently, as have other people and they deserve to have his points addressed.

First off, I'd like to say snorri, that wikipedia is as good a source as any, and the article is well referenced. You, after all, are one who appreciats the value of hard stats, and indeed, have referenced wikipedia numerous times (to your credit). The fact that there is a rise in gun crime in the UK is well-documented, the effect of legislation, if it exists, is not reflected in thestatistics : the Dunblane ban has marked no visible change in crime rates.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article1668501.ece

You also need to look at long term trends, not just compare two points in time, and look at the rise and fall of crime rates over time.

You also need to understand that the UK is very different to the US. The arrival of gang culture is relatively recent, but it has sparked huge increases of violence, in gun crime as well as knife or other forms. I'll grant Switzerland is different to these countries, but nonetheless, could serve as a model, where no rights are restricted by government, but crime is still low, the best possible scenario.


Then there's also the fact that right-to-carry states in the US have typically lower gun crime (More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott, definintely a recommended read).

The real reasons for my opposition to this sort of law aren't just the statistics, which I nonetheless show you that gun crime tends to be caused by situations in which only outlaws possess them.

I believe in the right to self defence. If ever my home, or my family were attacked, I'd like to be able to defend it, not rely on the State to do it. Allowing citizens to have the means to defend themselves is essential, a basic human right. Say free speech managed to persuade people to commit crimes, would you oppose it? No. Citizens have a right to defend themselves, and should learn to.

[Colossus]

Ok, so your argument has little to do with whether such laws will or will not do good, but are rather a representation of your own personal extremist views. You obviously care nothing for actually doing something about the problems of crime, you just want to be able to 'defend yourself' against the inevitable day when your home is attacked. I hope you sleep well with your warm gun beside you. I now understand why so many people in these forums seem so incredibly tired of and disgusted with you. I won't attempt to add my own list of insults... as an American, I'd probably just call you an ignorant fuckhead, but that's not very eloquent....so I'll just leave it at the list offered already by heavycola. He's clearly much better at describing folks like you, Nappy, than I am.

[Snorri1234]

First off, I'd like to say snorri, that wikipedia is as good a source as any, and the article is well referenced. You, after all, are one who appreciats the value of hard stats, and indeed, have referenced wikipedia numerous times (to your credit). The fact that there is a rise in gun crime in the UK is well-documented, the effect of legislation, if it exists, is not reflected in thestatistics : the Dunblane ban has marked no visible change in crime rates.

I wasn't talking so much about wiki not being a good source but just that sentence being very annoying. The problem with saying it has not been affected is that there really is no good way of asserting it. It's possible gun crime rates would've soared more if it hadn't been for legislation but that's not important here anyway.
Also, the effect of a handgun-ban would not be immediately noticeable. Guns need time to disappear, as criminals aren't going to turn in their guns and therefore the police needs to take them away. I don't know much about how hard the police is on black markets for guns, so really I can't say much about this anyway.

You also need to understand that the UK is very different to the US. The arrival of gang culture is relatively recent, but it has sparked huge increases of violence, in gun crime as well as knife or other forms. I'll grant Switzerland is different to these countries, but nonetheless, could serve as a model, where no rights are restricted by government, but crime is still low, the best possible scenario.

Yes, but the main problem here is that it's almost impossible for the UK to become more like Switzerland due to all kinds of factors. Ofcourse measures should be taken against gang culture, but that is very hard when guns can be bought everywhere.

That article you posted talks about how gun-laws are fighting a symptom and not the root cause, and I fully agree. However, I've learned from my medicine-study that fighting the symptoms is something you have to do when you don't know how to fight the root cause. There needs to be research into it, and measures taken, but in the end the ban is a temporary medicine. It won't work on it's own, and ultimately will fail when no other measures are taken, but it does help.

I believe in the right to self defence. If ever my home, or my family were attacked, I'd like to be able to defend it, not rely on the State to do it. Allowing citizens to have the means to defend themselves is essential, a basic human right. Say free speech managed to persuade people to commit crimes, would you oppose it? No. Citizens have a right to defend themselves, and should learn to.

Well I agree with you in a way, but ultimately I don't understand what Uzis and AK 47's have to do with self defence. I am in favor of allowing people to obtain things like hunting-rifles, but a) there needs to be very strict control on it so that people have to wait a long time to obtain one and b) proper teaching about how to handle guns and safely store them. (Locked cabinets and shit like that.)

[Napoleon Ier]

Ok, so your argument has little to do with whether such laws will or will not do good, but are rather a representation of your own personal extremist views. You obviously care nothing for actually doing something about the problems of crime, you just want to be able to 'defend yourself' against the inevitable day when your home is attacked. I hope you sleep well with your warm gun beside you. I now understand why so many people in these forums seem so incredibly tired of and disgusted with you. I won't attempt to add my own list of insults... as an American, I'd probably just call you an ignorant fuckhead, but that's not very eloquent....so I'll just leave it at the list offered already by heavycola. He's clearly much better at describing folks like you, Nappy, than I am.

Why the sudden vitriol? Am I suddenly an ignorant shithead for wanting to defend myself? You know, this justifies bradley when he says that many liberals hypocritically cry "tolerance!" whilst fustigating anyone who thinks differently.

In broad response to snorri, the same legislations can have different effects in different places. However, at all times, the rights of the individual must be respected. Obviously a line needs to be drawn, somewhere near the automatic assault rifle.

I'll find more time to respond in more depth later.

[Colossus]

I'm no liberal, believe me, and I'm sure many other posters here will agree that my viewpoints do not tend toward extremes or toward intolerance. Heavycola and I have disagreed many times, for example.

I just can't abide people who take the argument regarding gun regulation to the extreme that you have. America is rife with people of such opinion, and they are generally people who live in areas with little or no gun violence who stand little or no real threat of ever having to defend themselves from invasion. Your argument that gun laws don't work because you want to be able to defend yourself holds no water, man. I, personally, am totally against a complete ban on ownership of guns. I believe very firmly in the right to bear arms, but just like so many other aspects of our society, I think it is prudent to treat such a right with reason. The right to bear arms doesn't mean that every American or Brit or whoever should be free to form their own personal arsenal. Arguments such as yours posit that the real solution to gun violence is for everyone to be armed such that they can 'defend themselves'. That's not rule of law; it's basically its own form of social darwinism. As other folks in this thread have argued far better than I can (see the earlier discussion regarding the value of legislation in exacting social change by Suggs and others), regulation does work. It has worked in many areas of society. For some bizarre reason, when it comes to gun regulation, folks like you think that some law regulating the availability of certain kinds of particularly dangerous weapons (such as the suggested regulations that snorri has offered) means that suddenly The Man is coming to collect your guns and to revoke your right to 'defend yourself'. It's a ridiculous argument that is generally championed by those who either stand no real threat from gun violence themselves or who are themselves gun-toting criminals.

I used to think very much as you do, Nappy. Then I moved to Philadelphia. Now I know better.

[Dancing Mustard]

gun crime has enjoyed a steady rise, even though with normal statistical fluctuations.

You seem to be turning a blind-eye to the fact that crime in general has been on the rise in the UK over the same period. You seem also to avoid the fact that gun-crime has grown more slowly than other types of violent crime in the UK.
The point is simply that UK society is more violent than it used to be, and it's only tight firearms restrictions that have stopped gun-violence rising at the same speed as all of the other types of violence.
As such, anti-gun legislation does work, because it's suceeded in keeping violent firearm crime down, when all other types of violence have risen. Who knows, perhaps you think that UK criminals are just gun-averse and prefer using fists and knives... but it seems unlikely.

gangs, I am persuaded that given their increasing internationalization, they will alays be able to get their hands on guns. Some of these gangs operate as massive multi-nationals, and the black market is huge. You need only look at how in London, guns are readily available for gangs despite tight restrictions.

Actually they're not... while some military-grade weapons have managed to enter into circulation in the UK, the main types of firearms used in crime in the UK (indeed the great majority) aren't the automatic military-grade weapons that are seen so often in the US; but they're small (often very old) pistols, shotguns, and modified replica-guns. In other words, weapons that have been in the country for decades (before modern customs controls were introduced) legal weapons that have been smuggled out of agricultural/sporting enterprises, or retrofitted replicas.

Do you think UK criminals prefer those kind of unsophisciated firearms? Or do you think perhaps that they're just making do as best they can with the limited resources available to them because of tight gun-control legislation?
Sure, our laws+policing aren't 100% effective in keeping firearms out of circulation, but the patterns of the type of weapons used in the UK (as opposed to in jurisdictions with lapse firearms control) are proof that our current regime is certainly working at keeping the worst kinds of guns out of the hands of criminals.

In other words, contrary to your assertions to the contrary, seriously enforced gun control does work at keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, no matter how 'international' they have become / are becoming. That's why gun crime in the UK hasn't risen as quickly as it should have in proportion to other types of violent crime, and that's why the patterns of weapon use here aren't the same as in gun-friendly jurisdictions.

[percy.com]

I just can't believe anyone could defend lax gun laws in a country that has college/school/mall/house/street/f**k knows where else shootings not just every week but every DAY. look it up; thousands of shootings every year in the good ol' US of A. You don't need to be a mathematician, or even fully awake, to realise that's severall shootings even in statisticall ''slump'' days.
The odds that you would ever need one of these weapons(that is what they are, whatever some people will tell you) will be used to defend you or your home are miniscule. You'd be an idiot to bet on a horse at the odds they offer. at the same time, the chances even a responsible, sane, sober adult has of spraying their own, or their famillies' brains on the wall are small but definitely higher. You could say that screening programs are in place to stop the wrong types getting guns but people flip suddenly and unexpectedley. Here in Britain(not a paradigm of gun safety but better at least than the USA)
a man I know called Rob was allowed to by two heavy-gauge shotguns. About three weeks later he beat his wife and allmost burned down their house. I'm not saying it was related to the guns but merely that whatever screening measures you have in place some people will allways slip through. Now bolt-action hunting rifles is one thing but when people can legaly buy assault rifles, automatic pistols and .50 Desert Eagles, useless for anything practicall, something is wrong with the system. By the way if this post seems smug or mocking then I didn't intend it. I feel very strongly for all the innocent victims of gun crime sadly lost in America and that is why I believe you need stronger controls. R.I.P. all the recent victims and god bless.

[Guiscard]

gun crime has enjoyed a steady rise, even though with normal statistical fluctuations.

You seem to be turning a blind-eye to the fact that crime in general has been on the rise in the UK over the same period. You seem also to avoid the fact that gun-crime has grown more slowly than other types of violent crime in the UK.
The point is simply that UK society is more violent than it used to be, and it's only tight firearms restrictions that have stopped gun-violence rising at the same speed as all of the other types of violence.
As such, anti-gun legislation does work, because it's suceeded in keeping violent firearm crime down, when all other types of violence have risen. Who knows, perhaps you think that UK criminals are just gun-averse and prefer using fists and knives... but it seems unlikely.

gangs, I am persuaded that given their increasing internationalization, they will alays be able to get their hands on guns. Some of these gangs operate as massive multi-nationals, and the black market is huge. You need only look at how in London, guns are readily available for gangs despite tight restrictions.

Actually they're not... while some military-grade weapons have managed to enter into circulation in the UK, the main types of firearms used in crime in the UK (indeed the great majority) aren't the automatic military-grade weapons that are seen so often in the US; but they're small (often very old) pistols, shotguns, and modified replica-guns. In other words, weapons that have been in the country for decades (before modern customs controls were introduced) legal weapons that have been smuggled out of agricultural/sporting enterprises, or retrofitted replicas.

Do you think UK criminals prefer those kind of unsophisciated firearms? Or do you think perhaps that they're just making do as best they can with the limited resources available to them because of tight gun-control legislation?
Sure, our laws+policing aren't 100% effective in keeping firearms out of circulation, but the patterns of the type of weapons used in the UK (as opposed to in jurisdictions with lapse firearms control) are proof that our current regime is certainly working at keeping the worst kinds of guns out of the hands of criminals.

In other words, contrary to your assertions to the contrary, seriously enforced gun control does work at keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, no matter how 'international' they have become / are becoming. That's why gun crime in the UK hasn't risen as quickly as it should have in proportion to other types of violent crime, and that's why the patterns of weapon use here aren't the same as in gun-friendly jurisdictions.

This is exactly the argument I was just about to make. Damn you.

[comic boy]

Ok, so your argument has little to do with whether such laws will or will not do good, but are rather a representation of your own personal extremist views. You obviously care nothing for actually doing something about the problems of crime, you just want to be able to 'defend yourself' against the inevitable day when your home is attacked. I hope you sleep well with your warm gun beside you. I now understand why so many people in these forums seem so incredibly tired of and disgusted with you. I won't attempt to add my own list of insults... as an American, I'd probably just call you an ignorant fuckhead, but that's not very eloquent....so I'll just leave it at the list offered already by heavycola. He's clearly much better at describing folks like you, Nappy, than I am.

Why the sudden vitriol? Am I suddenly an ignorant shithead for wanting to defend myself? You know, this justifies bradley when he says that many liberals hypocritically cry "tolerance!" whilst fustigating anyone who thinks differently.

In broad response to snorri, the same legislations can have different effects in different places. However, at all times, the rights of the individual must be respected. Obviously a line needs to be drawn, somewhere near the automatic assault rifle.

I'll find more time to respond in more depth later.

No you have always been so, the difference now is that we are bored by it.