The Brits are fucked

[Lao Tzu]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040418/wl_nm/portugal_britain_attacks_dc_1


LISBON (Reuters) - Several Islamic militant groups are preparing attacks on London, making such a strike unavoidable, a radical Muslim cleric said in an interview published Sunday.



"It's inevitable. Because several (attacks) are being prepared by several groups," Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad told Lisbon's Publica magazine from London where he is based.


One "very well organized" group in London calling itself al Qaeda Europe "has a great appeal for young Muslims," he said. "I know that they are ready to launch a big operation."


The firebrand cleric, who has outraged moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike with his uncompromising views, gave no further details.


Asked if a British Muslim was allowed to carry out a "terrorist attempt" in a foreign country, Muhammad said, "That is another story."


He added: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."


It was important to see accusations of terrorism in their proper context, he said.


"If we give money to needy women and children, they say they are the families of terrorists. But where do the terrorists come from? Zimbabwe? No. They are people from here. And they are our brothers, the terrorists."


"The British also are terrorists, in Iraq (news - web sites)...Terrorism is the law of the 21st century. It's legitimate."


Sheikh Bakri Muhammad said he had mixed feelings about the possible effect of his comments. "In a certain way I regret that, because the first thing the government will do is deport me, myself and my family," he said.


The Syrian-born cleric heads the al Muhajiroun group, which has praised the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the al Qaeda militant network blamed for them.


He told Publica there were several "freelance" militant groups in Europe, such as al Qaeda London, prepared to launch attacks similar to those carried out by the al Qaeda network.


Four British men and a teen-ager appeared in court in Britain last week charged with plotting a bombing after they were arrested in the country's biggest anti-terror raids since the U.S. attacks on September 11. The men, all of Pakistani origin, were arrested on March 30 in raids which uncovered 1,300 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be used in bomb making.


Asked about his comments that he wanted to have the banner of Islam at 10 Downing Street, Muhammad said, "Yes, it's my dream. I believe one day that is going to happen. Because this is my country, I like living here."


"I've been arrested 16 times. And 16 times freed, because they have nothing against me. These are the contradictions of laws made by man. If they believe in democracy, who are they afraid of? Let Omar Bakri benefit from democracy!"

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Yeh, imagine if muslims tried to take over the UK (not likely) -- they'd have no guns to defend themselves with


The Brits need to adopt the Patriot Act. And if there is a big attack on London, I can only imagine how things will be in the future.

In the end, we will win.

 

[Moderate_THIS]

Maybe the Brits will get lucky and the terrorists will only target dentistries

 

[danielson]

great........

no reason to assume its not true, and with a city of londons size the casualties are likely to be huge

travelings gonna be a whole lot of fun now....




and expect random violence against non-whites from the far right, plus our nation spiralling into right wing legislature...

amazing considering we were unlilely to be leff of a target pre-iraq...maybe we'll get lucky and they'll blow up blair

 

[perkele]

We can't beat terrorism. That's the war we will lose.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

We can't beat terrorism. That's the war we will lose.

Are you French?

 

[perkele]

Are you French?

how dare you?

 

[tuc biscuit]

our problem is that we are so fucking politically correct it is insane, we won't deport people who go on record as threatening terrorist action against us.....no we make sure they recieve their government handouts....all the while we have war veterans and native citizens living in poverty

 

[Hangfire]

The war on terrorists is a war of attrition. Since you can't stop someone determined to sacrifice his life to carry out an attack, the only course of action is to eliminate the terrorists. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad's twisted logic would be laughable if it wasn't so disturbing. We will, finally, need to decide whether all of Islam is the enemy, as the Sheikh asserts.

 

[Moderate_THIS]

Are you French?

he just smells like it

 

[Mandinka2]

our problem is that we are so fucking politically correct it is insane, we won't deport people who go on record as threatening terrorist action against us.....no we make sure they recieve their government handouts....all the while we have war veterans and native citizens living in poverty

Agree completely tuc , one man stood up years ago and made his "Rivers of blood" speech....long banished to the backbenches now.

 

[manny78]

And considering brits are denied the right to own firearms that's even better. Yeah they're fucked big time...

 

[vinylgroover]

And considering brits are denied the right to own firearms that's even better. Yeah they're fucked big time...

Not so sure Manny, not having firarms hasn't done Australia any harm either. In fact, it's made the place much safer.

 

[Hangfire]

Not so sure Manny, not having firarms hasn't done Australia any harm either. In fact, it's made the place much safer.

That's not what the crime statistics say.

 

[vinylgroover]

That's not what the crime statistics say.

what do they say?

 

[manny78]

Not so sure Manny, not having firarms hasn't done Australia any harm either. In fact, it's made the place much safer.

Really ? Well how come the crime rate is still the same ?

And how come UKs crime rate is going up since 1996 ? A coincidence maybe ?

 

[fistfullofsteel]

Are you French?

Man, that's beyond below the belt!!!!! Them fightin words!!!

 

[manny78]

what do they say?

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

 

[Hangfire]

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Beat me to it. A defenseless society is never a safer one.

 

[vinylgroover]

Really ? Well how come the crime rate is still the same ?

And how come UKs crime rate is going up since 1996 ? A coincidence maybe ?

Read this.......as far as Australia is concerned compared to the states. It's from the New South Wales Crime statistics bureau. New South Wales is Ausralia's largest state.

"THE PREVALENCE OF FIREARM OFFENCES
In the last section we saw that the incidence of certain kinds of firearm offences is increasing in NSW. It is worth remembering, however, that the overall prevalence of firearm offences in Australia and NSW remains very low.

Between July 1998 and June 1999 there were 64 firearm-related homicides recorded in Australia. This equates to 3 firearm homicides per one million persons (Mouzos 2000a). By comparison, the United States recorded 10,973 known firearm homicides in 1998 or 41 per one million population (Fox & Zawitz 2001).

Even robberies involving firearms are much less prevalent in NSW than they are in the United States. This is despite NSW having the highest per capita robbery rate in Australia. As we saw earlier, last year there were 655 robberies involving firearms in NSW. Sixty-seven per cent (438) of these incidents involved a handgun. On a per capita basis this gives an annual firearm robbery rate in NSW of 10.1 incidents per 100,000 population and a handgun robbery rate of 6.8 incidents per 100,000 population. The rates of ‘shoot with intent’ incidents are even lower than the rates for robbery with a firearm incidents, being 1.6 per 100,000 population in the case of ‘shoot with intent’ incidents involving any kind of firearm and 0.7 per 100,000 population in the case of ‘shoot with intent’ incidents involving a handgun.

For comparison, the rate of firearm robbery in the United States is 58.7 crimes per 100,000 population (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2000), while the current rate of driving fatality or serious injury in NSW is 87.3 per 100,000 population (Roads and Traffic Authority 1999). Thus the rate of robbery with a firearm in NSW is about one-sixth of that in the United States and the risk of being killed or injured in a road accident is about 8 times higher than falling victim to armed robbery. "

 

[vinylgroover]

And again if you could be bothered reading it from the same source......


"PREVENTING FIREARM OFFENCES
Summarising the NSW situation, then:




Murders involving firearms have declined over the last five years.

Robberies involving firearms have declined over the last three years.

‘Shoot with intent’ incidents have risen over the last five years.

‘Shoot with intent’ incidents involving handguns have risen over the last five years.

About half of all ‘shoot with intent’ offences involving handguns and other firearms occur in a public place.

The increase in firearm offences has been most pronounced in areas of Sydney where drug trafficking is a problem.

Young males aged 18-19 are much more prone to involvement in shooting incidents than older males.

The prevalence of firearm offences, in general, and handgun offences, in particular, remains low.
To what extent should Australian and NSW authorities be concerned about this situation and what can or is being done about it? If the United States experience is anything to go by, the increasing incidence of ‘shoot with intent’ offences is a cause for concern. In the six years between 1985 and 1991 the United States homicide rate rose from about 8 per 100,000 in 1985 to nearly 10 per 100,000 in 1991, an increase of about 25 per cent. All of this increase was attributable to handgun homicides committed by young adult and juvenile males (Blumstein & Rosenfeld 1998). The increase in homicides involving youths and handguns is thought to have been caused primarily by the development of the ‘crack’ market, the recruitment of young people to sell drugs on the street, increased arming of drug sellers, the carrying of guns for protection and status, and irresponsible and casual use by young people (Blumstein & Rosenfeld 1998).

There is no indication at present that NSW or Australia is about to experience an increase in gun homicide rates comparable to that which occurred in the United States between 1985 and 1991. As we have already observed, our gun homicide rate is far lower than that in the United States. Guns are also far easier to obtain in the United States than in Australia. Weatherburn (1995) has shown, however, that if the willingness to use a firearm increases with the number of available firearms, the homicide rate can rise much faster than the spread of guns into the community. The fact that many of the ‘shoot with intent’ offences occurring in NSW are occurring in areas notable for drug trafficking parallels the situation which prevailed in the United States prior to the growth in homicide which occurred in that country between 1985 and 1991. At the present time NSW firearm offences appear not to be exclusively linked with the narcotics trade. The United States experience, however, suggests that early action to stem the upward trend in firearm offending is highly desirable.

Cook and Moore (1995) suggest that worthwhile policy responses to gun crime can be classified into three categories, depending upon their objective. These are:

1. those designed to affect the supply and overall availability of guns

2. those designed to influence who has these weapons

3. those designed to affect how guns are used by people who have them.

It is fair to say that traditional approaches to the problem of firearm crime have focused on the last of these three objectives rather than the first two. The criminal law contains strong sanctions for using a firearm in the commission of an offence. The attraction of such laws is that they do not impinge upon those who wish to possess a firearm but have no intention of using it to commit an offence (e.g. sporting shooters). There are two problems, however, with efforts to reduce gun crime focused solely on sanctioning those who use firearms in the commission of an offence. Firstly, many offences involving firearms are not premeditated or are committed by people indifferent to the prospect of apprehension and punishment. Secondly, the larger the supply of legally owned firearms in the community, the easier it is for firearms to fall into the hands of those willing to use them in the commission of crime.

Recognising this, Australian Governments have sought to reduce the supply and availability of firearms through prohibitions on the importation and possession of certain kinds of weapon and through the Commonwealth-funded national gun buy-back. The prohibitions agreed to by all States and Territories were those covered in the National Firearms Agreement. This Agreement resulted in a total ban on military style automatic and semi-automatic firearms. It also restricted the importation of non-military centrefire self-loading firearms to those with a maximum magazine capacity of five rounds. The national gun buy-back in NSW resulted in the surrender of 192,263 firearms, 155,774 of which were prohibited under the new laws and 36,489 of which were surrendered voluntarily because their owners no longer wished to retain them (Tree 2001).

The principal means by which Australian Governments have sought to influence who gets access to firearms is through the National Firearms Agreement. This agreement commits all States and Territories to a system of firearm licensing and registration.5 Because the licensing system imposes financial costs on firearms dealers, which are passed on to consumers in the form of higher firearm prices, it probably has the effect of limiting the number of new firearms in circulation. Its main function, however, is to ensure that firearms are only possessed by people who have a bona fide reason for having one, and to restrict firearms from lawfully coming into the possession of unsuitable people (e.g. persons with a previous conviction for a violent, firearm or weapons offence; and persons subject to certain court orders such as an Apprehended Violence Order). "

 

[vinylgroover]

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

with all due respect Manny, Geoff metcalf from the 'world net daily' is hardly a credible source of information.

 

[Taps]

What % of Englands population is Muslim? Anyone know?

 

[manny78]

with all due respect Manny, Geoff metcalf from the 'world net daily' is hardly a credible source of information.

Then maybe the NRA ? Or the Australian PDs ? England and Australia both have seen an increase in their crime rate. England being a lot worse btw.

You're also confusing gun related crimes with "crimes" period. What matters is how many crimes you got in a year. Doesn't really matter what tool was actually used. Canada saw the same problem over the last 20 years. We dont have restrictive laws as you do but the few restrictions they put didnt do shit on crime and suicide.

 

[vinylgroover]

Then maybe the NRA ? Or the Australian PDs ? England and Australia both have seen an increase in their crime rate. England being a lot worse btw.

Increase in overall crime rates are irrelevant. To use the argument that banning guns causes an increase in violent crime using other methods is ludicrous and has been proven false a number of times.

In Australia, homicide rates involving the use of guns has declined markedly over the last 20 years..........it is no coincidence that this has come about as a result of continued tightening of gun control laws over the same period.

I prefer to get my sources from published crime stats rather than vested interest groups such as the NRA.

Again and i quote:




"............'What Ken fails to consider is the point made in a recent Reason article, excerpted here: that gun control leads to leads to an overall increase in violent crime, including crime using weapons other than firearms, because their potential use in self defence acts as a deterrent. Guns don't have to be fired, or even wielded, to act as a deterrent against crime. In areas where gun ownership is low, crimes like robbery and rape are far less risky to commit. That's why the UK is seeing a dramatic increase in violent crime that's continuing to rise: victims are defenceless.'

Let's test that argument against reality. First, as I observed in my earlier article, US homicide rates are 300% higher than Australia's, and their armed robbery with a firearm rates are almost 600% higher. So much for the "deterrent effect" of endemic gun ownership. However, perhaps Zem is trying to argue that rates for other offences are much lower. Of course, even if that was true, it requires one to make the value judgment that it is better to have 3 times as many deaths by homicide as a trade-off for lower rates of less serious crime. Fortunately, we don't need to muse about moral dilemmas of that sort. An Australian Institute of Criminology study published in 1997 and titled A Statistical Profile of Crime in Australia (rtf format) extracts the following statistics comparing Australia and the US over several different offence categories and a 23 year period from 1972 to 1995. I should add the caveat that US crime rates for some categories have come down a little since then, and Australian rates for some categories have gone up. Nevertheless, the figures provide a reasonable basis for assessing the validity of Zem's argument about the crime deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership. US gun laws have not changed significantly over the whole period, and Australia's gun laws were much tighter than the US even before Port Arthur. Thus, if Zem is right, we would expect to see the US with consistently lower crime rates than Australia. In fact, we see no such thing. Here are the figures as at 1995. If you want to see the figures for the whole 23 year period (and comparative figures for 5 other countries as well), scroll down to page 77 of the report. The crime rates are expressed as numbers of offences per 100,000 of population.

Burglary Motor vehicle theft Larceny Homicide Robbery
United States 987.6 560.5 3044.9 8.2 220.9
Australia 2131.9 703.0 2960.8 2.0 91.2

As you can see, US crime rates are higher in every category except burglary and motor vehicle theft, and frighteningly higher for homicide and robbery. Thus, the argument that gun ownership deters crime is complete nonsense, just like all the other gun lobby arguments.

Fortunately, it appears that Prime Minister Howard and all the State and Territory leaders agree. So do the great majority of Australians. That is why governments appear to have decided to implement tough new laws severely restricting handgun ownership. We can expect the gun nuts to continue telling lies and squealing like stuck pigs about their "rights" being removed. Don't expect most Australians to take any notice. "


Homicide rates in the US are 300% higher than in Australia........clearly the widepsreadpresence of guns in the community in the US has done nothing to curtail the disgraceful homicide rates.

The stats are indesputable on every basis that if you take guns out of the community, violent crime leading to homicide is reduced.

 

[vinylgroover]

Then maybe the NRA ? Or the Australian PDs ? England and Australia both have seen an increase in their crime rate. England being a lot worse btw.

You're also confusing gun related crimes with "crimes" period. What matters is how many crimes you got in a year. Doesn't really matter what tool was actually used. Canada saw the same problem over the last 20 years. We dont have restrictive laws as you do but the few restrictions they put didnt do shit on crime and suicide.

i disagree and so do many on that argument. Pro gun people present the argument that the presence of guns in the community prevents violent crime..........where are the stats that back that assertion up.........nowhere.

If that is true, why does the US have such ridiculously high homicide rates in comparison with the UK and Australia?

 

[manny78]

i disagree and so do many on that argument. Pro gun people present the argument that the presence of guns in the community prevents violent crime..........where are the stats that back that assertion up.........nowhere.

If that is true, why does the US have such ridiculously high homicide rates in comparison with the UK and Australia?

US cities with high crime rate:

- New York

- Washington

- Chicago

- Los Angeles

Don't you see a pattern ? All of them are anti-gun. Btw the UK has a crime rate higher.

Overall crime rate is relevant. It doesnt matter if you get killed with a firearm or a wrench. Bottom line, you're dead. Gun prohibitons dont stop criminals. Smugglers are still there supplying everyone willing to spend some $$$.

BTW when was the last you saw a semi-auto start flying by its own and shoot people ?

 

[p0ink]

guns for me, but not for thee, said the mighty State.

 

[buddy28]

Terrorism is good for the state.

 

[buddy28]

We will, finally, need to decide whether all of Islam is the enemy, as the Sheikh asserts.

Another compassionate conservative making a thinly veiled endorsement of state sponsored genocide.

Hail Mien Furhor!!

 

[buddy28]

guns for me, but not for thee, said the mighty State.

Terrorism gives the state even more excuse to put the second amendment through the shredder!!



But who will save the children??

 

[vinylgroover]

US cities with high crime rate:

- New York

- Washington

- Chicago

- Los Angeles

Don't you see a pattern ? All of them are anti-gun. Btw the UK has a crime rate higher.

Overall crime rate is relevant. It doesnt matter if you get killed with a firearm or a wrench. Bottom line, you're dead. Gun prohibitons dont stop criminals. Smugglers are still there supplying everyone willing to spend some $$$.

BTW when was the last you saw a semi-auto start flying by its own and shoot people ?

Manny, you and most pro-gun people keep dodging the issue of high rates of homicide and guns........why? because it's an indefensible argument for the need to control guns.

I agree, gun prohibition won't stop criminals but it will drastically reduce the rate of homicide in any society, a fact which is proven by statistics time and time again and ignored by pro-gun people time and time again.

I'll gladly back defending myself aganst a guy with a wrench vs a guy with a gun any day.

 

[Hangfire]

Another compassionate conservative making a thinly veiled endorsement of state sponsored genocide.

Hail Mien Furhor!!

You've had enough to drink tonight.

 

[Testosterone boy]

Attacking England will provoke the 800 pound gorilla, anyone can see that.

Interesting that talks of Euro terrorist attacks surface at this particular time....though talk is simply talk.

 

[onebigab]

We can't beat terrorism. That's the war we will lose.

WE can beat terrorism. We need to start acting like the terrorists do. We find them and kill them, then find their families and kill them also. Their wives, children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. Fuck those assholes and lets start playing the rebel games also.

 

[vinylgroover]

WE can beat terrorism. We need to start acting like the terrorists do. We find them and kill them, then find their families and kill them also. Their wives, children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. Fuck those assholes and lets start playing the rebel games also.

So far it's taken 2 years, $bilions and a shit load of manpower and the US still can't find a rag tag bunch of camel jokeys called Al Qaeda and their leader. How the hell do you expect to find others?

 

[CFZB]

Maybe the Brits will get lucky and the terrorists will only target dentistries

ITS A MAN BABY , YEAH !!!!!!!!!!

 

[onebigab]

So far it's taken 2 years, $bilions and a shit load of manpower and the US still can't find a rag tag bunch of camel jokeys called Al Qaeda and their leader. How the hell do you expect to find others?

They know right where he is. Election time is in November. So lets say Osama will be captured in October.

Yeah.

Good news for the Country and for Bush and he wins Re-election.

 

[buddy28]

You've had enough to drink tonight.

Your feelings are about as cryptic as a crossword on the back of a crackerjacks box.

When do you propose we carpet bomb mecca?

 

[Lao Tzu]

So far it's taken 2 years, $bilions and a shit load of manpower and the US still can't find a rag tag bunch of camel jokeys called Al Qaeda and their leader. How the hell do you expect to find others?

We didn't find Bin Ladin but at least half of Al Qaeda's leadership is gone.

Overall i agree, we can't really 'beat' terrorism. Unlike a country like Nazi Germany with defined borders and an easy to locate location, terrorists have a pool of about 200 million anonymous sympathizers, no real signs of presence and no national boundries. And they only have to strike once or twice to be truly effective.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Increase in overall crime rates are irrelevant. To use the argument that banning guns causes an increase in violent crime using other methods is ludicrous and has been proven false a number of times.

In Australia, homicide rates involving the use of guns has declined markedly over the last 20 years..........it is no coincidence that this has come about as a result of continued tightening of gun control laws over the same period.

I prefer to get my sources from published crime stats rather than vested interest groups such as the NRA.

Again and i quote:




"............'What Ken fails to consider is the point made in a recent Reason article, excerpted here: that gun control leads to leads to an overall increase in violent crime, including crime using weapons other than firearms, because their potential use in self defence acts as a deterrent. Guns don't have to be fired, or even wielded, to act as a deterrent against crime. In areas where gun ownership is low, crimes like robbery and rape are far less risky to commit. That's why the UK is seeing a dramatic increase in violent crime that's continuing to rise: victims are defenceless.'

Let's test that argument against reality. First, as I observed in my earlier article, US homicide rates are 300% higher than Australia's, and their armed robbery with a firearm rates are almost 600% higher. So much for the "deterrent effect" of endemic gun ownership. However, perhaps Zem is trying to argue that rates for other offences are much lower. Of course, even if that was true, it requires one to make the value judgment that it is better to have 3 times as many deaths by homicide as a trade-off for lower rates of less serious crime. Fortunately, we don't need to muse about moral dilemmas of that sort. An Australian Institute of Criminology study published in 1997 and titled A Statistical Profile of Crime in Australia (rtf format) extracts the following statistics comparing Australia and the US over several different offence categories and a 23 year period from 1972 to 1995. I should add the caveat that US crime rates for some categories have come down a little since then, and Australian rates for some categories have gone up. Nevertheless, the figures provide a reasonable basis for assessing the validity of Zem's argument about the crime deterrent effect of widespread gun ownership. US gun laws have not changed significantly over the whole period, and Australia's gun laws were much tighter than the US even before Port Arthur. Thus, if Zem is right, we would expect to see the US with consistently lower crime rates than Australia. In fact, we see no such thing. Here are the figures as at 1995. If you want to see the figures for the whole 23 year period (and comparative figures for 5 other countries as well), scroll down to page 77 of the report. The crime rates are expressed as numbers of offences per 100,000 of population.

Burglary Motor vehicle theft Larceny Homicide Robbery
United States 987.6 560.5 3044.9 8.2 220.9
Australia 2131.9 703.0 2960.8 2.0 91.2

As you can see, US crime rates are higher in every category except burglary and motor vehicle theft, and frighteningly higher for homicide and robbery. Thus, the argument that gun ownership deters crime is complete nonsense, just like all the other gun lobby arguments.

Fortunately, it appears that Prime Minister Howard and all the State and Territory leaders agree. So do the great majority of Australians. That is why governments appear to have decided to implement tough new laws severely restricting handgun ownership. We can expect the gun nuts to continue telling lies and squealing like stuck pigs about their "rights" being removed. Don't expect most Australians to take any notice. "


Homicide rates in the US are 300% higher than in Australia........clearly the widepsreadpresence of guns in the community in the US has done nothing to curtail the disgraceful homicide rates.

The stats are indesputable on every basis that if you take guns out of the community, violent crime leading to homicide is reduced.

Hey, Mr. Wizard, this article is comparing the rates of crime between TWO DIFFERENT countries, not comparing the crime stats of each one pre- and post gun restrictions. These are the only meaningful statistics, as each culture/population will be different, thus comparing each other -one with a population ten times larger than the other -is retarded. Look at stats on crimes, -yes ALL types of crimes, for some forms of crimes, such as robbery and rapes, are deterred by gun ownership -in the same population before and after gun restrictions. The author has failed to present the evidence that if the US regulated guns like Australia, that our crime rates would plummet to levels seen in that of Australia. He has only presented the fact that the US has a higher rate of crime than Australia.

 

[vinylgroover]

Hey, Mr. Wizard, this article is comparing the rates of crime between TWO DIFFERENT countries, not comparing the crime stats of each one pre- and post gun restrictions. These are the only meaningful statistics, as each culture/population will be different, thus comparing each other -one with a population ten times larger than the other -is retarded. Look at stats on crimes, -yes ALL types of crimes, for some forms of crimes, such as robbery and rapes, are deterred by gun ownership -in the same population before and after gun restrictions. The author has failed to present the evidence that if the US regulated guns like Australia, that our crime rates would plummet to levels seen in that of Australia. He has only presented the fact that the US has a higher rate of crime than Australia.

They are crime rates atlanta.......note the word 'rates'.

I'm not a wizard, just presenting a common sense argument based on statistical evidence, something which pro gun people never come up with to support their argument.

Statstics can lie, but i would prefer to believe statistics over rhetoric and anecdote, which is all the pro gun people ever come up with to support their flakey argument.

pro gun people would insist the sky is green if it meant not losing their guns.

 

[Spanky11]

They are crime rates atlanta.......note the word 'rates'.

I'm not a wizard, just presenting a common sense argument based on statistical evidence, something which pro gun people never come up with to support their argument.

Statstics can lie, but i would prefer to believe statistics over rhetoric and anecdote, which is all the pro gun people ever come up with to support their flakey argument.

pro gun people would insist the sky is green if it meant not losing their guns.

true dat....guns are bad - period.

I just hope these pro gun people drop their guns and shooth themselves in the foot.

morons..

 

[atlantabiolab]

They are crime rates atlanta.......note the word 'rates'.

You don't even understand what I am saying, do you? It matters not what the rates are BETWEEN two countries, it matters only what happens IN the country before and after measures are enacted. Cause and effect.

Would it be telling to look at the crime rates between Haiti and China? If Haiti outlawed guns what information would be gleemed from the inter-country study of crime stats, in regards to gun control? Does the population dynamics not influence the issues of crime more than the weapons used?

I'm not a wizard, just presenting a common sense argument based on statistical evidence, something which pro gun people never come up with to support their argument.

Statstics can lie, but i would prefer to believe statistics over rhetoric and anecdote, which is all the pro gun people ever come up with to support their flakey argument.

pro gun people would insist the sky is green if it meant not losing their guns.

First, if you believe that pro-gun organizations do not present statistics to support their claims, then you are sorely mistaken. There are numerous sites which use crime stats to support the idea of gun availability decreasing or causing no change in the crime rate. Second, I could care less about statistics, since I don't accept the premise that my rights are contingent on empirical surveys. If a thousand people shoot themselves with guns every year, it is still my right to protect myself with a gun, if I so choose. My rights are not contigent on the responsible actions of others.

 

[atlantabiolab]

true dat....guns are bad - period.

I just hope these pro gun people drop their guns and shooth themselves in the foot.

morons..

Wow...the reasoning to support your argument was overwhelming. So what you are saying is that guns are bad?

 

[Frackal19]

"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

I'm so sick of this fucking shit

Fuck Islam

 

[vinylgroover]

You don't even understand what I am saying, do you? It matters not what the rates are BETWEEN two countries, it matters only what happens IN the country before and after measures are enacted. Cause and effect.

Would it be telling to look at the crime rates between Haiti and China? If Haiti outlawed guns what information would be gleemed from the inter-country study of crime stats, in regards to gun control? Does the population dynamics not influence the issues of crime more than the weapons used?



First, if you believe that pro-gun organizations do not present statistics to support their claims, then you are sorely mistaken. There are numerous sites which use crime stats to support the idea of gun availability decreasing or causing no change in the crime rate. Second, I could care less about statistics, since I don't accept the premise that my rights are contingent on empirical surveys. If a thousand people shoot themselves with guns every year, it is still my right to protect myself with a gun, if I so choose. My rights are not contigent on the responsible actions of others.

As i said earlier in my piece, i have distinguished as have many anti-gun proponents between general crime rates and homicide. Take away guns and you will reduce the rate of homicide.......it's as clear as day and only a complete ignoramous would dispute that. Is that not an ideal worth pursuing? or is life that cheap in your country.

The issue of general crime rates and cause and effect is more problematical, but to suggest that the presence of guns in society is a cause of a reduction in crime rates is complete nonsense. There are many factors that contribute to an increase in crime rates..........drug culture, unemployment, changed social conditions, poverty, judicial factors etc etc........to simply say that crime rates would not rise in the UK and Australia if more people had guns is moronic and ignores all of the other socio-economic factors that lead to increases in crime.

We can however deal with certainty.........that certainty is that in Australia over the last 20 years, gun induced homicide has dropped dramatically as a result of continued tightening of gun control laws............coincidence? i think not. Conversely, the US's rate of homicide has barely changed over time, if anything has gotten worse and guess what.......virtually no tightening in gun cntrol.

Congrats are in order for the U.S reducing it's overall crime rate, while homicide involving guns has gotten worse That's something worse celebrating isn't it?

Show me the stats not empty rhetoric.......

 

[buddy28]

"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity."

I'm so sick of this fucking shit

Fuck Islam

You're painting with a broad stroke, Frackal. It's like saying all Christians are pieces of shit because a small group of Jesus loving radicals offed a handfull of abortion doctors.

 

[buddy28]

But, yea. The radicals are a$$holes.

 

[Spanky11]

Wow...the reasoning to support your argument was overwhelming. So what you are saying is that guns are bad?

not at all, just that morons like yourself can buy them... that makes them bad.

 

[Frackal19]

You're painting with a broad stroke, Frackal. It's like saying all Christians are pieces of shit because a small group of Jesus loving radicals offed a handfull of abortion doctors.

Well perhaps...but maybe I haven't been listening in the right place but I sure haven't heard alot of vocal condemnation of this mentality by 'mainstream' islam.