Shootings in Europe even with gun control...

[Tgace]

http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html

Likewise, the historical evidence refutes the attribution of differential international violence rates to differences in gun laws rather than socio-institutional and cultural differences. Those who attribute low European violence rates to banning guns are apparently unaware that those low rates long preceded the gun bans.{139} In fact, stringent gun laws first appeared in the U.S., not Europe -- despite which high American crime rates persisted and grew.{140} Ever-growing violence in various American states from the 1810s on, led them to pioneer ever more severe gun controls.{141} But in Europe, where violence was falling, or was not even deemed an important problem, gun controls varied from the lax to the non- existent. During the 19th Century in England, for instance, crime fell from its high in the late 18th Century to its idyllic early 20th Century low -- yet the only gun control was that police could not carry guns.{142}
In considering reasons for the differentials between U.S. and British homicide historically, Prof. Monckkonen rejects the conventional explanations including gun ownership, remarking:

Virtually every analysis put forward to explain the [comparatively] very high United States homicide rate has been ahistorical.... Had they been proposed as historical, they would have foundered quickly for the explanatory inadequacy of these "pet" theories becomes immediately apparent in a historical context.{143}
When most European countries finally began enacting gun laws in the post-WWI period, the motivation was not crime (with which those countries had been little afflicted) but terrorism and the political violence from which they have continued to suffer to the present day far more than the U.S. ever has.{144} This difference is reflected in a practice that helps to keep official English murder rates so admirably low: English statistics do not include "political" murders, e.g. those by the IRA, whereas the American statistics include every kind of murder and manslaughter.) The different purposes of European versus American laws is evidenced by their diametrically opposite patterns: many of the "Saturday Night Special" laws American states enacted to deal with 19th Century crime banned all but standard military- issue revolvers, i.e. the very expensive large, heavy Colt. In stark contrast, such military caliber arms were the first guns banned in post-WWI Europe, the purpose being to disarm restive former soldiers and the para- military groups they formed.{145}
Moreover, if greater American gun relative availability were the cause of international crime differences, the difference in crime would only be as to crimes with guns. Yet American rates for robbery, rape and other violent crimes committed without guns are enormously higher than the rates for such crimes (with and without guns, combined) which are uniformly low among Western European, British Commonwealth etc. countries regardless of whether they allow or ban gun ownership. England's leading gun control analyst sardonically disposes of the issues with two rhetorical questions: 1) How do those who blame "lax American gun laws" for the far higher U.S. rate of gun crime explain its also having far more knife crime: do they think that Englishmen have to get a permit to own a butcher knife?; and 2) How do those who attribute U.S. gun murders to greater gun availability explain the far higher U.S. rate of stranglings and of victims being kicked to death: do they think that Americans "have more hands and feet than" Britons? Flatly asserting that, no matter how stringent the gun laws, there will always be enough guns in any society to arm those desiring to obtain and use them illegally, he attributes grossly higher American violence rates "not to the availability of any particular class of weapon" but to socio-cultural and institutional factors which dictate

that American criminals are more willing to use extreme violence[; quoting a report of the British Office of Health Economics:] "One reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms.... But the strong correlation with racial and linked socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate relate to particular cultural factors."{146}

 

[K-man]

Flatly asserting that, no matter how stringent the gun laws, there will always be enough guns in any society to arm those desiring to obtain and use them illegally, he attributes grossly higher American violence rates "not to the availability of any particular class of weapon" but to socio-cultural and institutional factors which dictate that American criminals are more willing to use extreme violence [; quoting a report of the British Office of Health Economics:] "One reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms.... But the strong correlation with racial and linked socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate relate to particular cultural factors."

Interesting thought and has this been influenced by the graphic violence now shown on TV or in cinemas which has increased substantially over the last 50 years? I'm thinking of Clockwork Orange as one of the first. :asian:

 

[Tez3]

Yes we have had massacres over here too. Still we don`t feel the need to arm ourselves to the teeth.

I can't tell you how much I admired (nor am I the only one) the Norwegian response to the recent shooting there, it was heartwarming. And quite magnificent. :asian:

 

[granfire]

Interesting thought and has this been influenced by the graphic violence now shown on TV or in cinemas which has increased substantially over the last 50 years? I'm thinking of Clockwork Orange as one of the first. :asian:

well, I am thinking that home video systems paved the way. Previously you had to pass the movie usher, and TV guide lines....
All of that went out the window with the video machine at home. I mean, yes, the clerks at the store screened the people who went in the back room, but who safeguarded the shelf at home (A friend of mine's parents had one of the first video players in the village. they did rent a lot of the stupid 70s movies for her, but had some more - erm - couple oriented ones, my friend got into one time.....)

Now of course, to keep up with the Joneses you have to up it up.
it is not enough to show every minute detail of how the victim died (thanks CSI) but you also have to puzzle your way through the depraved minds of the - usually - serial killer (Criminal Minds, I think)

but then again... nothing says Christmas like a marathon of 'The Longest Day' or Midway.....

 

[billc]

Well, as gangs in Europe become more aggressive and you might see more killings, as you already see more stabbings. The gun crime rate in England has increased and it is more likely to increase than decrease.

 

[K-man]

Well, as gangs in Europe become more aggressive and you might see more killings, as you already see more stabbings. The gun crime rate in England has increased and it is more likely to increase than decrease.

Why?

 

[K-man]

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996


Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775


Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)


Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)


Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2
(equivalent to 10 US murders).
For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.


The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.

http://readersupportednews.org/news...ders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us

Mmm!

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Why?

I think his answer to the 'why' falls under his previous statement, that gangs are becoming more aggressive. Not sure entirely where he's coming up with that idea, though, since for once he didnt post 5 links supporting the statement.


Did a quick google search and found an article from a year ago suggesting there isnt much official data on gangs because they dont know how to define the gangs, among other reasons.. Normally I would discount this as outdated, but since I couldn't find much else I'm going to assume thats the reason billc is unable to support his claim. It also posted something that can't be considered outdated:

Generally, the risk of becoming a crime victim in Britain today is at a 30-year low. There has been a long-term downward trend in crime, including violent offences, since the mid-1990s.

That should answer your why-there is no answer because its not true.
here's a link to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15238377

 

[Tez3]

Victorian Britain was an extremely violent place despite dravonian sentencing in the courts and the lack of 'gun control', in fact most eres before this were violent think Dick Turpin and the highway robbers etc, it was unsafe to use the roads often. Life wasn't Jane Austen you know lol! violence crime and crime in general has been falling for a number of reasons, the horrendous poverty has gone, better policing, better education etc. Knife crime has always been common here even before the gun laws. They are cheap, easy to get use and get hold of, they've always been around, guns were never that popular being expensive to buy illegally as well as legally. The UK in the fifities and sixties was more violent than the seventies and eighties, the seventies and eighties more violent than the nineties and current times.
I'm not sure you can say gangs in Europe are more aggressive, as I've reminded Bill time and time again in the time I didn't have him on ignore, Europe is over 50 very different countries so banding them together in this way is pointless. You have countries like Switzerland, which people use as a good example of NO gun control to Serbia, Bosnia etc which can be a bit lawless. Lumping them all together and saying it's more violent in Europe is a nonsense.

 

[GrandmasterP]

It was a lot more violent here in England in the old days, pre TV and movies so I don't think the media's to blame.
We did ship a lot of undesirables out to the colonies too back in the day, those folk continued to procreate and leopards tend not to change their spots; hence, perhaps, more violence in our former colonies than we see here in the mother country.

 

[billc]

Here is a link from 2009...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.

Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent.

​

Guns may become more prevalent because they a easy to use and effective at intimidating or killing victims or rivals. Why wouldn't a gang begin to use guns more?
​

 

[GrandmasterP]

That'd be Moss Side skewing the Lancashire figures.

 

[billc]

That'd be Moss Side skewing the Lancashire figures.

For us ex-colonials, what do you mean?

 

[Tez3]

That'd be Moss Side skewing the Lancashire figures.

You're right there! Not a place I'd willingly go. The Lancs police have made great inroads into the gun violence there, it's hard though because there's some real scallies there and they are up against it with the government.
However the Government (which is Conservative ie the Right ie NOT the Left) has cut jobs in policing and the result is higher crime.
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/crime-up-after-cuts--police-chief-7820897.html

of course Bill who thinks Thatcher was a Socialist and all governments in Europe are either Socialist or Communists following in the lead of the Nazis will say David Cameron is such a leftist you'd expect cuts.
Our gun laws were passed by the Conservatives, those leftists. John Major the well known communist was Prime Minister in 1996 at the time of the Dunblane massacre.

I'll warn you Grandmaster that Bill is to the far right of Genghis Khan and despises the UK for being 'socialist. He has never, since he's been here, ever posted a nice word about us and will dig in the dirt for anything he can find that will make us look bad. The reason I have him on ignore is that he accused us in the UK and Europe of killing premature babies something I will not forgive nor will I forget. If the gutter press prints something degrogatory about us UK Bill will find it and post it up. He also believes that Hitler was a 'leftist' because an economist said so, a real one with a PHD and everything.

Am I attacking the poster no because every word is true and by going back through his posts you will see that.

 

[K-man]

It was a lot more violent here in England in the old days, pre TV and movies so I don't think the media's to blame.
We did ship a lot of undesirables out to the colonies too back in the day, those folk continued to procreate and leopards tend not to change their spots; hence, perhaps, more violence in our former colonies than we see here in the mother country.

Mmm! My Great Great Grandfather was one of those 'undesirables'. He was actually sentenced to transportation three times. As you say, leopards don't change their spots. None of his descendants have been in any trouble with the law and he probably wouldn't have either if the conditions around Manchester in the early 1800's weren't so austere. He nicked some clothes, a particularly violent crime in those days, and the second time, some wood. I suppose you could say he was a slow learner.

However, I digress. I'm not sure you are correct in tarring all former colonies with the same brush. Obviously America, Zimbabwe and Pakistan have high rates of violence, but Australia, New Zealand and Canada have much less. I think that says more about how countries left colonial rule than whether or not they were penal colonies. :asian:

 

[billc]

Tez, as Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again..." I have never said Thatcher was a socialist and you know it. I found the post that you misread, and pointed out your error. If you want, I can find it again to show you that once again, you are wrong to think that I ever believed Thatcher was a socialist. I thanked her for the quote that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money..." Now you were also mistaken in saying that Breitbart revealed that one of your princes, I forget which one, was serving in Afghanistan. You kept saying it and then I had to go and prove that, once again, you were wrong. The guy you cited was Matt Drudge and he only reprinted the information from an Australian tabloid that had discovered the story and printed it. Considering how things can be passed around the internet, Matt Drudge probably helped save his life by letting people know that the secret was out. Besides, it was the princes own buddies in his unit who were trying to sell photos of him over there. So please, stop saying I said Thatcher was a socialist. You were wrong about those things...deal with it and let's move on....

Also, I don't hate Britain, in fact I value them as one of our strongest allies and think that obama has treated Britain horribly. I don't want Britain's healthcare system, their level of taxation or their gun laws or their speech laws over here, these are the things I post about in a negative way because I want people here in the States to know what they mean if those policies come here... but other than those things I like you guys...even Tez.

The premature baby issue comes from an article I quoted. The author said some harsh things about the way the British National health service treated premature babies. I apoligized for not looking at his comment closer, but then later it appears that the National Health sErvice has started using "Death Pathways," something designed for adults, on children. It is pretty gruesome and unpleasant, and is being investigated by the British government. She of course didn't acknowledge my apology...bad form on her part...

I have at least 5 pH.ds in economics, one a nobel prize winner who point out that the Nazis were in fact left wing socialists, as opposed to right wing. I also have other articles that support that idea, and because it doesn't fit what tez and some others were told in school by their left leaning history professors, they disagree with 5 specialists in the field of economics who tend to know what "Socialism," actually is.

Look up Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek (nobel prize winner in economics) Thomas Sowell...and others who will confirm that hitler and his followers were lefties, not righties (as defined by American conservative standards). Also look up Jonah Goldberg, John J. Ray and others who have writtten about this historical mistake...

Our gun laws were passed by the Conservatives, those leftists.

Wrong, your gun laws were passed by politicians who reacted to an atrocity, and ignored the rights of their citizens...oh that's right...subjects...

 

[billc]

To show where Tez made her mistake, I found the post I had to put together to show her mistake...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/101470-Margaret-Thatcher-socialism-error?highlight=thatcher

Tez, I think I found it. The "it" being the post where you think I said Margaret Thatcher was a socialist...

Tez3

Join Date Oct 2006Location EnglandPosts 13,001Thanks 1,089Thanked 1,375 Times in 812 PostsRep Power21
Re: Real thanksgiving

Originally Posted by billcihak
Granfire, if you hadn't noticed, the current ecomomic breakdown in Europe comes from a large part from spending other peoples money, eventually you run out of it. Thanks Prime Minister Thatcher. This is a lot off topic but I reply, socialism also murdered over 100 million people, and more, in the soviet union, china, germany, italy, japan, cambodia, and vietnam and has kept more people, as Milton Friedman would say, in crushing poverty than it has helped. Thanks.




Right, you do know that Maggie Thatcher was a Conservative? and she hasn't been around for a long time?
And over here, socialism is different from communism and the national socialism that was Hitler's pet project was actually fascism?​

[/QUOTE

This is the thing, I was quoting Thatcher's observation on socialism, and you didn't catch that. I was thanking Prime Minister Thatcher for the quote, not accusing her of being a socialist. Finally, I think I found why you incorrectly accuse me of thinking Thatcher was a socialist. It wasn't quoted properly, I wasn't familiar with how to work the quotes back then.

This is from wikipedia on Margaret thatcher's quote:

The problem with socialismA quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher goes along the lines of
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."or
"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money [to spend]."There are a number of similar almost-quotes to be found on the Web, but I haven't found any authoritative sources. She may, in fact, have made the statement in various forms at different times. Quicksilver[SUP]T@[/SUP] 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
The popular version seems to be a reasonable contraction


I even used the "quote" button this time...

 

[arnisador]

and others who will confirm that hitler and his followers were lefties, not righties (as defined by American conservative standards).

So you're saying that by the standards of American conservatives, Hitler and the liberals are a lot alike?

From liberal standards, the militarization and the invasion of other countries has a distinctly right-wing feel to it (and then there's the racism). Weigh that against any socialist social programs they had.

 

[granfire]

So you're saying that by the standards of American conservatives, Hitler and the liberals are a lot alike?

From liberal standards, the militarization and the invasion of other countries has a distinctly right-wing feel to it (and then there's the racism). Weigh that against any socialist social programs they had.

Nice try

we have been going on about this for two years now....

 

[billc]

Have you ever read the nazi positions on those issues. You really should, they could have been taken from the democrat party platform. The racism...I believe socialists of all stripes dislike Jews, have in the past pushed for killing undesirables, in particular those of other races. Look at the much loved Planned Parent hood in this country and where they started. Margaret Sanger wanted to reduce the population of minorities. Remember as well, the democrats were the party of slavery, jim crow, the ku klux klan, church bombings and lynchings. The photos you see of peaceful marchers being beaten and fire hosed...the people doing it are all democrats.

I'll find the 25 points the nazis pushed but here is a quick look from wikipedia...

Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use, if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it.[SUP][135][/SUP] Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.[SUP][136][/SUP] Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished;

Doesn't sound like an American conservative position to me...

Here you go...

http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.


We therefore demand:


11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
Breaking the Servitude of Interest


12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).


14. Wedemandprofit-sharinginlargeenterprises.


15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.


16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.


17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

Does this sound like the republican party or the democrats and OWS?

As to war...remember Stalin and the invasion of Poland, that little Vietnam thing, the Chinese communists...