Captain's Quarters -

At the end of the Telegraph article which serves as the basis for this story, the aspiring chief says that such search initiatives are "leading the way in stamping out the problem". What a bunch of self-deluding ninnies. It sure sounds as though you are "stamping out the problem" alright. Keep it up Brits. Pretty soon you'll sound like an echo chamber over there. I just saw an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about the huge jump in Brits moving to Australia. Is it any wonder? The muslims and the gun-slingers are taking that country over (or rather, it's being handed to them).

Criminalizing victims of crime?

Common sense dictates the "reserved British" can, and will, only keep their collective upper lips stiff for so long before saying, "Enough."

When this happens, look for significant, perhaps stunning, electoral gains by the UK Independence Party and British National Party.

When the UK first instituted its gun ban, I commented (on usenet) that it would afford a nearly perfect environment for England's 'Great Experiment.' Given that England is an island, England -- unlike US cities -- couldn't make the excuse that guns were being smuggled in from surrounding areas. That was a little facetious, of course, but there was a kernel of truth in it.

It didn't, however, take a village to predict that the policy would be an utter failure. It went from bad to worse, as Captain Ed notes, when England started going after Britons for the 'crime' of defending themselves. Remember Tony
Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot a burglar while in his house -- and was prosecuted for it? It's now public policy that a good Englishman should grin and bear it, and hope he's not killed while the armed burglar has his way.

There's no small irony that the British surrendered their right to self-defense, given that the Second Amendment (among other parts of the Constitution) were based on English common law. (This excellent history explains how it happened.) Perhaps they will now eventually relearn a valuable lesson.

BTW, I like the new layout -- it loads fasters and looks great!

You have to love the part about people are just too afraid to come forward to report that someone has a gun. The solution? Make it a law. That'll do it. Forget this fearing for my life, I must do my duty. Yeah, I can see a lot of people catching up to that.

I remember an incident some years ago involving a friend of mine who was involved in a fender bender with a gang banger in LA (the accident was his fault). He got out of his car, threatened her verbally and got a little physical although he didn't hurt her. By the time the police showed up he'd already driven off. The officer told her he could take an assault complaint (she'd gotten the guy's license plate) but suggested she might want to just let it go, considering who she'd be filing the complaint against. Duty's all well and good but so is living to see another day.

So where ARE the guns coming from? Virginia?

/sarcasm

Arresting and prosecuting people for refusing to report a crime has some merit; from a certain point of view, a person who refuses to testify can be seen as an accessory. However, when it's the VICTIM who refuses to testify out of fear of retribution (which is a black eye for the police as it underscores their inability to protect the citizenry), such a prosecution becomes almost satirically grotesque.

If this is the kind of government that the British want... Well, I hope they're happy with it, that's all I can say.

British democracy is not what Americans think it is. It's not like we elect our representatives and senators.

In sum: We're (ostensibly) the masters; they're servants and subjects and they like it that way (apparently).

They made their beds, now let them sleep in them (even if such sleep is not peaceful).

Gun control should be judged by whether it is preventing death and injury by guns. In England and Wales in 2005/6, according to this Home Office report , there were 50 gun-related homicides, down from 75 the previous year. By way of comparison, according to FBI 2005 statistics , 10,100 people were murdered in the US with firearms.

So where are the guns coming from?

Actually, while I totally agree with everyones take on the old UK I have never met anyone legally carrying a gun outside a policeman, on huge cock up was in not giving a decent price for the haded in gun, do you get the gov $30 or take $300 from fred down the pub? all the while our brave police ar obsessing on real crime, the slightly speeding motorist!!
Dont forget we never had the wild west and what that produced so there is a different mentality here.
The only gun control I would want to ad to the USA is similar to that for a car, if you carry there should be a good chance that if you have to use your gun the criminal only lands up with the bullit, not your whole weapon.

My position on gun control in the US has always been clear, but it seems totally incompatible with both parties. I think the right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right that every citizen is born with (or acquires upon naturalization) but it is also a "priviledge" in that you can forfeit it. There is also nothing wrong with sensible tracking and monitoring of firearms.

If you go and commit a violent felony, I think you forfeit your right to responsible gun ownership. I also think we need to have a national discussion on the definition of "gun" for purposes of second amendment rights. Is a .22 or .303 rifle a "gun"? Clearly. But does this mean that every citizen should be able to have a tank? A mortar? A shoulder fired SAM? I think not. Those are machines of war, not just "guns". The line gets cloudly around big, semi-automatic weapons (modified AK-47s which can easily be modified back to full auto) but I think we could eventually agree on where that line should be drawn.

All weapons should be serialized and trackable from creation to destruction. You should not object to having to register your firearm and report when they change hands and take sensible firearms safety training.

I support our right to have guns. I think the Brits could benefit from some of the same rights. But that doesn't mean we can't do it sensibly.

Any thing you do to the second amendent can, shall and will be done to the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, we should register and track our guns. Well, there goes the fourth amendment. (I might add that the lack of respect for the 2nd amendent, set up the mind set for the attack on the 1st in McCain/Feingold.)

And, registration leads to confiscation. One of the reasons that the English experiment in civilian disarmament worked so well was that registration allowed the authorities to monitor compliance. Thankfully, because of lack of registration, most gun control schemes here fall on their face. You have no way to effectively monitor compliance. So, most law-abiding citizens, looking at gun control for the stupidity that it is, honor it in the breach.

Anyway, this ain't the Britian of Roake's Drift.

Socio-culturally, Britain is a lost cause. Many Britons honestly believe that it's the government's job to protect them from crime, not their own, and that there's no moral difference between using force to attack and using force in self-defense.

What worries me most about that article is its innumeracy, and even Ed didn't catch it. An increase of 250 cases of gun crime in three years is described as "soaring," in a country with almost sixty million inhabitants? On the per capita crime rate chart, that's barely a blip. Yet they're acting like it's a national crisis.

Note also: "Mr Hogan-Howe told the newspaper his force was already evicting families that harboured children who possessed guns, and moving them to other areas."

There is probably some learnedly legalistic argument for why punishing the family for the misdeeds of one member is not a bill of attainder (which is unconstitutional in the USA, and I thought was generally no longer done even in Britain), but I really don't care about it. I consider the fact that the British police could actually do this and not be tied up in court for twenty years to be one more demonstration that Britain and America are indeed two nations separated by a common culture.

Any thing you do to the second amendent can, shall and will be done to the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, we should register and track our guns. Well, there goes the fourth amendment. (I might add that the lack of respect for the 2nd amendent, set up the mind set for the attack on the 1st in McCain/Feingold.)

And, registration leads to confiscation. One of the reasons that the English experiment in civilian disarmament worked so well was that registration allowed the authorities to monitor compliance. Thankfully, because of lack of registration, most gun control schemes here fall on their face. You have no way to effectively monitor compliance. So, most law-abiding citizens, looking at gun control for the stupidity that it is, honor it in the breach.

Anyway, this ain't the Britian of Roake's Drift.

I understand the Anarchists and Communists (like dave the shyster) wanting to "ban" guns. They are not "libtards". They are in fact very clever. The shyster and the rest of the commies are tyrant wannabes. What better way to make the citizens "docile"...to both criminals and the "authorities"? Every authoritarian government has the need to disarm the chattel to control them.

What makes me lol is the idiocy of the usual suspects (CE's other lefty trolls). They piss and moan about BushHitler and the NSA spying on Americans...but these same idiots are the ones who cheer on the "disarmers". Are they too stupid to know that by disarming the citizens you will empower the police even more? The police will "need" to be "more proactive"...

The "best" result for the Limeys would be for even more police activity...crush the citizens before the criminals can...

Grampa Swabbie always said:
Gun Control = To Hit What You're Aiming At

On a recent visit to London we stopped by the House of Commons and listened to a serious debate on "knife violence". It seems the Brits are obsessed with the objects used to commit crimes rather than the fact that their population is loosing respect for an ordered society.

Folks in the US might not know, but official stats on violence in the UK have been underreported for years. For a fascinating examination of how "gun control" has been used to advance a left agenda in the UK, you can read:

Joyce Malcolm, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience." Harvard University Press, 2002.

In fact, the real crime rates are much higher (at least 2-4 times). This is due to UK stats being measured AFTER plea bargaining down, instead of upon initial charges.

Gun control is simply part of a larger campaign that has been in operation in the UK for a generation. The right of self-defense has now been eradicated from British Common Law (you may recall the incident a couple of years back where a farmer who had repeatedly been victimized by burglars shot and wounded one - the burglar got off, but the farmer is still in prison). Gun control was initially advocated in the 1960s in the UK as a way of diverting public anger as a result of the mid-1960s abolition of the death penalty.

A silver lining -- threatening the victims with prosecution should drive those statistics back down! Of course, there is no metric for unreported gun crimes...

Cap'n,

The 1968 Gun Control Act and all of it's following ammendments ought, by rights, to be repealed, and that right quickly.

To see the true fallacy of gun control arguments, simply replace any rteference to the 2nd ammendment with any other ammendment, for example, the 1st ammendment.

Sad to say we are already well on the way to doing to the 1st what some groups have done to the 2nd. The introduction of "hate crine" laws has certainly infringed upon the freedom of speech. But i digress.

Can anyone imagine how it would be if we treated the act of voting in the same manner as we treat owning a firearm in certain areas? required to take a course in voting 101, show competancy in dissecting candidate's claims and debate lines, posses a valid license to vote, keep a serialised copy of your voting record on hand for inspectiopn by authorities when demanded?

What great Britain has forgotten is that the police are not there to protect us. te police exist to enforce the law, and to assist us in protecting ourselves. The prime responsibility for your safety rests with you, and when you abbrogate that responsibility you endager not only yourself and those around you, but every citizen's constitutional rights through increased restrictions and onerous regulations.

The great revealing fact in the UK, however, about how clieless authorities and their social-demagogue masters are, is the rise in "knife violence" since the gun ban went into effect. Now the government is considering a ban on all knives with blades longer than 2", claiming that no one but "qualified and licensed" chefs and butchers need to posses any blade longer than that.

The most common back-to-school fashion accessory these days in the UK? Why, kevlar-lined coats and backpacks to protect kids from knife wounds.

Way to there UK! Take away the guns and the criminals just transition to knives. What next? Register cricket bats? Make tire irons illegal to own?

respects,

You know, the one thing that no one in government, even ours, ever points out is, which airplane on September 11th didn't hit its target?

The one where the PEOPLE stood up and took responsibility into their own hands.

The airplanes in which everyone waited for authorities, hit their targets.

If there has been a more self evident example of defending yourself, I don't know what it is.

The passengers of flight 93 lost their lives, but they did in defense of ours.

Even with all this evidence Ontario MP's from the centre and left are calling for a handgun ban.
This is because of gun crime by organized gangs, who would not give them up anyway.

all i know is if that family in connecticut had access to a firearm,(3 dead in a home invasion), they might be alive today. they were killed by animals that deserve death, and to boot they are illegal aliens. big dogs and guns work, and i have both. when they ban guns in the U. S. i wll become illegal.

all i know is if that family in connecticut had access to a firearm,(3 dead in a home invasion), they might be alive today. they were killed by animals that deserve death, and to boot they are illegal aliens. big dogs and guns work, and i have both. when they ban guns in the U. S. i wll become illegal.

all i know is if that family in connecticut had access to a firearm,(3 dead in a home invasion), they might be alive today. they were killed by animals that deserve death, and to boot they are illegal aliens. big dogs and guns work, and i have both. when they ban guns in the U. S. i wll become illegal.

all i know is if that family in connecticut had access to a firearm,(3 dead in a home invasion), they might be alive today. they were killed by animals that deserve death, and to boot they are illegal aliens. big dogs and guns work, and i have both. when they ban guns in the U. S. i wll become illegal.

all i know is if that family in connecticut had access to a firearm,(3 dead in a home invasion), they might be alive today. they were killed by animals that deserve death, and to boot they are illegal aliens. big dogs and guns work, and i have both. when they ban guns in the U. S. i wll become illegal.

all i know is if that family in connecticut had access to a firearm,(3 dead in a home invasion), they might be alive today. they were killed by animals that deserve death, and to boot they are illegal aliens. big dogs and guns work, and i have both. when they ban guns in the U. S. i wll become illegal.

Within the last 2 weeks the Boston Globe had a front page article trumpeting a huge decrease in the # of firearms registered in MA. They made no connection whatsoever to the rising murder rate. Go figure.

They did use the opportunity to blast NH for its easy gun access blaming NH for MA gun violence. I'm glad many of my fellow NH residents are armed. Makes potential intruders think a bit.

"Four years later, Britain still can't figure out why disarming the victims has created a spike in gun-related violence"

Only someone who didn't live in the UK would draw this conclusion because you lack the direct knowledge of the country required.

Take the last 4 years and the increases in violence.

4 years ago nobody carried firearms for self defence. Nobody carried handguns for self defence. All firearms were in locked boxes in secure locations in houses or gun clubs.

The idea that a mugger might have been concerned that their victim might have been armed is simply absurd, knocking thw hole argument for linking the rise in crime with the banning of firearms.

In the US grannies might carry a gun in their purse, but in the UK nobody did and nobody does.

I might add that public opinion is vastly in favour of continuing the ban on handguns and there is virtually no movement to repeal these laws.

I also add that this bears no relation to whether the US should alter its laws regarding firearms.

BAAAHHHHHHHHHH.....

/making sheep sound with a british accent

"Gun control should be judged by whether it is preventing death and injury by guns." Well, no, gun control should be judged by whether it prevents death and injury by all means. Or do you think it is an improvement if people are knifed to death rather than shot? Or if they jump off of bridges rather than suicide by shooting themselves?

rafar, in his statements above completely ignores the FACT that where guns are banned, as the are in D. C., violent crime goes up. its gone up everywhere guns are banned. in the town i live in almost everyone i know owns some sort of firearm. the result, very few home breakins. criminals prey on the weak, and the old. don't worry rafar, there are plenty of organizations that would violate our 2nd amendment. we won't let them.

"Gun control should be judged by whether it is preventing death and injury by guns." Well, no, gun control should be judged by whether it prevents death and injury by all means. Or do you think it is an improvement if people are knifed to death rather than shot? Or if they jump off of bridges rather than suicide by shooting themselves?

Shipmates,

I have the greatest of admiration for the English people, as wellas the Scots, Welsh and Irish. However, the inherent difficulties being faced by the English simply cannot be adequately addressed until they do something about their government.

In the United States, we are citizens, and our oulook on the role of government differs greatly from our erstwhile relatives, who remain subjects.

The sad thing is that here, the Democrats and other social engineers and members of the self-appointed aristocracy, would relish the opportunity to make us all subjects as well. They strive mightily through legislation and public-school indoctrinations to accomplish that goal.

Some may well be confused by the difference between a subject and a citizen, saying they are qaint, anachronistic terms, that semantically they are alike.

That could be no further from the truth. A citizen is obligated to take part in the government, whereas a subject has abrogated that role. For all the many things that I admire the English for, their continuation of their role as subjects is beyond comprehension.

Respects,

rafar, in his statements above completely ignores the FACT that where guns are banned, as the are in D. C., violent crime goes up. its gone up everywhere guns are banned. in the town i live in almost everyone i know owns some sort of firearm. the result, very few home breakins. criminals prey on the weak, and the old. don't worry rafar, there are plenty of organizations that would violate our 2nd amendment. we won't let them.

rafar, in his statements above completely ignores the FACT that where guns are banned, as the are in D. C., violent crime goes up. its gone up everywhere guns are banned. in the town i live in almost everyone i know owns some sort of firearm. the result, very few home breakins. criminals prey on the weak, and the old. don't worry rafar, there are plenty of organizations that would violate our 2nd amendment. we won't let them.

"Gun control should be judged by whether it is preventing death and injury by guns." Well, no, gun control should be judged by whether it prevents death and injury by all means. Or do you think it is an improvement if people are knifed to death rather than shot? Or if they jump off of bridges rather than suicide by shooting themselves?

rafar, in his statements above completely ignores the FACT that where guns are banned, as the are in D. C., violent crime goes up. its gone up everywhere guns are banned. in the town i live in almost everyone i know owns some sort of firearm. the result, very few home breakins. criminals prey on the weak, and the old. don't worry rafar, there are plenty of organizations that would violate our 2nd amendment. we won't let them.

Shipmates, We need to chill out on hitting the "post" button. After you hit it once, "refresh" your screen...

Grand Pappy Swabbie was so right when he told me: "Young Swabbie remember this: Gun Control is hitting what you're aimin' at..."

i agree swabjockey05. sorry about that. my pc was locking up, so i hit it againg thinking the post didn't go up! gun control is also a tight 5 shot group....

In 2000, many years after the ban on handguns in the UK, the number of deaths by handguns in the UK per 100,000 population was 0.00102579.

In the US for the same period the same statistic was 3.6.

There is no need to arm the British public. Using the article in the Telegraph to leverage an argument against gun control in the US is silly. Saying gun control in the UK does not work because of rising organised crime violence is also silly. Britain is a democracy and if the public want to legalize handguns again they will but they don't want handguns and they do not want the average policeman armed either.

I live in Virginia one mile from DC, where guns are "banned" (i.e., unavailable to law abiding citizens but as available as candy is, when it comes to outlaws).

I don't own a gun, but I have never feared for my safety in Arlington. Criminals know that Virginia prosecutes criminals and that Virginia executes criminals. Use a gun in a crime and Virginia sends the perp to prison for five years, no questions asked.

DC perps know this and they remain in DC or go to more liberal Maryland to commit crimes.

Meanwhile, if I walk a mile across the Key Bridge to Georgetown in "unarmed" DC, I know that I'm walking into an unregulated, urban jungle. Georgetown may be home to some of our dingbat politicians, but they have guards. You can get capped in Georgetown in a moment's notice.

DC perps know that if by some miracle they are caught in DC or in Maryland, they will get at most a slap on the wrist along with sympathy for their sad childhood, for their lack of ability to land a job (never mind the "Help Wanted" signs everywhere around here) by sympathetic juries/judges.

They also know that Virginians will send them to a dirt nap.

Gun laws make no difference. Criminals don't obey them and law abiding citizens do not commit crimes, merely because guns are available.

I notice wolfwalker talks about innumeracy, but fails to mention (or realize) that by advocating a law that forces people to report crime that the government tacitly is saying that obviously those firearm assaults are grossly underreported.
I am 6'3" and weigh 260#. If, without a firearm, I were to attack someone who was 5'4" and 120#, that would not be reported as a gun crime. But, I would have little hesitancy as I would have the superior advantage. So, wolfwalker, it's not just gun crimes that go up. It's all forms of crimes against persons.
Dr. John Lott found that in Britain and Canada (both were gun ownership is low) the hot burglary rate (where a burglary occurs when the building is occupied) is 50%. In the USA (where firearm ownership is high), the hot burglary rate is 10%. And the reason? In the USA, fear that confronting an occupant will result in confronting an armed occupant.
The Kleck study showed that the defensive use of firearms occurred, on average, over 8,000 times a day. And that the vast majority of those uses were of a display only nature.

"Gun control should be judged by whether it is preventing death and injury by guns."

Gun control should be judged by whether it reduces the number of crimes being committed. The stats you provide break down the deaths by crime, like robbery, assault, etc. How does a ban on guns prevent the crimes from occurring to begin with? It doesn't. No matter what the laws state, some people will still commit crimes. Guns are just a tool used in a commission of a crime. Some people may not commit a crime if such tools are unavailable, but access to guns by law abiding citizens can also reduce then number of crimes committed. That's the point that Ed and others are making here.

Remember the stories of people carrying hidden guns, like walking cane guns, in New York in the 1800-1900's? That was a response to a lot people being victims of crimes which was at epidemic levels, it wasn't a cause of crime itself.

When a population is threatened with high levels of crimes, they can, and should, be able to defend themselves from the criminal element by any means available to them. It worked well in New York and other cities until the need to carry guns was reduced and the people stopped carrying those guns. That need wasn't reduced by the city government and increased police patrols, it was reduced because the criminals realized that the commission of a crime may get them killed. The threat of a loss of their life stopped the criminals from committing crimes against armed civilians. That's called deterrence and it works very well.

Ask yourself this: Would you rob someone if you thought there was a very good chance that you could get shot by the person you were trying to rob?

Now ask yourself this: Would you rob someone if you knew that the person was taught to just hand over their money and let the police take care of the problem AFTER the crime was committed and you knew that there is very little chance of you getting shot (or even prosecuted) in the process?

Based on the two situations stated above, which is greater deterrence? Here's a hint: Most people would think twice about committing a crime if they knew there was a good chance that they could get killed in the process.

The Brits do not have the history nor do they think like most Americans so I think that is why they they got caught up in the scam of gun control.

Our consciousness still carries the terror of a tyrant King as portrayed in the Declaration of Independance and our forming of armed militias to rid ourselves of his despotic rule.

Has anyone put some thought on this? The 2nd Amendment to the constitution gives us the right to bear arms - why? To protect ourselves from a government turned against the people and would relieve us from our basic liberties.

The constitution is common law. We now live under administrative law. But we still have the right to own and keep guns guaranted by the common law. Administrative law has no provision to guarantee us the right to own guns, but the strong will of the majority bonds that guarantee.

The Brits seem to have lost this in their psyche.

Our President seems to have overlooked this part of our own history to draw from with his manageing of the war in Iraq. He can start with reading paper number 29 in "The Federalist" and see what our wise forefathers had to say about armed malitias.

He may have to deal with Iraq like we dealt with Japan to win our war with them, and resurrect MacArther to deal with the people.

My opinion is that if we go to war with a country we need a military or ex-military man as commander & chief. This monkey business with Iraq has cost us a lot lives, treasure, and divided the country.

Right now as it stands with the presidential candidates I don't see any leadership demonstrated by the candidates on the Democratic side, and the only hopeful I see on the Republican side is Thompsom.

We need to win this war decisively, and we need to show real progress soon.

The Brits do not have the history nor do they think like most Americans so I think that is why they they got caught up in the scam of gun control.

Our consciousness still carries the terror of a tyrant King as portrayed in the Declaration of Independance and our forming of armed militias to rid ourselves of his despotic rule.

Has anyone put some thought on this? The 2nd Amendment to the constitution gives us the right to bear arms - why? To protect ourselves from a government turned against the people and would relieve us from our basic liberties.

The constitution is common law. We now live under administrative law. But we still have the right to own and keep guns guaranted by the common law. Administrative law has no provision to guarantee us the right to own guns, but the strong will of the majority bonds that guarantee.

The Brits seem to have lost this in their psyche.

Our President seems to have overlooked this part of our own history to draw from with his manageing of the war in Iraq. He can start with reading paper number 29 in "The Federalist" and see what our wise forefathers had to say about armed malitias.

He may have to deal with Iraq like we dealt with Japan to win our war with them, and resurrect MacArther to deal with the people.

My opinion is that if we go to war with a country we need a military or ex-military man as commander & chief. This monkey business with Iraq has cost us a lot lives, treasure, and divided the country.

Right now as it stands with the presidential candidates I don't see any leadership demonstrated by the candidates on the Democratic side, and the only hopeful I see on the Republican side is Thompsom.

We need to win this war decisively, and we need to show real progress soon.

Violent crime in the UK is decreasing. Full stop, end of story. It's been decreasing for years, and it will most probably continue to decrease. Here are the statistics:

Violent Crime
All Crime

For people arguing about plea bargains and under-reporting and so on:

For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures. The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales.

Do any of the people who argue against the ban in UK here care to comment on the raw fact that :

2007 gun deaths in UK 50

2007 Gun deaths in USA 11,000

And its not all down to American's aiming better :)

X,
Great point. But the cowardly trolls here will still say you're "silly".

OBTW. Hope you don't walk around the city "unstrapped" just because you're a big piece of meat. Big dudes have a higher likely hood of being capped. The small hoodlums will be much more likely to shoot the big guy first...before demanding his wallet. Us little guys have a better chance at being underestimated...maybe for enough of a hesitation to give us the edge to draw down first (action is faster/better than reaction). Not to mention the fact that all that beef makes a nice target for center of mass doubletaps.

Notice how the cowardly lefties toss around the numbers? As if they can use statistics to take rights away from law abiding taxpayers…They fail to tell you this little tid bit: Suppose a police officer shoots a 15-16 year old gang banger who’s trippin’ out on heroin while brandishing a knife in the cop’s face. Guess what? Not only do the lefties put that shooting into their statistics of “gun violence”…but it counts as gun violence against “children”.

As someone mentioned above, every man (woman) is morally responsible for the safety of himself and his family. The lefties are immoral cowards. They yearn to pass these responsibilities to the government. Not only do they lack the moral strength to defend themselves but they seek to bring all men to their same lowly, cowardly state. Many of the lefties are more afraid of the chattle than they are of the criminals. They can isolate themselves against most of the criminals, they can hire security or they can live in rich neighborhoods with disproportionate police protection. But they can’t get away from those pesky law-abiding “citizens” who only want to defend themselves. (In much the same way they are afraid of the “citizens” who engage in “Free Speech”). The lefties have just enough control to see the “prize” at the end of the tunnel. They can’t make the really big gains towards their desired end state of total tyranny until they can disarm “citizens”. I can only hope that my children’s children will not give in to the sucking sound that is socialism.

In any discussion of these issues, remember that historically well over half (e.g. 56% in 2004) of all US gun deaths are self-inflicted (i.e. suicide). International comparison with Japan, where there are essentially no private firearms, and the suicide rate is twice that of the US, should yield two conclusions:

1) counting suicides as equivalent to murders is irrational when evaluating the effect of guns on a society, and

2) their presence does not increase the likelihood that you will commit suicide.

On a related note, Britain has had lower murder rates than the US since statistics have been recorded, and prior to restrictive guns laws on either side of the Atlantic. It's cultural folks. In the case of the US it's poor young black men killing other poor young black men in our inner cities (where "gun control" laws are the strictest). The rest of the country has murder and gun related crime rates similar to Canada.

Figure out a way to get young black men in the inner cities to quit dealing dope, and we'll end up with murder and gun crime rates that we can live with. Personally, I'd end the war on drugs, legalize the stuff, and remove all reason for killing your competitor over turf. The bad news is some would kill themselves with narcotics - and there would be an initial surge of deaths. After that, I suspect we'd reach a level of stasis.

More gun crome here in UK and more hand wringing.
http://tinyurl.com/3a92s2

Jo says there were 11,000 deaths in USA from gun crimes so far in 07. ? Looks like a high number but even so, I feel far better and safer back home in USA where I have a right to self defense, then I do here in UK where it's always open season on the public. And often at the hands of very young punks who do not even bother to run after beating to death or stabbing to death someone, but instead calmly saunter away laughing.

This is not a very safe place to be, sorry to say. Not that anywhere is really "safe."

I most cases the only reason that gun deaths are far higher in the US is.

1 gun battles between rival gang members or drug dealers. Most due to long criminal records are not allowed to own guns in the first place.
And are no big loss getting shot in the first place.

2 A high % of gun deaths that are listed are the bad guys that are shot by cops, home owners, store owners. ect
i for one say good riddance to theses bad guys.

The crime rates in the US
DO NOT SHOW if the deaths were a bad guy getting what he deserves. Or the people that were shot by the bad guys.

This needs to change then the true number of innocent gun deaths in the US would be known.

THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE KNOWN BEFORE NEW GUN LAWS ARE PUT ON THE BOOKS.

Yes i know that the bleeding heart liberals think that the criminals should be protected from us dangerous gun owners.

That's why the crime records do not show why someone died by gunfire.
ITS TO STACK THE RECORDS TO GET GUN BANS.