28 December 2012

Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't...

Two Cautionary Tales...

Worth your time, regardless of your belief, click the link above to go to the full article.

Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

...Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself....

Find the facts, our problem is with a drugged society and people with mental defects.


  1. A week after NRA’s Wayne LaPierre suggested using armed police or security guards to protect schools, and was publically ridiculed, Barbara Boxer (senator from California) has introduced a bill to use the National Guard for the same purpose.

  2. Proof that gun control means only criminals will be armed.

  3. Joyce Lee Malcolm only concludes that even with strict gun laws there will still be firearm-related deaths. I'm shocked that he considers that with looser laws citizens carrying guns could have taken the role of a law officer and tried to shoot one of the perpetrators. Having non trained citizens engaging in a gun fight isn't the best of ideas. Stray bullets among other thoughts come to mind.

    According to WHO statistics:
    -The USA is at place ten with a firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year of 10.2
    -United Kingdom is at place 65 with a firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year of only 0.25


    Instead of trying to prove that more guns or looser gun laws are equal to less crimes, try to prove the opposite. Who knows, maybe you'll find an even better argument supporting your initial argument.

  4. I might also add that the USA has the most firearms per 100 residents in the world, topping the list with 88.8.
    England and Wales (not the United Kingdom wich would have included Scotland and Northern Ireland) have only 6.2 firearms per 100 residents.


    In conclusion:
    -The USA has one of the worlds highest deaths rates per 100,000 residents with 10.2/year and also the highest concentration of firearms per 100 residents in the whole world with 88.8.
    -The United Kingdom, England and Wales have one of the lowest deaths rates per 100,000 residents with 0.25/year and also the one of the lowest concentration of firearms per 100 residents in the whole world with 6.2.

    Hence one could (not necessarily) draw the conclusion that more guns equal to more firearm-related deaths.

    Keep this in mind when you listen to the "experts", they might not be so impartial and scientific as one would hope for. Instead look at the facts.

    1. Why don't you factor in the 40% rise in violent assaults, and the 20% rise in sexual assaults since the gun ban went into affect? Or, was gun crime the only crime you wanted to control?

      Fact, crime is up in GB.
      Fact, you still have mass murders via guns.
      Now you're on track to ban knives if not already having done so.

      The most nannified country in the world still has gun crime even though they banned guns, have MORE violent assaults and sexual assaults than before by 40 and 20% respectively, and you call this a success?

      Our definitions of success are clearly different.

    2. Crime might very well be on a rise in the UK but it still only a fraction of what it is in the USA.

      40% upp from 0.18 firearm-related deaths is still only 0.25, compare that to the USA 10.2 firearm-related deaths per 100 000 people.

      So I agree with you that our definition of success are very different, as I see that UK's lead with 40 times less deaths as the clear winner.

    3. Nannified, stripped of basic tools out of fear and insufferably condescending. Glad we bailed on that inbred island when we did.

    4. You know, the conditions in the US and GB are incomparable. The basic fact that we would all like a safer world with safer societies is what we should be focussing upon. Illegal gun ownership and gun related crimes are going to continue to increase in GB; making firearms ownership illegal in the US is never going to work. All questions of constitutional right aside, a popular saying about closing stable doors after horses have bolted springs to mind. Smithhammer, whilst I appreciate your feelings on the subject are strong, your comments - "Nannified, stripped of basic tools out of fear and insufferably condescending. Glad we bailed on that inbred island when we did" - were uncalled for and show a degree of stereotyping and bigotry that I think is probably beneath you.

    5. Richard - you're probably right. But sometimes the high-browed condascension from the anti-gun crowd, combined with a selective presentation of the facts, is more than I can stomach. Still, I could have phrased my response better. But I will stand by the "nanny-state" comment...

      ; )

  5. Thank you for posting this AG.

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

  6. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

  7. I generally try and avoid opinion pieces that use a few examples to make a case, instead of actual statistics. Saying "Strict gun control doesn't work because these people got shot on this day," is just as irrelevant as saying "We need stricter gun control because these people got shot on this day."

  8. Call me crazy, but I do not at all believe the actual agenda is "control crime." I think that is just the claimed goal that is being hid behind. The real intent is more along the lines of simply "control/reduce guns." One could take their pick as to the reason why a govt might want to do this.
    In my view, the "gun control = crime reduction" argument had been thoroughly defeated by now, in certain cities here and in countries abroad.

  9. Good article, A.G. I recently had a brief correspondence with a fellow from Australia. He said that there were quite a few gun related crimes in his area despite the strict laws. He also expressed how he wanted SOME way of defending himself in case that happened with him. He didn't want a gun but wanted SOMETHING. Where he lives he cannot even use pepper spray or defend himself with a walking stick.

    For Europeans (I've gotten an earful from many of them lately.) to say "Oh, America is dangerous" is a bit of myopic view. They need to look inward to their own countries and the increase in ALL kinds of violent crimes. Gun violence isn't the only kind of violence.