Why not? We’re only in MPSIMS…
I don’t really see how the two things can be related. Handguns were never really common even before the ban - and not something people kept for personal defence.
Ah then the ban was not really supposed to reduce homicide rate, was it? What was it for?
Can I post again something from earlier in the thread, a point you didn’t address at the time?
You don’t need to respond, of course. If you prefer to simply imply stuff, without outright stating it, that’s up to you.
Of course it was - it was intended to reduce the amount of gun-related homicide.
But the increase in homicide can’t be reasonably attributed to the removal of guns as a means of personal defence, as guns were not used as a means of personal defence - that’s just never been the culture here.
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood what you implied by your earlier statement, but that’s why you should have clarified it, instead of dropping an implication and backing off when asked what you meant.
In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.
…
This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual’s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone’s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, “discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians.”
…
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
Terr, you aren’t helping yourself at all here. If you have a hypothesis just say it. By using the “nudge-nudge wink-wink” style of argument you just end up looking foolish.
I’ll ask you flat out, do you think there is a causal link between the UK hand-gun ban post-Dunblane and the slower decrease in UK homicide rates compared to other countries?
If so, what do you think that causal link is?
edit - and I just see you’ve used the Tony Martin case in your argument. Oh dear. Oh deary me indeed. Do your research or you are going to look very silly.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the British Isles where significant numbers of civilians are granted permits to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense.
According to the International Crime Victim Survey released in August '01, Northern Ireland had one of the lowest levels of victimization of any of the 15 industrialized countries studied and England had the highest. For example, an English resident had a 1.2% chance of suffering a robbery; while someone in Northern Ireland only faced a 0.1% chance; a reduction of about 90%.
http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/dbpolicy.pdf
Correlation does not equal causation. But correlation doesn’t equal no causation either.
There were 10,182 firearms offences in the year to the end of September compared with 9,755 in the previous 12 months - an increase of more than 400 crimes, or more than eight every week.
…
Norman Brennan, a policeman who is spokesman for the Victims of Crime Trust, said Government initiatives to tackle gun crime seemed to make no difference.
“Children as young as 11 or 12 are carrying guns,” he said. “The sad reality is that it is becoming so routinely reported by the press that a child has been shot that the shock value has been eliminated.”
…
Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously.
Note the above: “Violent crime - including, most alarmingly, gun crime - is still far higher than 10 years ago and has to be tackled much more vigorously.”. 10 years ago at that time was the time of the 1997 gun ban.
There was no such tradition or practice significantly in place in the UK before the ban on handguns. People did not keep guns for the purpose of personal defence. Few people kept guns at all.
He shot them in the back as they ran away. Personal defence? Not really.
Oh Christ - it’s the Tony Martin talking point.
Am I right in thinking that shooting a fleeing burglar in the back will likely land you in trouble in the USA too? I just want to check…
In your home? No.
Terr, go to the horses mouth.The official figures. That should help you.
I haven’t the patience to deal with ill-defined arguments. Make a valid point or a recognisable hypothesis and we can talk about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/
Watch the video.
OK, thanks. I guess you can shoot people as they run away in the USA after all. <shrug>
In any case, the UK had no significant culture of keeping guns for personal defence before the ban. If it’s really true that the USA inherited this tradition from us, the same tradition must have died here after that point.
I know things are hard to understand, but at least try. Personal handguns were not at all commonplace before 1997 in the UK. You showing some video from fucking Florida just seems a bit random. Do you have any arguments here, or are you now just floundering?
Look, I don’t care about gun control in the US. It’s your country, after all. Shoot away, I say, it’s in your Constitution. Notably you seem unwilling to actually state an opinion about the UK though. Not that I expect any better from someone who quotes Reason about Tony Martin, but still.
I mean honestly Terr, do you even have a basic understanding about how different places are different?
Do check the post that the video was posted in response to.