Brangdon, I think its more attributed to the social mores of each country; here, the gangster image that permeates our larger cities, and a significant amount of our smaller ones, exemplify violence through their music and actions. I mean, in the past month, we have had 2 NFL players get shot; one shot himself accidentally, the other was shot by someone else. There are role models for inner city youth. Unfortunately, their violence is seen as something positive; going to jail is seen as a badge of honor; a finishing school for criminals of sorts. Until THAT lifestyle is changed, we will always have the violence within our culture; be it unarmed muggings, stabbings, shootings, or drive by fraggings (well, hopefully it wont come to that!). Criminals here are armed illegally; to disarm our country simply wont happen. Too many people own firearms legally, and would hide them. It is something that simply isnt feasible; all you are doing is disarming the legal owners; criminals will continue to do what they do.

Agreed. Many folks prefer to pretend that they are safe and in control of their surroundings as long as their on the right side of town or there are no evil guns present. A knife is such a simple tool and yet defending yourself against one is underestimated by most. If you don't have a knife you can likely improvise or make one in minutes from whatever is lying around.

Since we are hearing the benefits of your unarmed society, pray tell us about knife crime, and blunt objects please.

I was taught (Military and civilian law enforcement) there are only three viable defenses to either a knife or club attack:
1) Run, but that isn't always a viable option.
2) Shoot to stop the assailant, also not always the best option.
3) Don't get attacked. Guess that means becoming a shut-in alone.


I am sure there is little knife crime in the UK also. Surely that is why your constables are not issued special vests to prevent knife injury. Oh wait, they are given those vests, or buy them themselves. Guess that blows the whole no knife crime idea out of the water.

To each his own, but I intend on being able to protect myself, my family and other innocent folks within sight if I must. I prepare to do so with prayers I will never have to.

BTW, were those legal firearms and explosives the IRA used during the troubles?

Most people who are for banning weapons tend to conveniently forget one simple truth. If a criminal is willing to commit robbery, murder, or any other crime - then they surely don't care about the penalty for carrying said weapon while committing the greater offense.

Anti-gun and anti-knife laws do nothing more than assure that only criminals will possess guns and knives. And gun-free zones accomplish the same thing. Every time I hear of yet another shooting in a "Gun-Free Zone", it's always a situation where at least one of the victims could have defended themselves if they were armed. How well did the signs labeling the area a "Gun-Free Zone" work to keep the armed criminal from shooting innocent civilians?

Look at the crime statistics from the US from years ago. In an era where everyone was armed, crime levels were amazingly low. In the wild west days, if a bank got robbed, it was big news, like Billy-the-Kid type news. Today, thousands of bank robberies happen every month. People used to know that if you stole someone's horse, you'd get shot dead for it.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

In the last year, we had something really sad happen. Seems a young man son#1 had been friends with became addicted to meth. We all knew something was "wrong", but until the kid really hit bottom we didn't know. I guess we (all but sons #1&2) were in denial. The sons had stopped running with him about the time son#2 moved in.

The young man in question was discovered only after breaking into many friends homes having cased them while visiting earlier. Strangest thing is he never tried our house. When he got out of rehab, I asked him about it...

He didn't try our house because he knew he risked one of us being there during the day. He also said he knew I would shoot an intruder without question. Guess that legal firearm ownership worked as an insurance policy on that one.

Yep, "Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

I am sorry Red, but I have to burst that bubble.
The "Good Old Days" are just another escapist fantasy.

If you look at the historic crime rates and examine what the crimes were they were much higher at a lot of times and in a lot of places than they are now.

When you hear about historic crime sprees remember you are only hearing about the ones that were bad enough to remember for more than 100 years, ones bad enough to be reported nation wide at a time that mass media hardly existed.

You are not hearing about the countless local robberies and small murders earlier times were plagued with.
(When you hear about smaller towns being safer that is another fantasy too. Assault rates are higher in small towns.)

The idea that everybody was walking around armed to the teeth is a bit false too. Guns might not have been illegal, but they didn't have to be.
Guns were very expensive items and so was ammunition. People could not afford to be armed like they are now.

Anyway, crime rates change and nobody really knows why.

Since 1990 the violent crime rate has been dropping, in spite of all the scary stories in the media, and it has nothing to do with gun ownership levels.

Nobody has been able to link it with anything else either. Not even to the population getting older or to the police being better equipped.

When you hear that they hanged horse thieves all that means is there was enough horse theft that they resorted to drastic measures in an attempt to reduce horse thievery.

Brangdon wrote:

'According to this Gun Crime Report, there was a peak around 2003 and figures have been in decline since (fig 3). The variation seems to depend on ease of importing.'

Thanks for that Brangdon I've been trying to find the figures; hence my vagueness on the numbers after the first 5 years.

But aren't you agreeing that gun bans don't control the amount of shootings, when you say it depends on the ease of importing? Banning legal guns has no effect on that.
And doesn't that graph show that every sort of gun crime has risen since the bans were legislated? How can they be said to work?

The USA is one exammple of a place with more guns and more gun crime. But if it really depended on whether guns were illegal, the Bronx would be gun crime free and New Hampshire would be dodge city.
Norway has the highest gun ownership in Europe; where is the gun crime?
QJS

Wow. That is a silly statement.

If figured in gold, silver or oil, rather than currencies, the cost of small arms and ammunition hasn't changed all that much since the introduction of the fixed cartridge if you factor out the military surplus items prior each of the World Wars. Even then, you could buy a Carcano and 500 rounds for how much in 1962? Probably wouldn't work out to be much more than you would pay for Mosin and 500 rounds now. And the reason I'm not hitting the range every week is because I can't afford it- I make right around the average in this area, to.

I'll go further than NH. Vermont has NO state gun laws other than (a) you can't own supressors, which is part of the fish and game laws, (b) you can't carry a loaded long arm in a car, also part of of fish and game, (c) you can't carry in schools or state/town offices, and (d) federal laws. If you can legally buy it, you can legally carry it concealed, and no local jurisdiction can forbid or restrict in way your right to carry concealed.

And we have the second lowest violent crime rate in the US. If you factor out the narcotics related crimes carried out by people who have resided in the state less than three years, we have the lowest. Our crimes are mostly driven by dealers who grew up in NYC, Jersey, that kind of place. *shrugs*

Uhuh, and a new rifle in 1780 would have cost more than 2 English Pounds. (Dollars were not current yet.)
That was more than most people made in a month back then.
50 Pounds a year was considered a small fortune.

I can buy a new rifle today for less than a 2 day's wages

By 1870 mass production had lowered the prices, but repeating rifles were still extremely expensive compared to how much they would cost in labor now.

Arguing prices based on commodities like gold is not very good. Metals fluctuate a lot in value.
Gold was cheap enough at one point that they actually used it as currency.

You need to count the cost in comparison to what people earned.