11 year old shot in Liverpool

[edyzmedieval]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6959562.stm

Now this is really bad. UK is going to the dogs. The kid must have been at the wrong place at the wrong time, but this is going off the edge. How derailed can you possibly be to shoot a 11 year old?

:thumbsdown:

[rory_20_uk]

Statistically there's no increase in deaths year on year.

Shoot 11 year olds in the UK, kidnap 4 year olds in Portugal... Just because the media mentions it doesn't make it that interesting. :coffeenews:

~:smoking:

[Devastatin Dave]

Statistically there's no increase in deaths year on year.

. :coffeenews:

~:smoking:
If he was your family member I doubt you would be so, shall we say, indifferent. Have we become so jaded?:no:

[rory_20_uk]

To approach matters as if it was your own family is to get emotion into every area of life:

Imagine if all the children that starved to death or were killed per year were yours. Or those that die of easily curable infectious diseases were yours.

Or if the immigrant families were yours. You're utterly callous when referring to them, so why the holier-than-thou when talking about an 11 year old that got killed?

~:smoking:

[English assassin]

Sorry, but this crime didn't happen. After handguns were banned in the UK all gun crime ended. It must have done.

In other news, did you know the Olympic Delivery Authority is having some difficulty persuading anyone to be range officers for the Olympic pistol events? Apparently people aren't willing to volunteer to officiate at events they aren't allowed to practice for. Fancy that !

[Odin]

Sorry, but this crime didn't happen. After handguns were banned in the UK all gun crime ended. It must have done.

In other news, did you know the Olympic Delivery Authority is having some difficulty persuading anyone to be range officers for the Olympic pistol events? Apparently people aren't willing to volunteer to officiate at events they aren't allowed to practice for. Fancy that !

What delicous sarcasm !

Been up late with a crying baby mate :laugh4:


rory_20_uk To approach matters as if it was your own family is to get emotion into every area of life:

Imagine if all the children that starved to death or were killed per year were yours. Or those that die of easily curable infectious diseases were yours.

Or if the immigrant families were yours. You're utterly callous when referring to them, so why the holier-than-thou when talking about an 11 year old that got killed?

and this wonderful bit too !

This thread has all the fixing for a nice little pissing matching, and now Im subscribed !

Oh, the 11 year old thats a shame really, but hasnt there been a crack down on gangs in liverpool recently? I swear I read this somewhere.

[Devastatin Dave]

To approach matters as if it was your own family is to get emotion into every area of life:

Imagine if all the children that starved to death or were killed per year were yours. Or those that die of easily curable infectious diseases were yours.

Or if the immigrant families were yours. You're utterly callous when referring to them, so why the holier-than-thou when talking about an 11 year old that got killed?

~:smoking:
Because, in general you and many others do the same thing about numerous other topics here and now your doing a reversal. Do I care that this kid got plugged by some punk on the other side of the ocean? Not really, but ususally your and your buds over there are always so "outraged" by whatever flavor of violence happens over here. Why are you so blaise about this episode? Besides, i thought there was no crime over there since you guys have made everything safe since keeping firearms from the masses?

[rory_20_uk]

Any evidence with that or does your rage provide all the evidence we need?

~:smoking:

[Devastatin Dave]

Any evidence with that or does your rage provide all the evidence we need?

~:smoking:
Let me channel Tribesman for my answer.... yes....

[Don Corleone]

Well, if Dave is guilty of caring too much, and Rory of not caring enough, I know which side I'd rather err on.

It must be great to be so cool that you shrug off a child getting murdered and laugh at the people that it does bother. Personally, I'm not sure I'll ever be that cool.

Seriously, Rory, are you doing your best at your :daisy: routine, or do you really not care that an 11year old got blown away for no good reason? If it's the latter, laugh at emotion all you want... no emotion isn't all that healthy either.

[Don Corleone]

Let me channel Tribesman for my answer.... yes....

You forgot the smileys.

[rory_20_uk]

How many dear, precious children die each day? A few thousand? Probably more. And what do we do about it? Sod all. So if it makes you feel good that you are oh so caring at writing a few lines about a dead child then bully for you :thumbsup:

He died. It's unfortunate. Life goes on. Today at work my boss told a mother that the surgeons wouldn't operate on her child - although that's the only chance he's got. A fairly usual day, then. Yes, I see and have seen a lot more death than most, as that's my job.

I care deeply about my family and my friends. But that's it. It's called professional detachment, and yes one does look at the world differently. Pretend to care about the occasional sob stories that reach the news, but basically neither of us does anything to stem death in this world, and I for one don't want to be a hypocrite.

~:smoking:

[Devastatin Dave]

You forgot the smileys.
You're right, thanks...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[caravel]

How many dear, precious children die each day? A few thousand? Probably more. And what do we do about it? Sod all. So if it makes you feel good that you are oh so caring at writing a few lines about a dead child then bully for you :thumbsup:

He died. It's unfortunate. Life goes on. Today at work my boss told a mother that the surgeons wouldn't operate on her child - although that's the only chance he's got. A fairly usual day, then. Yes, I see and have seen a lot more death than most, as that's my job.

I care deeply about my family and my friends. But that's it. It's called professional detachment, and yes one does look at the world differently. Pretend to care about the occasional sob stories that reach the news, but basically neither of us does anything to stem death in this world, and I for one don't want to be a hypocrite.

~:smoking:
The issue is not who dies or who doesn't die, and whether we care or not. This is about the increase in violent crime, stabbing, gun crime, anti social behaviour and street crime in general. If you can't see that this is happening, and getting worse, then I can only assume that you live in a nice part of London travel everywhere in a car and thus don't have to worry about it. In which case you're quite lucky.

[Bijo]

As for the issue regarding... "caring "(or whatever it is to be called contextually) Rory seems spot on in the reasoning he communicates.

Where are peoples' bleeding hearts for the continued injustice that has been occurring everyday in many parts of the globe and even on large scales?

[rory_20_uk]

The number of deaths due to guns per year isn't rising. I stated that in my first post. Stabbing, now that might be getting slightly worse, I've not looked up the figures.

What is soaring is people's perception of crime. Often this bares no connection with reality.

Oh, I don't have a car. I either get a bus or ride a bike. I live in a seemingly reasonable part of london, but yes I do hope when I'm older to be able to live in a nice ghetto until such time that politicians manage to sort things out.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

I actually thought something similar than Rory. Hundreds of children starve every day and noone cares, then some day we get a single kid killed somewhat closer to ourselves and that's a big tragedy all of a sudden.

It most likely is for the family of the kid, the friends and maybe the whole village, but if I cried for every dead person in the world, I could never ever stop. The sad thing is that today we have the media which wants us to know such things and wants us to care, 200 years ago I wouldn't even know that this child had died and would likely never get to know about it either.

I know that sounds hard to some, it even sounds hard to myself, but it's reality and humans aren't made to care about everything. Remember the monkeysphere...:sweatdrop:

[Proletariat]

I don't really agree. When I see a headline like this, it's more personalized. '11 year old shot...' automatically conjures up images of children I know personally being shot, like my eight year old niece or something. When I hear '200,000 children in the Congo killed slaughtered' I'd usually think, 'God, can't believe some bastards out there could do that.'

I won't be sending flowers or money to the family or anything, I'm not saying I have a bleeding heart or am particularly compassionate, but when all you know is that it was one particular child age 11, you can relate to that easily if you've ever met an 11 year old. Maybe Husar and Rory are just much more logical than me (pretty certain that's true), but the individual circumstances are what makes these things stand out a little bit over massive, anonymous amounts of death.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You know, considering you're on a island, the whole gun banning thing may not be working out if a punk teenager can get a gun to do a ride by on some 11 year old kid.

CR

[Don Corleone]

You know, considering you're on a island, the whole gun banning thing may not be working out if a punk teenager can get a gun to do a ride by on some 11 year old kid.

CR

It's working exactly as planned. The teenager is alive and well. A year in the pokey, and he's back out hunting for another kid. But nobody is daring to defend themselves or their families over there.

[Odin]

I have to admit when I first subscribed to this thread the tone was amusing, its gone down hill to the point where my venumous tone wont hurt it anymore.

Lets assume for a minute there is this "gods will" bit, or that one of these religions has it right and there is a rewarding after life.

Isnt this kid, and all of those who died today better off anyway? I mean dosent paradise await? Or is there some criteria I missed in the mythos where a random death at the hands of another dosent qualify you for the promised land?

The heartbreak expressed is touching, but in all candeor any one of you could die tomorrow. I would wonder what the hell happened but my life wouldnt change much, would yours? (be honest)

These ridiculous notions of "caring" for those you dont know is simply foder for poking the otherside with a pointed stick. Its easy to come out swinging with the "why dont you care that an 11 year old died" or "are you going to cry for every person that dies". Simple positions really and in my opinion none really founded in true belief, simply bluster.

Of course a part of you cares, on some level I mean why even have a thread and post about it if you didnt, no matter your position? I am going to sleep well tonight and I suspect lots more kids will die while Im sleeping.

Do I want them dead? No, but the lesson here isnt "why" or "how" the lesson is one of appreciation of what you have now because it can be fleeting. Im sure that kid and his family werent that much different from ours.

I think I'll look in on my son before bed, hopefully my org friends will take a moment to climb down off thier mountains and look in on thier kids too.

Who knows yours could be shot tomorrow, apparantly it dosent matter where you live does it?

But dont worry, if they are you can rest assured that you will recieve plenty of genuine empathy from the screen names here on the org that you percieve really cares, or maybe your kid will be another statistic too?

:thumbsdown:

[Samurai Waki]

I can see the stances from where both parties look at this. An 11 year old dies, its awful and horrible, yes...yes it is. I wish it was me who could have taken the bullet instead and spared the young boy his life. However... having that said, this argument is at an impasse simply because ignorance of life is an undeniable element of the human psyche. Horrible. Horrible things happen all the time all over the world. What of them? Do you really spend your time lamenting them? Because if you do, you are one hell of a depressing person and I wouldn't want to be around you. Do you who mourn the loss of this child, fear at every wake what could happen to you (and possibly your children) at any moment? Or do you take life's individualistic challenges one day at a time and deal with them as they come? I know for a fact that if my daughters or my wife were killed irregardless of the circumstances I would be a broken soul, I would die with them. But I don't expect the rest of the world to care, or to mourn that loss, that is my loss and I don't want one else but me or my immediate friends to share the burdon because **** happens all the time (I mean honestly how many of you are going to take this personal or for that matter remember it in a month from now?). The world is cold, hard, and cruel; and Life's woes shouldn't have to happen to anyone but it does and it always will. But, if you can look past all the bad; The simple rewards that happen to you on a day to day basis from scoring an A on a test, or getting a "that' a boy" at your job, or seeing your six month walk for the first time reinforces the opinion that you should love every little good thing that happens to you, because you never know what might happen eventually... like somebody you hold dear could die from a someone that didn't care enough.

For being such a Mean Bastard; Stalin did say something that rings true in this case.

"A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a statistic"

[Husar]

Do I want them dead? No, but the lesson here isnt "why" or "how" the lesson is one of appreciation of what you have now because it can be fleeting. Im sure that kid and his family werent that much different from ours.

I think I'll look in on my son before bed, hopefully my org friends will take a moment to climb down off thier mountains and look in on thier kids too.

Who knows yours could be shot tomorrow, apparantly it dosent matter where you live does it?

But dont worry, if they are you can rest assured that you will recieve plenty of genuine empathy from the screen names here on the org that you percieve really cares, or maybe your kid will be another statistic too?

:thumbsdown:
Well, for me internet friends can become friends like my other friends as well, which means I'm actually interested in their lives(they enter my monkeysphere) and maybe even the lives of their relatives(Whacker may come in and say that isn't true:shame: ).
The problem is I cannot really force myself to feel anything even if I wanted to. Sometimes I'm a bit ashamed of that myself(see the Whacker thing above) but it's the way I am. Like Wakizashi said, if you care too much, you become depressive and I might have been a bit depressive in recent years so 'I actually tried to stop caring too much about certain things. Makes me happier, healthier and means you won't have to read about my suicide in the news, not that I actually considered that, but a lot of sad people don't make the world a better place either.


I don't really agree. When I see a headline like this, it's more personalized. '11 year old shot...' automatically conjures up images of children I know personally being shot, like my eight year old niece or something. When I hear '200,000 children in the Congo killed slaughtered' I'd usually think, 'God, can't believe some bastards out there could do that.'

I won't be sending flowers or money to the family or anything, I'm not saying I have a bleeding heart or am particularly compassionate, but when all you know is that it was one particular child age 11, you can relate to that easily if you've ever met an 11 year old. Maybe Husar and Rory are just much more logical than me (pretty certain that's true), but the individual circumstances are what makes these things stand out a little bit over massive, anonymous amounts of death.
I can understand that, thinking about someone close to you raises your feelings, works if I imagine I were that child or someone close to it, but in reality I am not.
Maybe that old Stalin quote applies: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"
Might actually have to do with our brain, the monkeysphere and the fact that we cannot really grasp the size of some things, focusing seems to be more a human strength.


You know, considering you're on a island, the whole gun banning thing may not be working out if a punk teenager can get a gun to do a ride by on some 11 year old kid.

CR
You know, if everybody around that kid had a gun, they probably couldn't have shot back before the third shot was fired, we just might have ended up with more dead people. The teenager might be a murderer but that doesn't mean he deserves death himself. Once he realises what he has done(and sits in a dark cell to think about it for a long time), that should punish him quite a lot already.


It's working exactly as planned. The teenager is alive and well. A year in the pokey, and he's back out hunting for another kid. But nobody is daring to defend themselves or their families over there.
Like I said, guns can't always prevent a surprise attack, otherwise soldiers wouldn't die in Iraq. I hope you're wrong about the year though, it's way too long short.

[Ronin]

It's working exactly as planned. The teenager is alive and well. A year in the pokey, and he's back out hunting for another kid. But nobody is daring to defend themselves or their families over there.

I think that the rarity of such events in the UK tells us that not having guns works....that´s precisely why this is such a big news....it´s rare...

how many times has something like this happened in the US over the last few years?..does it even make the news in a significant way anymore?...

I know one thing for sure....no one ever walked into a school or university in my country and started shooting people....of course over here it would be very very hard to get your hands on a gun to do such a thing....now isn´t that a crazy coincidence? :idea2:


as for the other subject that has been raised here.......of course I agree that what happened to this kid is bad and shouldn´t have happened....but I´m not emotionally invested in the situation as to be emotional about this....come on...how emotional can you be about someone you didn´t know was alive before seeing the news?

[Odin]

Well, for me internet friends can become friends like my other friends as well, which means I'm actually interested in their lives(they enter my monkeysphere) and maybe even the lives of their relatives(Whacker may come in and say that isn't true:shame: ).
The problem is I cannot really force myself to feel anything even if I wanted to. Sometimes I'm a bit ashamed of that myself(see the Whacker thing above) but it's the way I am. Like Wakizashi said, if you care too much, you become depressive and I might have been a bit depressive in recent years so 'I actually tried to stop caring too much about certain things. Makes me happier, healthier and means you won't have to read about my suicide in the news, not that I actually considered that, but a lot of sad people don't make the world a better place either.


Thats cool Husar, my post last night was after a scotch or two and to be blunt I found the commentary in the thread to be less then genuine and more banter to create some morbid debate on childrens death.

I understand your point though and I agree to an extent but for those who dont feel anything or cant have certainly devoted portions of thier life to particpating in a discussion here which seems paradoxial to me, and yes, less then genuine.

However Husar, if in fact you didnt show up for a few weeks and were no where to be found, I would most likely send you a PM just to see what was going on.

Just dont come to american kabish ? :7jester:

[HoreTore]

Like I said, guns can't always prevent a surprise attack, otherwise soldiers wouldn't die in Iraq.

That's got to be rubbish. Iraq is floating with guns, so it has to be a safe place to live. I'm very sure that only criminals and baddies(and gungrabbing wussies) get killed there.

[Sir Moody]

I havent read more than a few posts at the top of this thread so im gonna stick this in here and run (threads tend to run in a very predictable manor when it comes to gun crime)

there have been 58 gun related homicides in the entire of the UK over this year (compared to 49 last year)

in Los Angleles alone there has been 496 homicides (to the end of July) with guns being used in more than 4/5ths (i cant get an exact number of been trying).
thats 396 (rounded down).

we are seeing a rise in gun crime here in the UK but they are a statisticaly small (minute i would say) number.

Anyone using the current cases to advocate gun control doesnt work is crazy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You know, if everybody around that kid had a gun, they probably couldn't have shot back before the third shot was fired, we just might have ended up with more dead people. The teenager might be a murderer but that doesn't mean he deserves death himself. Once he realises what he has done(and sits in a dark cell to think about it for a long time), that should punish him quite a lot already.

So, we shouldn't use guns to defend ourselves, because we might do so effectively, and therefore kill this murderer?


Anyone using the current cases to advocate gun control doesnt work is crazy.

Wow, that's a great argument. So you're saying that the aim of gun control is not to prevent incidents like this? Because if it is, it seems pretty obvious it's not doing much.

Unless of course, the whole aim was for punk gangs to be able to show off guns they own:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/4803.html

Also, FYI California has some pretty strict gun laws compared to the rest of America.

CR

[Sir Moody]

Wow, that's a great argument. So you're saying that the aim of gun control is not to prevent incidents like this? Because if it is, it seems pretty obvious it's not doing much.

58 gun killings accross the entire country - its working just fine


Also, FYI California has some pretty strict gun laws compared to the rest of America.

While the laws are strict the guns are availble and sold - the UK is a complete ban on handguns - they cant be sold and they cant be owned

[HoreTore]

Wow, that's a great argument. So you're saying that the aim of gun control is not to prevent incidents like this? Because if it is, it seems pretty obvious it's not doing much.

Preventing incidents like this is impossible as long as guns exist in the world. The point of gun control is to MINIMIZE these incidents. And it's doing that wonderfully. 58 deaths a year according to sir moody, with a population of 60-70(?) million, that's nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[Husar]

So, we shouldn't use guns to defend ourselves, because we might do so effectively, and therefore kill this murderer?
That's a matter of your worldview.

You sounded like a lot of guns could prevent deaths, I just said that they don't prevent them, they result in more deaths, be they innocent dead people or not.

Whether you think shooting a deluded teenager who turned into a murderer depends on your worldview and maybe the circumstances. As long as you can reduce the guy to being a murderer, it's always easy, but he probably has a life, friends and family just like his victims. We don't even know why he shot the young boy. I'm not trying to victimize him or say he shouldn't be punished, I just think that shooting him on the spot is IMO not always the best thing one can do all things considered. Though if someone shot him that would be ok with me as well, he kinda asked for it.:sweatdrop:

[caravel]

While the laws are strict the guns are availble and sold - the UK is a complete ban on handguns - they cant be sold and they cant be owned
...legally. The problem is that the vast majority of gun related crime is carried out with illegally acquired weapons usually smuggled in from abroad and sold on the street. Despite the ban on handguns, and handguns were already banned, the last ban affected target pistols mainly and thus ineffectual, gun grime is on the rise, as is knife related crime. Passing laws won't solve this problem as it's a cultural one.

[HoreTore]

...legally. The problem is that the vast majority of gun related crime is carried out with illegally acquired weapons usually smuggled in from abroad and sold on the street. Despite the ban on handguns, and handguns were already banned, the last ban affected target pistols mainly and thus ineffectual, gun grime is on the rise, as is knife related crime. Passing laws won't solve this problem as it's a cultural one.

Why would US citizens bother with getting an illegal gun when they can just get one legally? Is the black market cheaper, or what?

Anyway, with a complete ban on guns, the black market would feel the sting of the first rule of capitalism: Lower availability = higher prices. The black market would then have a complete monopoly on guns, and prices would soar. And when things get more expensive, fewer can get them.

Sometimes I love capitalism...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why would US citizens bother with getting an illegal gun when they can just get one legally? Is the black market cheaper, or what?

Only criminals would get a gun illegally in the US. There's no reason for a non criminal to.


Anyway, with a complete ban on guns, the black market would feel the sting of the first rule of capitalism: Lower availability = higher prices. The black market would then have a complete monopoly on guns, and prices would soar. And when things get more expensive, fewer can get them.

Sometimes I love capitalism...

Only higher prices for a short while, until illegal sources got into full swing. Consider drugs, and the vast resources put into eradicating it. But have the prices steadily gotten higher over the years, or have the smugglers just gotten better?


The point of gun control is to MINIMIZE these incidents. And it's doing that wonderfully. 58 deaths a year according to sir moody, with a population of 60-70(?) million, that's nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It is a significant increase over last year.

CR

[HoreTore]

Only criminals would get a gun illegally in the US. There's no reason for a non criminal to.

Is there a reason why a criminal would want an illegal one instead of a legal one if he decides to rob the local gas station?


Only higher prices for a short while, until illegal sources got into full swing. Consider drugs, and the vast resources put into eradicating it. But have the prices steadily gotten higher over the years, or have the smugglers just gotten better?

If you haven't noticed it, there has been a dramatic increase in drug production, Afghanistan to name one. As such the comparison doesn't prove anything.


It is a significant increase over last year.

No, it has not. What was the number for the previous year? 50? An extra 8 isn't a significant increase, it's nothing.

[Geoffrey S]

Is there a reason why a criminal would want an illegal one instead of a legal one if he decides to rob the local gas station?
Yes.

[HoreTore]

Yes.

Care to explain why...?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is there a reason why a criminal would want an illegal one instead of a legal one if he decides to rob the local gas station?

A person with a felony on their record can't legally get a handgun (or any gun).


If you haven't noticed it, there has been a dramatic increase in drug production, Afghanistan to name one. As such the comparison doesn't prove anything.
And what's to say there won't be a dramatic increase in black market guns made or imported, or conversion of replica guns? The comparison proves a lot, and it's useless to ignore it to try and justify gun control.


No, it has not. What was the number for the previous year? 50? An extra 8 isn't a significant increase, it's nothing.

It was 49 for the whole year, only 58 so far this year.

Assuming the monthly rate is steady, that means (12/8) * 58 = 87

(87-49) / (49) * 100 = 78% increase

Is that nothing?


The point of gun control is to MINIMIZE these incidents. And it's doing that wonderfully.

The point, as I understand it, is to limit the number of guns in a country. Now, if guns are hard to get, would some punk kid on a bike use one to shoot at some teenagers and a 11 year old? How many incidents like this happened ten years ago?

Even the Observer says


Crime rate soars as criminals walk free

Observer investigation reveals Labour failure to halt slide in convictions

David Rose
Sunday May 28, 2006
The Observer

The true picture of rising levels of violent crime in England and Wales and historically low conviction rates can be revealed today by The Observer.

An investigation shows that conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have been in freefall since Labour came to power in 1997 and are now well below 10 per cent. The chronically low figures for convictions come at the same time as reports that violent crime is increasing.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html

CR

[HoreTore]

A person with a felony on their record can't legally get a handgun (or any gun).

Ah, but this guy in question hasn't been arrested for anything yet, so he can buy one legally. Why should he want an illegal one?


It was 49 for the whole year, only 58 so far this year.

Assuming the monthly rate is steady, that means (12/8) * 58 = 87

(87-49) / (49) * 100 = 78% increase

Is that nothing?

Yes, that is nothing. When we are dealing with figures as low as this, they go up and down frequently. It could just as easily be 25 next year, even if nobody does anything(although the politicians in charge will of course say otherwise...).

However, if the number was 49 last year, 70 this year, 150 next year and 1000 in 5 years, then we can talk. So far it's nothing. And there's certainly no need to get a gun to protect anything. The odds of getting killed is about as high as getting struck by lightning.


The point, as I understand it, is to limit the number of guns in a country. Now, if guns are hard to get, would some punk kid on a bike use one to shoot at some teenagers and a 11 year old? How many incidents like this happened ten years ago?

Maybe one or two, like now?


Even the Observer says

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html


Yes, and tabloids never make their headlines and articles....tabloid...

[econ21]

Crazed Rabbit: the gun related deaths are for financial years, not calendar years. The 58 statistic was for 2006/7, which is over now.

These are the recent figures:

1997/98: 54
1998/99: 49
1999/00: 62
2000/01: 72
2001/02: 95
2002/03: 80
2003/04: 68
2004/05: 77
2005/06: 49
2006/07: 58

First hit on google also threw up these figures:

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, but this guy in question hasn't been arrested for anything yet, so he can buy one legally. Why should he want an illegal one?

In that case, very unlikely I'd point out, he would have no reason to prefer an illegal gun, except in states that ban or heavily regulate handgun ownership, or keep records on firearms bought (many states).


Yes, that is nothing. When we are dealing with figures as low as this, they go up and down frequently. It could just as easily be 25 next year, even if nobody does anything(although the politicians in charge will of course say otherwise...).

The fact that American violent crime is generally decreasing, whilst British violent crime is trending oppositely, holds true, though.


However, if the number was 49 last year, 70 this year, 150 next year and 1000 in 5 years, then we can talk. So far it's nothing. And there's certainly no need to get a gun to protect anything. The odds of getting killed is about as high as getting struck by lightning.

Are the odds of getting robbed or attacked in your home so low? I think not...

CR

[HoreTore]

The fact that American violent crime is generally decreasing, whilst British violent crime is trending oppositely, holds true, though.

As econ21, the Champion of google, showed, it does not. If you want to make a statistic out of those numbers(though it wouldn't have a point, as the numbers are too low), gun crime is now lower than a few years ago. So no, it's not increasing.


Are the odds of getting robbed or attacked in your home so low? I think not...

Noone I know has ever been robbed or attacked in their home. None of my neighbors have. Sure, a thing or two have been nicked from the lawn or something, but that's youngsters having fun, not robbery... It truly is like getting struck by lightning.

I leave my front door wide open when I'm home(and it's not cold). I only lock it when I'll be gone for at least a day. I never lock my car or bike when they're outside my house. Getting robbed is not something I ever think about. And I don't live in the middle of nowhere either, I live 10km away from the capital.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I havent read more than a few posts at the top of this thread so im gonna stick this in here and run (threads tend to run in a very predictable manor when it comes to gun crime)

there have been 58 gun related homicides in the entire of the UK over this year (compared to 49 last year)

in Los Angleles alone there has been 496 homicides (to the end of July) with guns being used in more than 4/5ths (i cant get an exact number of been trying).
thats 396 (rounded down).

we are seeing a rise in gun crime here in the UK but they are a statisticaly small (minute i would say) number.

Anyone using the current cases to advocate gun control doesnt work is crazy.
I would second that, as a uk resident, right now as i type, i can hear gun shots outside.

There are guns in britain, there are legal guns and gun shops too, at the moment there are more illegal guns appearing in britain and surprise surprise gun crime does seem to be increasing, if not in numbers then in bold ness (and im not just talking about shootings)

Now if hand guns were legal i dont think i would want one i would be worried that i might kill someone accidentally (after all hand guns are designed just for that purpose), now many criminals wouldn't, thats the difference.

I can understand why some people want guns, for hunting or sport like clay pigeon shooting, or just against targets, now to my knowledge you can do all that in britain its just that you need to apply for licence.

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news_info/departments/firearms/licencing/firearms5.htm

''A firearm certificate may be refused or revoked if the holder is:

* of intemperate habits

* of unsound mind

* unfit to be entrusted with such a firearm

* no longer has good reason for possession

* a danger to the public safety or to the peace.

A shot gun certificate can only be refused or revoked if the holder is a danger to the public safety or to the peace.

The burden of proof is within the 'bounds of probability' not 'beyond reasonable doubt' as with a criminal offence.''

[HoreTore]

I can understand why some people want guns, for hunting or sport like clay pigeon shooting, or just against targets, now to my knowledge you can do all that in britain its just that you need to apply for licence.

Well, you use a rifle for hunting. I can't see anyone doing a drive-by with a bolt-action hunting rifle :laugh4:

Or for that matter, anyone intending to use a pistol for hunting....or an MP5...

[Husar]

Well, you use a rifle for hunting. I can't see anyone doing a drive-by with a bolt-action hunting rifle :laugh4:

Or for that matter, anyone intending to use a pistol for hunting....or an MP5...
An FN Minimi would be nice for hunting fish, they're quite fast and under water so you're unlikely to get them with a well-aimed shot. But I could do with an Uzi as well, would just have to stay away from bigger fish like sharks then.concerning drive-by "shootings" I'd recommend throwing kitchen knives.:beam: