The U.N. Gun Ban Treaty - Gun Owners Beware

oralloy wrote:

Personally, I think the US should conduct military strikes against any foreign body that tries to coerce us into violating our Constitutional rights, and I'm willing to include the UN in that.

Welcome to A2K, oralloy.

Interesting statement.

Does this mean, you recomment a civil war as well against those US-citzens, who oppose private gun ownership?

And how, do you think, would a war against the UK - your strongest ally in Iraq - be thought of?

I'd hope that the UK would not try to coerce us into violating our rights. My guess is that the pressure will only come from UN-NGOs.

oralloy wrote:

Don't know about Canada, but in England the violent crime rate is triple that of the US.

The only published data for England are those by the British Crime Survey (BCS). Besides that I couldn't find any seperated figures only for England (they are for England and Wales, as far as I know), I couldn't furthermore find statistics, which affirm your above statement.

Coul you please give me a link to your figures?

Police record crimes according to the dictates of the Home Office Counting Rules, and these then provide a measure of all crimes reported to (and recorded by) them.

Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

oralloy wrote:

Yes. Her attempt to violate our Constitutional rights is sinister.

Could you verify this a bit?

How she can ... in legal terms, and by practical means.

"Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury."

Typical knee jerk reaction. Government, please save us from ourselves! I've said it before, I'm saying it again. You have lost a right. Forever. And you don't care. I'm not willing to allow that kind of thinking to take over here in the U.S.

Alcohol-fuelled violence, "low-level thuggery" and better reporting levels were blamed yesterday for an 11% rise in violent crime recorded by the police between April and June.
The rise masked a continuing fall in crime overall - by 5% on police figures and by 7% on the more authoritative British Crime Survey which were both published by the Home Office yesterday.

The biggest falls were in domestic burglaries - down 23% on police figures, car crime which has fallen 18% and robberies down 15%.

The drive against gun crime is to be intensified in the wake of annual figures showing firearms offences continuing to rise by 3% to 10,590 in the 12 months to June 2004.

However, the number of people killed as a result of shootings fell from 82 to 70 over the same period. The fall may be linked to a 10% drop in the number of incidents involving a handgun and a 35% rise in the number involving a replica or imitation weapon.

Home Office statisticians said that changes in the way the police record violent crime meant much of what is recorded, such as common assault, amounted to actions such as pushing and shoving, and involves little or no physical injury.

The police recorded 303,000 violent incidents out of 1,447,400 offences between April and June this year.

That's exactly what I meant:

"police recorde crime" means ...

Quote:

Police record crimes according to the dictates of the Home Office Counting Rules, and these then provide a measure of all crimes reported to (and recorded by) them.

:wink:

That really is a better equivalent to the FBI figures? These data include, if someone just calls the police and thinks that there has been someone vandalizing, includes every minor delict as well!

oralloy wrote:

I'd hope that the UK would not try to coerce us into violating our rights. My guess is that the pressure will only come from UN-NGOs.

Yes, UNICEF are the worst . And of course the Labour Party in the UK.

But you said that she was attempting to violate Constitutional Rights.

dlowan wrote:

There seems to be something about just debating the issues that is scary to gun folk.

Is it not a normal practice in a democratic country to debate the rights and wrongs of all manner of things?

Seems people here do not see anything sinister in gun debate - and a UN involvement in such.

When the debate is about whether to violate our civil rights, it tends to be cause for concern for those who value those rights.

Personally, I think the US should conduct military strikes against any foreign body that tries to coerce us into violating our Constitutional rights, and I'm willing to include the UN in that.

I'm going to say this once more and then I'm going to leave the issue forever. Guns HAVE NOT BEEN BANNED IN AUSTRALIA. There were restrictions placed on the type of weapons available, and greater scrutiny of the need for said weapons. I'm acquainted with several people who own and use firearms on a regular basis.
But you're never going to allow anything remotely resembling the facts to interfere with your view of the world, so I suspect I've just wasted as much time as anyone else who has ever tried to promote the truth in your presence.

re crime in the UK

From today's
Guardian:

Quote:

However, the number of people killed as a result of shootings fell from 82 to 70 over the same period. The fall may be linked to a 10% drop in the number of incidents involving a handgun and a 35% rise in the number involving a replica or imitation weapon.

Gun nuts should NEVER be permitted to make policy.

Wilso wrote:

I'm going to say this once more and then I'm going to leave the issue forever. Guns HAVE NOT BEEN BANNED IN AUSTRALIA. There were restrictions placed on the type of weapons available, and greater scrutiny of the need for said weapons. I'm acquainted with several people who own and use firearms on a regular basis.
But you're never going to allow anything remotely resembling the facts to interfere with your view of the world, so I suspect I've just wasted as much time as anyone else who has ever tried to promote the truth in your presence.

Many (most?) TYPES of guns were banned.

And people are only allowed to have the remaining types if they can show a need (and self-defense doesn't count as a need), meaning many people will not be able to get them.

That is a ban, even if there are a few token people there who are allowed to have token guns.

dlowan wrote:

Gun nuts should NEVER be permitted to make policy.

Bigoted name calling is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

Crap.

Demonstrate your ignorant drivel.

Overall, Britain now suffers from a higher violent crime rate than the U.S., and has reverted to its medieval status of being substantially more dangerous than most of the European continent. (Continental gun laws are generally more repressive than in the U.S., but more liberal than in England.)

oralloy wrote:

Many (most?) TYPES of guns were banned.

And people are only allowed to have the remaining types if they can show a need (and self-defense doesn't count as a need), meaning many people will not be able to get them.

That is a ban, even if there are a few token people there who are allowed to have token guns.

Crap.

Demonstrate your ignorant drivel.