February 14th, 2007 10:20 PM
Counter Arguments for rational data
Faced with some stuff like the following. And in a rational method and manner. How would you respond? Counter points and pointing to errors and statistics scrutinized for error and purposely ommited facts as well should be pointed out.
Here is the Wikipedia article at question:
History of gun control in the United Kingdom
As English subjects, Protestants had a conditional right to possess arms according to the Bill of Rights.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.
The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the Colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.
Modern restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903, with the Pistols Act. This required a person to obtain a gun licence before they could buy a firearm with a barrel shorter than 9 inches. The "gun licence" had been introduced as a revenue measure in 1870; the law required a person to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry a gun outside his home, whether for hunting, self-defence, or other reasons, but not to buy one. The licences cost 10 shillings, which is about £31 in 2005 money, lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at post-offices.
A registration system gun law - the Firearms Act - was first introduced to Great Britain in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears of a surge in crime that might have resulted from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period. The law did not initially affect smoothbore weapons, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork.
Fully automatic weapons were almost completely banned from private ownership by the 1937 Firearms Act, which took its inspiration from the US 1934 National Firearms Act. Such weapons are nowadays only available to certain special collectors, museums and prop companies. The 1937 Act also consolidated changes to the 1920 Act that controlled shotguns with barrels shorter than 20". This length was later raised by the 1965 Firearms act to 24".
The first control of long-barrelled shotguns began in 1967 with the Criminal Justice Act. This required a person to obtain a "Shotgun Certificate" to own any shotgun. The Act did not require the registration of shotguns, only licensing.
Changes in public attitudes in the 1970s and 1980s changed the basis on which firearms were perceived and understood in British society. Increasingly graphic portrayals of firearms involved in gratuitous acts of violence in the mass media gave rise to concern of the emergence of an aggressive "gun culture". A steady rise in violent gun crime in general also became an issue of concern. This period saw a change of attitude within the government away from legislating to preclude a violent civil uprising to legislating to ensure public safety and prevent crime, with the most radical changes being introduced in the aftermath of a specific incident.
 Hungerford massacre
Main article: Hungerford massacre
In 1987, 27 year old Michael Ryan, armed with a semi-automatic AK-47, a Beretta handgun and a fragmentation grenade, dressed up in combat fatigues and proceeded around the town of Hungerford killing or wounding almost everyone he met, in what became known as the Hungerford massacre.
In the aftermath, the Conservative government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. This banned semiauto and pump-action centrefire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, and short shotguns that had magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles into the Prohibited category. Registration and secure storage of weapons held on shotgun certificates became required, and shotguns with more than a 2+1 capacity came to need a Firearms certificate. The law also introduced new restrictions on shotguns, although rifles in .22 rimfire and semi-automatic pistols were unaffected.
 Dunblane massacre
Main article: Dunblane massacre
Eight years after the Hungerford massacre, the Dunblane Massacre was the second time in less than a decade that unarmed civilians had been killed in Britain by a legally-licensed gun owner. On March 13, 1996 Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a disgruntled former scout leader who had been ousted by The Scout Association five years previously, shot dead sixteen young children and their teacher, Gweneth Mayor, in Dunblane Primary School's gymnasium with his legally-licensed weapons and ammunition. He then shot himself. There is a memorial to the seventeen victims in the local cemetery and a cenotaph in the cathedral. The funds raised in the aftermath of the tragedy have been used to build a new community centre for the town.
Following the incident, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 which means that as of 1997 handguns have been almost completely banned for private ownership, although the official inquiry, known as the Cullen Inquiry, did not go so far as to recommend such action. Exceptions to the ban include muzzle-loading "blackpowder" guns, pistols produced before 1917, pistols of historical interest (such as pistols used in notable crimes, rare prototypes, unusual serial numbers and so on), starting pistols, pistols that are of particular aesthetic interest (such as engraved or jewelled guns) and shot pistols for pest control. Even Britain's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; as a result of this law, the British pistol shooting team must train outside the country.
A measure of the extent of firearms ownership in Great Britain (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in ever 960 persons. At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates to be seen for both large calibre or .22 handguns bans (i.e. because certificates would remain in force, even if the holder had disposed of all their weapons). On 31 December 1996, prior to the large calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year. This represents a net drop of 24,200 certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates, making a GB total net drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31 December 2005.
In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings) , a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon. The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).
In comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained). New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.
February 14th, 2007 10:36 PM
Tho almost all of the United States legal system is based on english common law it does differ . One of the reasons for the american revolution was in fact the crown's attempt to upsurp " common law " by among other things billiting troops on private property and even homes without consent , regestration and confiscation of firearms , taxation without representation , and unfair trade practices . Nothing in english legal practices has any effect on the US since 1775 or so nor should it .
We in america are citizens, not subjects .. We are not subject to the crown or any agency of it .
Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .
Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.
February 14th, 2007 10:44 PM
February 14th, 2007 11:04 PM
This is why I want those of you who want to play... to pick it apart.
Piece by Piece and point by point.
I need rationaly provable counter points. I plan to work on it myself but can use some help to accumulate all the counterpoints and see things I might miss.
February 14th, 2007 11:43 PM
Two things here. One is that they compare the gun murders of a country that outlawed guns to a country that has not outlawed guns. That is an idiotic and false comparison. That is like saying that more people die of heat exhaustion in the state of Arizona than do in Greenland. To highlight their bias, they fail to say that 100% of the guns used in the UK murders were illegally obtained yet they tout the 75% illegally obtained stat as if it has significance.
In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings) , a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.
 The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).
In comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained)
. New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.
Second, they only address one possible cause (guns) for the disparity between per 100,000 murder rates. That is an oversimplification of an insanely intricate problem.
I dismiss the whole piece because without extensive research, one will never know if the stats are even correct. Given the obvious lack of objectivity, my gut tells me most of it was made up.
Whatever doesn't kill you postpones the inevitable.
February 15th, 2007 08:22 AM
From what I understand about Wikipedia you can basically define things without a basis in rationality or logic. Its not intended to be an authoritative reference. Feel free to edit the article, most everyone who has an opinion seems to.
"Beware of the man who only owns one gun. He probably knows how to use it."
February 15th, 2007 10:45 AM
Good points all.
The issue as I see it is that if we cannot, calmly and logically over the next few years, argue our way out of a "Paper Sack" what chance do we have? I think it becomes more and more important we be prepared for this sort of "data" to be used against us. Its obviously out there for a reason. And that reason being that people believe it is a simple answer to a complicated problem.
February 15th, 2007 10:46 AM
in 1919, the homicide rate in england/wales was only 8% of that in the US, and england had no gun control at that time.
after significant changes in the law and some of the strictest gun control in the world, it hasnt changed much.
rapes in england, sexual assault, robbery, violent street crime, all have risen steadly in england/wales - for instance, in 2001, street robberies rose 28%, violent crime 11%, murder 4%, and rapes rose by 14%.
gun crimes in the US are reported differently than in England. in the US, and crime involving a gun whatsoever is classified a gun crime. in england, only SOLVED crimes are reported. therefore, ANY UNSOLVED CRIME INVOLVING A GUN IS NOT REPORTED, an incredibly significant factor...
in england/wales, of the 20 areas with the highest number of legally registered firearms, only 2 were above average in instances of "gun crime"
in england/wales, of the 20 areas with the LOWEST number of legally registered firearms, 10 were above average in instances of "gun crime".
reference: click here
February 17th, 2007 01:16 PM
Wikipedia is a good source for an initial "overview" of a topic, but if you want to find out more, check out what sites the wiki page has cited in its references, and then do a google search on top of that, to help weed out the falsities that unscrupulous types may have added to the wiki page.
By JohnK87 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 1st, 2010, 09:49 AM
By dldeuce in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 28th, 2009, 07:07 AM
By Anubis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 27th, 2009, 09:40 PM
By JonInNY in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: March 18th, 2008, 12:52 PM
By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 03:31 PM
Search tags for this page
2nd amendment counterarguments
counter argument second amendment sample
counter arguments for amendment 4
counter arguments for gun control
counter arguments on 2nd amendment
gun control counter arguments
gun control counterarguments
not outlawed guns
rational argument second amendment
rational data about the second amendment
what arguments did the colonists use to counter the british, and which arguments seem to be most valid?
what would be the counter argument for outlawed gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors