There are many differences between a site like Free Republic, and a site like DemocRAT Underground. One is that we are not just allowed to post articles that deviate from the standard beliefs of most people on FR, we are encouraged to do so. It is with a MASSIVE barf alert that I present to you this piece of propaganda.

And of course, here is the pro-gun side of the same story: Gun Crime Sykrockets in "Gun Free" England. Schumer/Clinton Plan Proven Fiasco . This was originally on NewsMax, and posted on FR, but I'm reposting it here for simplicity's sake:

The last vestige of civilized Britain has fallen away - the unarmed British "Bobbie." For 170 years, British police functioned without guns. Since their founding by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, Bobbies walked their beats armed only with their nightsticks. Until the last few years of these 17 decades, the British public was armed. Now it is the other way around. The police have guns, and the law-abiding public doesn't. What happened?

Britain has the most severe "gun control" laws in the world. Not even members of the British Olympic Shooting Team are allowed pistols. The British are reduced to registered single- and double-barreled shotguns, and the maximum permitted shell load is birdshot.

According to the arguments of gun-control advocates, Britain should be safe and crime free. But, alas, violent crime and robberies have skyrocketed. Gunfights between rival immigrant gangs caused the revolution in British policing. In Robin Hood's Nottinghamshire, constables now patrol in pairs armed with semi-automatic pistols. They are backed up by armed-response vehicles (ARVs) stocked with submachine guns.

If gun control makes society safe, why was it necessary to overthrow British police tradition, arm police with semiautomatic weapons and provide machinegun backup? As a test case in gun control, Britain proves it to be a total failure. The result is exactly the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

In Britain, a man's home may be his castle where the king of England cannot enter without a warrant, but robbers and rapists enter at will. It is easier and less risky for a criminal to have his way with a victim in the privacy of the victim's home than in public. Gun control has made home invasion safe for criminals.

In the United States, experts have proven time and again that widespread gun ownership is a deterrent to crime and prevents between 1 million and 3 million criminal acts each year. Gun ownership saves numerous lives and foils large numbers of rapes and robberies. Yet, gun controllers persist in their attempts to disarm the public.

A person can't help but wonder whether gun-control advocates are uninformed fools or have a secret agenda. Once gun control enters politics, the lying makes even Bill and Hillary Clinton blush. As the 20th century came to a close, Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock fended off criticisms of a gun-registration bill his government was pushing by giving assurances that "there is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms."

Within 10 months of the minister's assurances, 553,000 legally registered handguns were confiscated. Now, rifles and shotguns must be licensed and registered. Having learned that the only purpose of registration is to tell the government where the guns are, compliance has collapsed. Large numbers of law-abiding Canadians prefer to risk five years in prison than to register their guns. Gun-control laws dramatically reduce public safety and turn law-abiding citizens into law-breakers. Licensing and registration increase crime by devoting police resources to paperwork. Gun registration databases cannot prevent crimes or aid in their solving, because criminals do not register their guns.

The people most dangerous to the public are not on the FBI's "Most Wanted List." Far more dangerous to our safety than criminals are gun-control extremists like Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sarah Brady of Handgun Control.

These are the people who will leave us defenseless as they abrogate the Constitution and destroy respect for law, while promising an end to "gun violence."

The American Rifleman reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) - the guys who brought us Waco - are using intimidation and threats to compile an illegal registry of gun owners. BATF thumbs its nose at federal court decisions and continues to harass legitimate gun dealers and purchasers as if they were criminals.

We need to ask ourselves why liberals have made gun confiscation such a priority. I think it is to distract us from the disastrous results of liberal social engineering. When high-school students shoot their classmates and workers open fire on their co-workers, the fault lies not in guns. It lies in the breakdown in self-control and moral integrity. The irrational shootings are due to the success of liberals in achieving their goals.

BANG!

The number of reported robberies in Britain has grown markedly in recent years. However, those who cite this fact rarely mention that, in the absence of large numbers of firearms in the community, 96-98% of these encounters bear no relation to guns.

Of course, this is total BS. The REASON the number of robberies is up is that criminals are not worried about getting shot when they break in to another man's home. Guns have EVERYTHING to do with the increase in home invasion robberies, ESPECIALLY those robberies in which no guns are involved!

The MMM are a bunch of filthy, excrement-spewing liars WERE a bunch of filthy, excrement-spewing liars. The MMM isn't around anymore, ha ha ha.

FYI

Brining it back from the dead...

Brining it back from the dead...

I don't know if this piece of MMM propaganda was ever posted here, but you usually don't find gun control articles filled with facts, so I thought I'd post it.

I guess it is a little old...

They always say gun crime. They forget TOTAL crime. I always say that Strathclyde Scotland had 82 murders(2000 or 1999? I forgot). Population 380,000. Compare that to most US cities...it's worse.

About two or three months ago, I did some research into the crime records of the Aussie Government and found that, starting the exact month of the deadline of firearms being turned in, their violent crime skyrocketed. The only crime to fall was armed robbery. But, rape, murder, and most of all, home evasions were way up. I think the reason armed robbery fell was because weapons were no longer needed to rob a defenseless society.

They forget nothin fella. They lie their asses off.

I just spent about an hour researching the UK Home Office's PDR research and statistics site on violent crime. Here are my findings with links.

From 1989 to 2000, violent crime has gone up about 5%; robbery up 10%. Click here for link

In just the last two years(recorded), from 1998 to 2000, violent crime is up about 16%; robbery up 26%.Click here for link

Also, check out this links. LINK
LINK
LINK

These links and data contained in them compeletely refutes the MMM's data, and I pulled it off of the same site they did. They are proven liars, once again.

If you have problems clicking on my links, just freep mail me and I will freep mail you the actual links.

Try this one: Britain leads the world on risk of being assaulted

Guns have EVERYTHING to do with the increase in home invasion robberies, ESPECIALLY those robberies in which no guns are involved!

Likewise "gun control" played a major role on September 11.

bump

http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 - 2/28/94 (over 6 years) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used). Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns. 99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often misused than used for self-protection. nuff said "They'll get my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

There is more to this debate than just "gun deaths." Taking it to that level is oversimplification.

Nothing. Why? Gun deaths is a meaningless stat. It combines murders, unintentional discharges(some call them accidents), SUICIDES, and justifible homicide.

If you have more murders in Strathclyde than you do gun deaths, doesn't that show that it isn't the guns.

Really, the two countries crime wise are not far apart. There is very little crime outside the cities. A few select cities have nearly all the crime. The UK has their Manchester and Strathclyde(and I think Belfast). The US has DC(gun ban), Chicago's South Side, Flint and Detroit.

Dan,

Part of the problem with comparing crime in UK vs USA is that, independent of all other factors, urban areas have a higher rate per capita of assault & burlary than rural areas in both countries, but the UK is far more urbanised than the USA.

To give an example, UK population density/ urbanisation is equivalent to the entire populations of Florida (20m), California (25m) and NYC (7m) all moving to North Carolina(6m). (N.C. has similar land area to the UK, popn 59m)

I believe this makes it difficult to point to one or two political factors as the cause of differences in crime levels between the two countries.

If we compared rural Britain with rural USA, and urban UK with urban USA, I expect we would find similar crime rates. However, the fact that UK has proportionately more urban areas distorts any "total" UK v USA comparison of crime rates.

Also, I agree with your point that what matters is not the method of death but the total number of killings.

Last year, the UK had around 750 murders.
The UK murder rate is 1.3 per 100,000 people, the US rate I believe is about 5.7 per 100,000.

Regards

Seeing as how the debate seems to have lurched toward Scotland, there follows a random selection of links: "The estimated population of Scotland on 30 June 1999 was 5,119,200" (link) or about 5 million in round figures. Seeing as how Strathclyde covers quite an area and includes Glasgow I'd guess wildly that its population exceeds 380,000 but can't find any numbers on that.
Murders/year for the whole of Scotland vary recently between 80 and 132, but appear to average about 100 per year. (link).
"Scottish police recorded 88 victims of homicide in 1997, a decrease of 36 per cent compared with 1996, and the lowest number recorded since 1990, figures released today by the Government Statistical Service reveal" (link).
"...Last year [1999] in Scotland there were 128 victims of homicide" (link).