We still have access to firearms but picking on the restriction of handguns which were not in wide circulation nor a legal means of defense at home or in public as a key indicator is not in any way valid. Handgun restrictions were introduced in 1997 rather than 1987 which may throw your divination's out somewhat. Why do you throw accusations such as "liberal weasel" about when your poorly thought out assumptions are challenged?
Especially when some of NASA's own astronauts claim to have seen them. That was actually a very good analogy, 88.
Mav88 - I'm sorry for calling you dumb. That was wrong of me. And you're right, I was perhaps arrogant in doing so. However, do bear in mind that I am right. I have no need to search the deepest, dankest recess of the internet to know I am right. It is as clear as night and day. It is clear to anyone that if you increase the supply of anything, the use will also increase. This is more of a law of human nature. ITS ECONOMICS 101!!! A child can understand this simple truth. Adam Smith proved such laws 100's of years ago in The Wealth of Nations. People may publish statistics to disprove such truths, but those statistics do not prove a thing. Human nature and history do prove more than some silly manipulated 'fact', often created by some lobby group. It was supposed to be a right wing 'fact' that Iraq had WMD. They had proof they told us. They even showed us statistics on CNN. It had to be true right, because they had 'facts'. Hard 'facts' none the less. Statistics too! 'They' wouldnt lie to us would they? If you read Lucrum's post of alleged 'facts' for example, it seems quite clear there are a number of contradictions therein. However, you are yet to answer my 'dumb' hypothetical question. I think this is because we both know that the answer would be there would of course be a catastrophe! Because this is so, it clearly debunks your argument. You see. I dont need statistics to prove a point. I simply have to use the Socratic approach and ask you to answer your own argument. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. So the point is indeed closed you see? Better luck next time old chum!
You have convolved a few things here, read carefully. The handgun only portion was a point about gun control laws. The study on handgun crime was post 1997 and was discussing handguns only so your reference to other firearms and availability are not relevent. Handguns outlawed and confiscated, then handgun crime goes up. No assumptions made, what conclusions then do you draw about the effectivenes of handgun control laws?
I did answer my own argument, you however chose to create a different strawman argument then declare yourself correct in a rather 'loud' manner. Absolutely assinine, just pure raw human toolery.
So If I manufacture more CDs of a really bad movie, even though they may be already be in oversupply sitting on store shelves, I GUARANTEE that use will go up? Such oversimplistic notions of supply and demand/use were thrown out long ago. The fact that you find it 'obvious' is really funny.
I do believe that the UK is one the biggest gun runners on the planet. Want to stop gun violence, start at the institutional level.
Not really as you stated: If handguns were in minimal circulation and you could not CCW or legally use them as a defensive weapon why would their absence have an effect on armed crime. There also has been a rise in the number of legal firearms in the UK since 1997 and 2010 which seems to be discounted in most pro/anti gun studies. There are other factors than come into play concerning illegal firearms use in the UK such as free movement between EU states the whole Northern Ireland thing winding down and an unknown number of weapons making their way across the Irish sea and turning up in Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool.
We have fallen to about 5th place which is pretty bad, I reckon there is opportunity in this field as our laws are more opaque than other states in this respect. The UK arms industry is essentially BAE Ltd and a few smaller companies.