British gangs use flare guns now because they can’t find real ones

[jpak]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/

After the U.K. endured a series of mass shootings, including one that targeted children, it passed some very tough gun control legislation in 1997. The effect, reported on today by The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola, has been staggering. Here are eight of the big takeaways, possible learning opportunities as the U.S. considers its own gun law changes:

1) Bad guys have a hard time getting guns: Criminals have resorted to using “archaic flintlock pistols” and “retrofitted flare guns.” There’s been one mass shooting in 15 years. This despite the adage, “When guns are illegal, only criminals will possess them.”

2) Fewer illegal guns: Faiola reports that, according to ballistics studies, “Most gun crime in Britain can be traced back to less than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation.”

3) Fewer gun deaths: Someone in England or Wales is about 3 percent as likely to be killed by a gun as an American. There were 59 gun deaths there last year. The U.S. annual gun death rate has hovered around 10,000 for years.

<miuch much more>

and bookmarked for future reference.

yup

[Glaug-Eldare]

1. Ahh, good ol' Knife Crime Island.

Technology control is easier on an island, I'll give them that.

[gejohnston]

2. so, how come it isn't working in Jamacia?

BTW, the murder rate is still the same. UK is still the most violent country in the EU.

[jpak]

4. Because Jamaica isn't the UK

duh

[gejohnston]

5. murder rate is still the same or worse

and UK is still the most violent country in EU. The US isn't UK either.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. a rose by any other name~

[ZombieHorde]

3. "This despite the adage, 'When guns are illegal, only criminals will possess them.'"

This isn't a fair comparison because the US has so many guns in it right now. The situation is completely different. There are over eight guns for every ten people in the US. That is a fuckload of guns to take care of.

[krispos42]

6. Hmmmmm...

Their murder rate is one-third ours. Or, their total homicide rate is the same as our non-gun homicide rate.


Funny how their rate went up even as gun-related deaths went down.

[jpak]

7. Hmmmm... sensible gun control reduces gun murder

yup

[krispos42]

8. The British homicide rate went up after the 1986 ban, and the 1997 ban.

Try again.

[intaglio]

10. Not good at reading graphs are you?

Look again at post 6

The murder rate after 1986 went up by a fragment - well within the bounds of statistical error and then went down again.

The murder rate was climbing in 1997 anyway and peaked shortly after but, guess what? the rate was still less than 2 per 100,000.

Next thing you'll be quoting all the other gun industry paid for talking points. You know, like Switzerland has lenient gun control. Or you might say that robbery (differently defined in the UK and Australia to the USA) is higher in those countries than in the land of the endangered gun owner and call that violent crime. Or you might point to Finland's 1 (Yes ONE) school massacre as proof that gun control doesn't work.

Please start billing the NRA every time you support their child endangering talking points.

[krispos42]

11. I made the graph.

Me. Personally. With information that I gathered from the UK Home Office and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The UK homicide rate went up 20 or 30% after the bans. 1.03 per 100k/yr in 1989, to 1.25 in 1998 to 1.40 in 2000.

Not only that, the ratio of US to UK homicides dropped from nearly 12:1 in 1973 to about 4:1 in 2000.

That's the green line, by the way.


And I don't compare non-homicide rates across countries; the different definitions and tabulations methods are beyond my pay grade to normalize.


Sorry to break out of the box you tried to put me in.

[intaglio]

12. Up 30%!!!111!!!

From a little over 1.5 per 100,000 to a little bit more than that but still much less than 2 per 100,000 and - OH LOOK it has dropped again. You ignore the influence of illegal weapons imported from eastern Europe. You ignore the fact, yes fact, that after Hungerford and Dunblaine the UK government tried to limit the chances of such sick acts happening again and has largely succeeded. Compare that with the groveling legislators in Congress who seem not to want to wipe their noses unless the NRA lets them do so.

Playing games with percentages and statistics is the mark of a whining apologist who wants to preserve at any cost his (or her) fanatical devotion to a machine machine designed for killing.

[krispos42]

13. Ummmm.... there's an OP today posted about how criminals in the UK are using flare guns

because they can't get real ones. So what was that about all those illegal weapons imported from eastern Europe?

So the bans did nothing to reduce homicides, but hey, at least the people being killed aren't being shot. Yay progress.


And ignoring facts and figures is the mark of a person that irrationally wants something and doesn't care how.

[intaglio]

15. An OP where gun apologists are attempting to show "gun control doesn't work"

Just as you are attempting to hide behind a news story about "flare guns"

Single shot, inaccurate, low penetration, near zero range flare guns or as they are better known to the general public, fireworks.

Then you attempt to further justify it by putting together wildly misleading statistics then flaunt your assumption of our ignorance; do eight out of ten owners say their cats/guns prefer it?

You add that "their total homicide rate is the same as ours" but homicide is not a classification of crime used in the UK. Are you attempting to compare US "homicide" to UK "Manslaughter"? Hiding behind vast numbers of industrial accidents, vehicle crashes and the like in an attempt to use statistical noise to drown out the actual signal?

Violent crime is at high rates in the UK but what the UK Home Office and police forces classify as violent crime is also a vastly wider than anything used in the USA; people shouting can be classified as violence as can spitting or waving a walking cane.

Do you know who else used the same deceptions to hide culpability for death? The tobacco industry, a tactic that the gun industry in the USA is copying and spreading through wild and misleading news reports and low information bloggers.

[krispos42]

20. I love seeing somebody from the opposite side fall into discoherence.

Because obviously threatening to shoot a ball of pyrotechnics into somebody's skin and turning them and/or their home into a flaming torch is the same as using a bottle rocket.


And I never said "their total homicide rate is the same as ours". Do a search. Ctrl-F. It's a very useful tool that a surprisingly large amount of people don't know about.

And now you say we can't compare the UK numbers on people murdered by other people. Okay, if we go with your assumption, then we can't really know if the UK is more or less violent than the US, then can we?

Same goes for the rest of Europe.

I was using murder and non-negligent manslaughter, but I guess that's not acceptable to you. And like I said, I don't compare violent crime rates because of different definitions.



Let's compare apples to apples then. Entirely from the UK Home Office, I present... facts!!!

[apocalypsehow]

14. It's embarrassing that DU has this person as a host: you should see the immature "Ibid" thread

this poster engaged in, like a childish little baby, all so he could get the precious "last word" - all the while having been caught telling a tall tale about being on "vacation" in order to avoid having to pay the proper attention to his duties as a Host down here.

Now, he's dodging and ducking and backtracking and obfuscating about this graph. It's disgraceful behavior from a "Host" - even his former fellow mods from DU2 have turned against the dishonest way he runs the Gungeon, and his decidedly pro-NRA bent.

[spin]

16. I personally feel the host has been doing an excellent job and has been extremely fair ...

to both sides of the gun control debate. The Gungeon is one of the most contentious groups on DU and I would have no interest in ever becoming the host as it would be a lot like herding cats.

I also believe that any host should have a right to post his own views on the forum he hosts. It is true that supporting gun rights on DU has always been unpopular with many of the more "liberal and progressive" members but usually debate on gun control has largely been limited to this group.

A significant percentage of Democrats own and use firearms for hunting, target shooting and self defense. Some also merely collect them. Many prominent Democrats such as Bill Richardson, Howard Dean and the current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have high ratings from the NRA. Our party is indeed a big tent. Should a Democrat who supports gun rights be discriminated against on DU?

I will admit that at times I feel the host of this group has been too fair to those who support extremely strong gun control in this group and you feel that he has favored those who favor gun rights far too much. That is actually the response that a fair host should receive.

I feel that the Gungeon should be a place to discuss the issue of gun control in a polite manner. I always read and consider the legitimacy of the arguments from those who support stronger gun control and over time I have changed a number of my views in favor of stronger gun control. Posting in this group has caused me to do a lot of research on the subject and I always try to be open minded about any issue.

Both sides of the gun control issue have valid points to make. Perhaps I have an inflated view of myself but I seriously believe that I could make a far better argument for draconian gun laws than most who post here in support of that position. Perhaps I will eventually change my views and support extremely strong gun control including the ban and possibly confiscation of some firearms. I doubt it, but let me assure you that I have personal experience with both the good and the bad that allowing civilians to own firearms can cause. I know of incidents in my own family where firearms may have saved lives or serious injury and incidents where the misuse of such weapons caused a tragic death.

I would personally support a pro gun control host in the future on this group if he/she was as fair as our current host. In this group both sides should be allowed to express their views even if factually wrong and it should be the job of the other side to politely contest them. I often read posts that are definitely false NRA talking points but I also read posts that are Brady Campaign propaganda.

I have found the Gungeon to be one of the best places to discuss gun control on the internet. Of course over the years I have frequently been insulted but I have a thick skin and internet insults do not anger me in the least. In fact I welcome truly original insults and will complement any poster who directs one at me. I refuse to insult other posters but then I try my best to always be polite and considerate of the opinions and emotions of others.

I fear a truly pro gun control host as you would prefer might unfairly favor the gun control side of the debate in the Gungeon and it might turn into a group where only pro gun control posters could debate and consequently die.

Any poster on DU can chose to post in the Gungeon or avoid the experience entirely. I had no problem when posts involving gun control were limited to this group and see no issue when that is once again the policy of DU. I feel that the Gungeon is an excellent place to have a strong fight over the issue as long as certain rules are followed. I never get mad when some poster makes me look like a fool by proving my argument totally false using reliable facts and statistics. I just alter my views which is why I come here.

Far in the past I used to post on more pro gun rights groups but I found little challenge as nobody dared disagreed with me. That was reassuring but basically useless as I learned nothing. I also found that reading other posts on different subjects on those more conservative forums were distasteful as I am a liberal Democrat with a family history of Democrats who worked in the iron and steel mills of Pennsylvania and stood in union strike lines to get better benefits for the workers and future workers in their companies.

I remember visiting my uncle once in Pittsburgh when he was on strike. He had been out for several months and finances were running short but he said he had saved enough money to survive and hoped that the workers who followed him would get better pay and benefits. At that time in our nation we had a strong middle class largely because of the actions of the unions. Today, sadly, we live in a nation with an endangered middle class largely due to the efforts of Republicans and Big Corporations.

I come from a line of good Democrats who all owned firearms and used them for target shooting and self defense. Should I now be required to throw away my heritage and support extreme gun control just to be considered by the most liberal Democrats to be a true member of the party? Should I have to undergo the scrutiny of a host in the Gungeon on DU who only supports the gun control side of the debate?

I fear that if some in our party get their way we will end up being no better than the Republicans as we will be totally unwilling to listen to other views and after consideration, debate to disprove them.

I see no real problem with the post that the host made. It may or may not be accurate. If you disagree with the information and the graph in the post simply support your view with some data and statistics to disprove it. I am as interested in your reply as I am in the host's post but unnecessary insults on his history as a host of this group does not impress me in the least that you are right and his post is wrong and inaccurate.

The post he made should stand or fall on facts and statistics and not on your opinion of how he has functioned as host. That issue should be up to the management of DU as DU is their football and consequently we all play by their rules and decisions if we wish to post here. If you have a problem with the host of this group take it up with the management of DU. Demeaning him for his actions as host serves little purpose in disproving any value his post has.

[apocalypsehow]

22. Perhaps they should make you Host - I'd trust that arrangement. I have always found your posts

on the matter, despite my opposition to them, to be fair-minded and even-handed, as is your reply here. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I'd like to talk for a second about what you said here:

"I fear a truly pro gun control host as you would prefer might unfairly favor the gun control side of the debate in the Gungeon and it might turn into a group where only pro gun control posters could debate and consequently die."

Fine, then: they should split the difference and put one "pro-gun" and one "pro control" Host over the group, that would cancel out each other's tendencies to "favor" their side. I have no doubt that on 99% of the routine stuff a Host has to deal with, the two of them would have no problem working with one another and agree on action. On that 1% they disagree on, they could take it to the Admins or some kind of "Super-Host" appointed by them to be the tie-breaker.

Just my opinion, and I thank you again for taking the time to give me yours. I did read it in its entirety and will give it due consideration for the different points made.

[spin]

26. Thanks for your support ...

I enjoy posting here on DU and find the experience rewarding and educational. Taking on the duties as a host might cause enough aggravation that it would no longer be as much fun.

I see no real problem with the idea of multiple hosts but that would be up to those who run this DU and this also this group.

[krispos42]

19. And the person that was responding, of course, wasn't being childish or immature.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an apology from you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240207777#post60 et. al.




Particularly this one here...

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]krispos42

59. Likewise.

It doesn't matter; we're talking past each other.

You don't want/care to know about any problem with an Assault Weapons Ban. You don't want/care to know that semiautomatic rifles fed from a detachable magazine will still be available for sale after either the old one or the new one is in effect. You don't want/care to know that politicians that agree with this know it but are supporting is anyway to appease you without actually doing anything.


This isn't an NRA talking point, this is a cold, hard, indisputable fact. I've read the summary of Feinstein's legislation; it does not ban semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines as a class, only ones with certain secondary ("military&quot features.

So the next shooter will kill his dozen or two with a politically acceptable rifle.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]apocalypsehow

60. No one's forcing you to post NRA talking points on a progressive discussion board. n/t.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]krispos42

83. I didn't. Those are facts. Try again. Read Feinstein's summary of her ideal, undiluted AWB.

I did; ergo, I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them as facts indicates... what, exactly? That you cling to the Brady talking points that the AWB will make future mass shooting less likely?


And guess what? Little thing you forgot to mention about DU... unlike, say, GLBT rights and related discussion, more than one viewpoint on guns is permitted on DU.


The fact that somebody doesn't like the facts that I post DOES NOT EXCUSE insults to me.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]apocalypsehow

84. No one's forcing you to post NRA talking points on a progressive discussion board. n/t.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]krispos42

86. And nobody's forcing you to be ashamed to admit that I'm right n/t

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]apocalypsehow

87. Except, you're not right. That is obvious as the day is long - and you well know it. n/t.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]krispos42

92. Did you read Feinstein's summary of her bill? Yes or no.

Only then can you say whether I am right or wrong.



The conversation mysteriously stopped RIGHT THERE. Gee, wonder why?


Maybe it's because that since then, Feinstein has revealed the full text of her proposed AWB. And lookie here...

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’
19 means any of the following, regardless of country of manu20
facture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
21 ‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capac
22 ity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the
23 following:
24 ‘‘(i) A pistol grip.
25 ‘‘(ii) A forward grip.

1 ‘‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable
2 stock.
3 ‘‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launch
4 er.
5 ‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
6 ‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.
7 ‘‘(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed
8 magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
9 rounds, except for an attached tubular device de
10 signed to accept, and capable of operating only with,
11 .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
12 ‘‘(C) Any part, combination of parts, compo
13 nent, device, attachment, or accessory that is de
14 signed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of
15 a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiauto
16 matic rifle into a machinegun.
17 ‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ca
18 pacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of
19 the following:
20 ‘‘(i) A threaded barrel.
21 ‘‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
22 ‘‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
23 ‘‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable
24 magazine at some location outside of the pistol
25 grip.

1 ‘‘(v) A semiautomatic version of an auto2
matic firearm.
3 ‘‘(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed maga
4 zine that has the capacity to accept more than 10
5 rounds.
6 ‘‘(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1
7 of the following:
8 ‘‘(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable
9 stock.
10 ‘‘(ii) A pistol grip.
11 ‘‘(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to
12 accept more than 5 rounds.
13 ‘‘(iv) The ability to accept a detachable
14 magazine.
15 ‘‘(v) A forward grip.
16 ‘‘(vi) A grenade launcher or rocket launch
17 er.
18 ‘‘(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

Excerpt from pages 2 thru 4
boldface mine

So as long as the semiautomatic rifle fed from a detachable magazine does not have any of the features in the list, it can and will still be produced and sold to the public.


And if that's not enough for you, try this out.

‘‘APPENDIX A – FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE
2 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013
3 ‘‘CENTERFIRE RIFLES—AUTOLOADERS
4 ‘‘Benelli R1 Rifle
5 ‘‘Browning BAR Mark II Safari Magnum Rifle
6 ‘‘Browning BAR Mark II Safari Semi-Auto
7 Rifle
8 ‘‘Browning BAR Stalker Rifles
9 ‘‘Browning High-Power Rifle
10 ‘‘Browning Longtrac Rifle
11 ‘‘Browning Shorttrac Rifle
12 ‘‘Heckler & Koch HK630
13 ‘‘Heckler & Koch HK770
14 ‘‘Heckler & Koch HK940
15 ‘‘Heckler & Koch Model 300 Rifle
16 ‘‘Heckler & Koch SL7 Rifle
17 ‘‘Iver Johnson 50th Anniversary M-1 Carbine
18 (w/o folding stock)
19 ‘‘Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine (w/o folding stock)
20 ‘‘M-1 Carbines with standard fixed stock
21 ‘‘M-1 Garand with fixed 8 round capacity and
22 standard stock
23 ‘‘Marlin Model 9 Camp Carbine
24 ‘‘Marlin Model 45 Carbine
25 ‘‘Remington Model 74
24

1 ‘‘Remington Model 81
2 ‘‘Remington Model 740
3 ‘‘Remington Model 742
4 ‘‘Remington Model 750 Synthetic
5 ‘‘Remington Model 750 Woodmaster
6 ‘‘Remington Model 7400 Rifle
7 ‘‘Remington Model 7400 Special Purpose Auto
8 Rifle
9 ‘‘Remington Nylon 66 Auto-Loading Rifle
10 ‘‘Ruger Mini 30
11 ‘‘Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)
12 ‘‘Ruger PC4
13 ‘‘Ruger PC9
14 ‘‘SKS type rifles with fixed 10 round magazine
15 and standard fixed stock
16 ‘‘Winchester Model SXR

Excerpt from pages 23 thru 24
boldface mine

I was right, and you were wrong, and no matter how much contempt drips from your posts or how snide and arrogant your comments, you can't change the fact that you were WRONG. And you embarrassed yourself then, and you're embarrassing yourself now.

[apocalypsehow]

21. SSDD + TL;DR. n/t.

[krispos42]

29. I know

If you don't read proof that you're wrong, you're still right, right?

After all, if you didn't read the excerpt of Feinstein's bill, you certainly didn't read the whole thing, now did you?

[apocalypsehow]

33. That's nice. n/t.

[krispos42]

35. "this poster engaged in, like a childish little baby, all so he could get the precious "last word""

Can't admit you were wrong, can't self-correct, can't admit I was right...

[apocalypsehow]

36. That's nice. n/t.

[Eleanors38]

41. I noticed that your #84 & #87 responses to Krispos' rebuttal are -- what was it? -- "ibids?" nt

[apocalypsehow]

42. With 41 replies (now 42) in this entire OP, that's quite a hat trick I pulled. Math:

it works if you try hard enough at it.

[Eleanors38]

40. The host is doing an excellent job in the face of the hateful language of controllers...

and the way the jury system has been juked around to allow the hate language to remain posted if it is directed at pro-2A folks.
Do you want a TOTAL gun-ban group wherein some folks can dump their most "creative" barroom insult and get away with it? Right now, the controllers can get away only with most of it. Who would you want to host, GOPer Bloomberg or the (latest) head of the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Bunch?

Tell, us who and what you want.

[apocalypsehow]

43. That's nice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=107994

[Eleanors38]

44. Perhaps you should use "ditto." Can't understand why you don't.

[apocalypsehow]

45. That's nice. n/t.

[Straw Man]

24. Per capita.

Or you might point to Finland's 1 (Yes ONE) school massacre as proof that gun control doesn't work.

One school massacre in a country with 1/60th the population of the United States.

Finland's gun control is lax by European standards but draconian by American standards. Have we had 60 school massacres?

[intaglio]

28. At least 160 shool shootings in the USA since 1950

But hey! keep cuddling those guns ...

[Straw Man]

31. Moving goalposts?

So "massacres" have morphed into "school shootings." In that case, it's more than one for Finland.

I cuddle no inanimate objects. Your knee-jerk ad hominem speaks to your character, not mine.

[intaglio]

32. Guess what? The Finnish attack was a school shooting

Their only school shooting.

Any school shooting has the potential to be a massacre. Or do you only count it after a certain number of bodies have been reached? Is one enough? Or 5? Or 15? or 20? Come on, how many lives have to be lost for you to take notice?

How about if I counted the school shootings since 1900?

How about if pointed out that there have been in excess of 250,000 Americans killed in their homes by forearms since November 2001? Is that insignificant because that happened by ones and twos? What about the in excess of 1,500 deaths by firearms since 14 December 2012? Oh and both these figures are likely to be on the low side because the NRA has stopped central collection of gun deaths statistics by your government, I wonder why?

Do you care about your compatriots or do you only care about carrying guns?

[Straw Man]

34. One of three.

Their only school shooting.

Wrong. Finland had school shootings in 1989, 2007, and 2008. Adjusting for population, that would equate to 180 in the US, as compared to the 160 you cited.

Come on, how many lives have to be lost for you to take notice?

I'm taking notice of all of them. I'm just asking for factual accuracy.

Oh and both these figures are likely to be on the low side because the NRA has stopped central collection of gun deaths statistics by your government, I wonder why?

Really? The FBI rolls out its statistics year after year, apparently undeterred by the NRA.

[intaglio]

37. The FBI collects figures that are reported to it

NOT the complete figures for individual states. That was stopped by NRA lobbyists seeking to blind the American people to the threat uncontrolled guns pose.

You haven't answered how many lives you count as being relevant

As to other school shootings, I was wrong. 3 Finnish shootings since 1950 but the Finnish government is trying to change that - unlike the lobbyist enthralled US government and the unthinking minions of the gun manufacturers. Incidentally the low figures for Finland presents a very small statistical universe which is why the gun industry likes quoting Finland. There are, of course, other problems faced by the Finns such as rampant alcoholism and spectacular numbers with SAD linked depressive illnesses but that has to be ignored if you are trying to justify selling more guns to your own suffering people.

Play with statistics all you like the US culture of unfettered gun ownership kills American men, women and children

[gejohnston]

38. that isn't true either

the law only prohibits the CDC from lobbying for gun laws.

the US doesn't have "unfettered gun ownership".

[Straw Man]

39. Not one to let facts ...

... get in the way of a good screed, I see.

Your information about the FBI stats is fallacious, as has been pointed out to you.

How many lives? One life is too many, but public policy has never been able to guarantee the 100% efficacy of its prescriptions. There is always a balance between freedom and safety. But you knew that.

I would suggest that drug policy and economic inequality bear more responsibility for our murder rates than access to firearms, which is far from unfettered for those of us who choose to obey the laws.

[SayWut]

9. They obviously lack clarity of vision.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Looks good.

I'll have to watch that.

Thanks

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. That's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen, and reminds me of something my Ex-BIL did...

He bragged about nearly stealing a piece of Confederate currency at a garage sale because he got it so cheaply. I asked if I could see it and when he handed it to me it was in a plexiglass cover. When he handed it to me he said "The only thing I can't figure out is why it says "face smile" on the back."

It looked totally authentic. I was worn, wrinkled, and faded... When I turned it over, in the lower corner in very small letters was the word facsimile.

I handed it back to him and told him he was one seriously lucky guy.

[jimmy the one]

25. 4 to 1? in england

krispos; not only that, the ratio of US to UK homicides dropped from nearly 12:1 in 1973 to about 4:1 in 2000. That's the green line, by the way.

Rather it's lying by statistics, since the US murder rate peaked about 1993, from lower rates in 1973 & 2000.
You must also consider britons, that from mid 1960s to early 1970s, the american national gunstock increased from 75 millions to 150 millions, doubled, & the gun murder rate doubled at the same time (less than ten years). Do you seriously think there is no correlation?
(then it doubled again to 300 millions by now, 2013 - but it is surmised that better treatment of gunshot wounds since then, have increased the odds of survival of gunshots)

Cherry picking years, krispos, does not equate to rational argument. Dunno why you're so impressed with a 4 to 1 murder ratio anyway.

[krispos42]

30. The number of guns doubled?

Really? In 8 years?

And, of course, the cancellation of LBJ's War on Poverty and the rise in drug use and drug gangs had nothing at all to do with it, right?

And then, of course, when the number doubled again, murders fell, so this means...?

Especially in the types of guns became more deadly. Detachable-magazine-fed semiautos of fix-mag bolt-actions, and double-stack handguns with 13+ rounds instead of single-stacks with 7+ rounds.

And of course, if medical advances are the primary reason that deaths from murderous wounds fell, then wouldn't there be a corresponding decrease in England? But there's not; in fact, the homicide rate creeps steadily upwards.

[dizbukhapeter]

27. Interesting what a flaregun can do