Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.
Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.
The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.
But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Seems the point is that it is still happening despite the ban, so if the law doesn`t in fact do anything, it is probably a bad law
It really isn't, the number of people shot at or injured by firearms in the UK is minuscule.
Lifting the ban, or widening gun ownership in the UK is absolutely the worst thing that could happen to that country's victims of crime.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Seems the point is that it is still happening despite the ban, so if the law doesn`t in fact do anything, it is probably a bad law
It really isn't, the number of people shot at or injured by firearms in the UK is minuscule.
Lifting the ban, or widening gun ownership in the UK is absolutely the worst thing that could happen to that country's victims of crime.
As I understand it, it was even more miniscule before the ban. 40% climb in violence since the ban was enacted are the latest numbers I saw, though those may be old now.
So despite a climb in the amount of violence, it sounds like your ok with it, as long as it doesn't cross a certain number. What would that number be?
Last year there were 42 gun related deaths.
In a country of 62 million that represents something around 0.0006 of the country.
How does that mean the gun laws are not working?
There is no shortage of links if you search for them. I just types "Gun crimes in Britain since ban" into google.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote: Last year there were 42 gun related deaths.
In a country of 62 million that represents something around 0.0006 of the country.
How does that mean the gun laws are not working?
And from 2000 through 2010 gun injury rates grew from 2.47 per 100,000 to 3.4 per 100,000.
purplefood wrote: Last year there were 42 gun related deaths.
In a country of 62 million that represents something around 0.0006 of the country.
How does that mean the gun laws are not working?
StatisticsFirearm Crime StatisticsProvisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences, 0.3% of all recorded crimes.There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the general decline since 2005/06.There were 4,203 recorded crimes in which air weapons were reportedly used during 2010/11, a fall of 15% compared with the previous year and 70% below the peak recorded in 2002/03.In Scotland the police recorded 643 offences which involved the alleged use of a firearm, a 24% decrease on 2009/10. The number of offences has fallen in each of the last four years.A non-air weapon was alleged to have been used in 410 offences, marginally lower than in 2009/10, while there were 233 alleged air-weapon offences, 45% lower than the previous year.
From your link djones. Doesn't sound like a 40% increase unless im actually so tired right now that im completely misreading it. I should sleep
motyak wrote: StatisticsFirearm Crime StatisticsProvisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.In England and Wales firearms were reportedly used in 11,227 offences, 0.3% of all recorded crimes.There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the general decline since 2005/06.There were 4,203 recorded crimes in which air weapons were reportedly used during 2010/11, a fall of 15% compared with the previous year and 70% below the peak recorded in 2002/03.In Scotland the police recorded 643 offences which involved the alleged use of a firearm, a 24% decrease on 2009/10. The number of offences has fallen in each of the last four years.A non-air weapon was alleged to have been used in 410 offences, marginally lower than in 2009/10, while there were 233 alleged air-weapon offences, 45% lower than the previous year.
From your link djones. Doesn't sound like a 40% increase unless im actually so tired right now that im completely misreading it. I should sleep
It says 40% in the first paragraph on the controversies section.
There seem to be quite large swings between years, 40%, 20%, etc. I think this is due to the over numbers of gun crime, they are low in absolute terms so a surge of a few hundred has a huge impact upon the percentage change. Also, IIRC, we include lots of things in gun crime including threatening or use of replace weapons or air pistols. The number of people actually shot with bullets is very low, and it's probably gang related occurring in the street. Enabling public ownership of handguns will solve very little, make them much easier to acquire by those indenting to misuse them, and probably not make the public safer at all. It really serves no purpose, and whatever this poll claims, the bulk of the public are against legalisation of gun ownership and don't want to see it.
I would like to see handguns reintroduced, to a limited extent. Although I am kinda biased, a friend of my Dad runs a shooting range (apparently the largest indoor range in the country, but not 100% on that claim); they used to be an almost exclusively pistol shooting club, but, obviously that had to stop when the ban was introduced, so it's all rifles now really. It's a shame; I've been down to the range quite a lot, the people that go there are some really nice people, and they used to love pistol shooting. You'd be hard pressed to find a bunch of people more knowledgable about firearms laws and firearm safety. So if they were introduced along with relevant licensing and background checks I don't see what the issue is.
plenty of good reasons for the citizens to want their guns back,
banning citizens from owning guns simply bans citizens from owning guns,
their affect on criminals and crime is negligible, if present at all, where as its affect on the lawful is very detrimental/totalitarian/ect
easysauce wrote: plenty of good reasons for the citizens to want their guns back,
banning citizens from owning guns simply bans citizens from owning guns,
their affect of criminals and crime is negligible, if present at all, where as its affect on the lawful is very detrimental/totalitarian/ect
motyak wrote: With no further stats. The further stats provided seem to directly contradict the initial statement
In the year the ban was passed, there were 4,903 fire arm offences recorded by police. In 2011 there were 6,285. In some years since the ban, there has been more then 10,000 offences.
I've gotta get to work, so can't keep digging for now, but the facts are the rates have climbed since the ban was passed. Whether it's 40%, 89%, or 10%, there is more gun violence in Britain now, then before the ban.
easysauce wrote: plenty of good reasons for the citizens to want their guns back,
banning citizens from owning guns simply bans citizens from owning guns,
their affect of criminals and crime is negligible, if present at all, where as its affect on the lawful is very detrimental/totalitarian/ect
Statistical support for the no effect in Britain?
you will ignore every stat that doesn't agree with your preconceived notion that banning guns causes less gun crime, you will assert that It is a proven causation that having lawful gun owners= more gun crime , no matter what stats are linked.
after all, thats what all the talking heads on TV tell you, that guns are bad, they should be banned, the only thing worse then a gun is a gun owner.
the stats have been linked by other people already, and ignored/called lies/ect
The problem with Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban -- as anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see -- is that D.C.'s murder and violent crime rates went up, not down, after the ban. Prior to the ban DC's murder rate was falling. After the ban, DC's murder rate rose, and only once fell below what it was in 1976, says John Lott, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.
Further:
The District's ban specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997; but the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Seems the point is that it is still happening despite the ban, so if the law doesn`t in fact do anything, it is probably a bad law
It really isn't, the number of people shot at or injured by firearms in the UK is minuscule.
Lifting the ban, or widening gun ownership in the UK is absolutely the worst thing that could happen to that country's victims of crime.
As I understand it, it was even more minuscule before the ban. 40% climb in violence since the ban was enacted are the latest numbers I saw, though those may be old now.
So despite a climb in the amount of violence, it sounds like your ok with it, as long as it doesn't cross a certain number. What would that number be?
I enjoy an interesting view of the differences in American and British cultures, as a Brit married to an American, as someone who commuted across the Atlantic for about 3 years prior to my marriage and move to the US from the UK.
The British have no interest in owning guns, not as a people. I hear lots of rhetoric about taking away freedoms over here and it's meaningless to me coming from a nation where I felt as free as anyone might in a democratic nation with veto, freedom to express my views and freedom to walk where I might and associate with whom I wished.
The British response to an escalation of gun crime is to focus on cracking down on it via police, increasing the number of armed police response units and focus on breaking illegal arms importing.
A 30-40% increase in a minuscule number is still a minuscule number. We have many more pressing issue than gun crime in the UK. When a bank or post office is held up by someone with a sawn off shotgun, they take the money and leave, it's unlikely either side will have exchanged shots as one side usually isn't armed, this decreases the likelihood of a firefight and death.
Here is a more interesting figure, it's the rate of gun homicide in the UK*.
Chart In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total
* WHO. 2012. ‘Inter-country Comparison of Mortality for Selected Cause of Death – Gun Homicide in the United Kingdom.’ European Detailed Mortality Database (DMDB).
40% seems an impressive number, until you see that the numbers are so small that any minor variance is a significant shift in the percentile.
It amuses me how the quote from the proposer asks "why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns?" Why the inverted commas? They're not "allowed" to have guns, that's kind of the point. If they have them, they're breaking the law.
Fortunately I think I can say with certainty that nothing will come of this. I've frankly got to wonder how the mind of the person who came up with this proposal works. They see that despite guns being tightly controlled, a small amount of gun crime still exists. Their solution is to introduce more guns and make them easier to acquire. Yay, logic!
motyak wrote: With no further stats. The further stats provided seem to directly contradict the initial statement
In the year the ban was passed, there were 4,903 fire arm offences recorded by police. In 2011 there were 6,285. In some years since the ban, there has been more then 10,000 offences.
I've gotta get to work, so can't keep digging for now, but the facts are the rates have climbed since the ban was passed. Whether it's 40%, 89%, or 10%, there is more gun violence in Britain now, then before the ban.
Since the ban hasn't there been an increase in black market available guns in Europe generally? The ban was to stop "joe public" having access to legal weapons and then going on a bender. The increase in illegal weapons would of happened anyway.As we've never had the same relaxed gun laws as the US, a vicious arms race cycle has never started. We don't fear that someone will pull a gun on us if we are mugged or burgled. We are concerned that someone may pull a knife, but the self defense laws have been relaxed so that you can belt the bugger with a baseball bat
And repealing the ban would help that, how? It's not worth it in the UK, gun crime is very low, we don't need them. Almost no one dies from guns, which is a lot more than can be said of the US.
And you have to wary of how gun crime is recorded, these numbers do not represent crimes with real loaded weapons. Try looking at the numbers of people actually murdered with guns in the UK, it's negligible. Someone above said that there were only 42 gun deaths in the UK last year but they've been ignored.
Since the ban hasn't there been an increase in black market available guns in Europe generally? The ban was to stop "joe public" having access to legal weapons and then going on a bender. The increase in illegal weapons would of happened anyway.As we've never had the same relaxed gun laws as the US, a vicious arms race cycle has never started. We don't fear that someone will pull a gun on us if we are mugged or burgled. We are concerned that someone may pull a knife, but the self defense laws have been relaxed so that you can belt the bugger with a baseball bat
Yeah, but some American folks, panicked about the non-existent risk of the government taking away all the guns, are wanting to point to Britain and say that we are a less safe society since the gun legislation, ignoring the woefully low actual gun ownership prior to the legislation and to the actual records on gun homocide, injury and the definition of 'gun crime', which includes replicas, air guns, paintball guns and the waving about of them in an agitated manner.
In a nation like the US, where guns saturate every aspect of life and every rancid little petty thief has the capacity to blow your brains out all over the pavement, sure, arm yourself if you want to defend your home and up the stakes, but in the UK it's a ridiculously small figure and the reality of gun homicide in the uk, what little there is, is usually serious criminals regulating their own numbers...
It does seem that it's some American posters getting a hard on about the thought of the UK 'needing' guns. The only British poster who seems keen has a father running a sporting shooting range. Rather telling.
Given the ease that people can get hold of guns in the US, does this actually put criminals off robbing you? Would a burglar think twice before breaking into your house, or would they think "no worries I've got a gun, bring it on"?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I enjoy an interesting view of the differences in American and British cultures, as a Brit married to an American, as someone who commuted across the Atlantic for about 3 years prior to my marriage and move to the US from the UK.
The British have no interest in owning guns, not as a people. I hear lots of rhetoric about taking away freedoms over here and it's meaningless to me coming from a nation where I felt as free as anyone might in a democratic nation with veto, freedom to express my views and freedom to walk where I might and associate with whom I wished.
The British response to an escalation of gun crime is to focus on cracking down on it via police, increasing the number of armed police response units and focus on breaking illegal arms importing.
A 30-40% increase in a minuscule number is still a minuscule number. We have many more pressing issue than gun crime in the UK. When a bank or post office is held up by someone with a sawn off shotgun, they take the money and leave, it's unlikely either side will have exchanged shots as one side usually isn't armed, this decreases the likelihood of a firefight and death.
40% seems an impressive number, until you see that the numbers are so small that any minor variance is a significant shift in the percentile.
I edited that so your typo wouldn't be censored anymore.
And I agree that the differances in culture are a big thing in play here. American's want there guns, Brits don't. I'm not arguing that Brit's should have guns. Just pointing out that since the ban there has been a climb in numbers. You seemed to argue that the rates don't matter because the numbers are small. I'm just curious, at what point does it matter for you? What number would you have to see for it to be "significant"?
Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Troike wrote: Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.
Also it was a poll to pick the favourite of a number of choices, PM term limits, more green spaces and a flat tax are not the sorts of things that excite conservative voters.
Even before the ban, you weren't allowed to walk around with a handgun in the UK. It is not like people were packing, and others were afraid to rob them in case they pulled a gun. There was no deterrent in that regard.
There is no widespread desire to own handguns in the UK.
My personal feeling is that owning a handgun doesn't make you feel free, it makes you feel powerful, and some people like feeling powerful. Talking about freedom is better than talking about power though.
Troike wrote: Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.
If a source has a political bias it's relevant. Or do you not question the validity of anything you see in a newspaper?
Troike wrote: Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.
So you don't think the fact that fact that the source isn't an objective one, in that it has a clear political stance, and the fact that this poll's participants are very likely to share said political stance doesn't matter? This is not objective data.
Troike wrote: Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.
If the source is possibly biased it's a valid point.
Troike wrote: Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.
So you don't think the fact that fact that the source isn't an objective one, in that it has a clear political stance, and the fact that this poll's participants are very likely to share said political stance doesn't matter?
My bad, you were referring to the original article about the poll. I thought you were referencing the other links that had the telegraph talking official government numbers.
Troike wrote: Ah, the Telegraph, a right-wing paper. And they've made a poll which is mostly going to recieve votes from Telegraph readers. Clearly there are no issues of bias here.
Ahhh... the time old tactic of attacking the source instead of the message when they threaten your world view.
So you don't think the fact that fact that the source isn't an objective one, in that it has a clear political stance, and the fact that this poll's participants are very likely to share said political stance doesn't matter?
Of course not, context doesn't matter when it doesn't suits you. That's why he's hanging a lot on the 40% stat to the exclusion of all else.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that the poll was dealing with lots of things, rather than guns specifically. It was a case of "pick the thing you like best out of these various hot issues" rather than "have a think about your thoughts on gun ownership and give us an idea of your stance".
We can't really use this to say what people (or Telegraph readers, in this case) think about gun ownership. Not exactly, anyway.
And I agree that the differances in culture are a big thing in play here. American's want there guns, Brits don't. I'm not arguing that Brit's should have guns. Just pointing out that since the ban there has been a climb in numbers. You seemed to argue that the rates don't matter because the numbers are small. I'm just curious, at what point does it matter for you? What number would you have to see for it to be "significant"?
When you deal with such low numbers, percentiles sound far worse than they are.
from 06 to 07, the murder rate of handguns fell by 57%, that's massive, until you realize it's 29 less dead people by hand gun in a nation as populous as the UK, which could represent 2 less 'business handovers' by criminal organizations in major cities or one less psycho on a rampage. When we consider very low figures, single instances can greatly swing the %.
Look back over the figures I cited earlier, the mean is actually fairly steady over time (36 per year).
It also means you can find things like 'gun crime climbed by 40%' when the homicide rate by firearm in the UK actually fell.
And I agree that the differances in culture are a big thing in play here. American's want there guns, Brits don't. I'm not arguing that Brit's should have guns. Just pointing out that since the ban there has been a climb in numbers. You seemed to argue that the rates don't matter because the numbers are small. I'm just curious, at what point does it matter for you? What number would you have to see for it to be "significant"?
When you deal with such low numbers, percentiles sound far worse than they are.
from 06 to 07, the murder rate of handguns fell by 57%, that's massive, until you realize it's 29 less dead people by hand gun in a nation as populous as the UK, which could represent 2 less 'business handovers' by criminal organizations in major cities or one less psycho on a rampage. When we consider very low figures, single instances can greatly swing the %.
Look back over the figures I cited earlier, the mean is actually fairly steady over time (36 per year).
It also means you can find things like 'gun crime climbed by 40%' when the homicide rate by firearm in the UK actually fell.
Still not answering my question though. I've got no horse in this race. You guys can do what you want with your country. In the event I ever get stationed there I've already got someone to hold onto my guns while I'm gone. But I would like to know what the British viewpoint of significant numbers are.
You guys have attacked our violence rates plenty enough, even though we've seen statistically significant drops in violence over the last 15 years. As much as 69% in some categories, resulting in thousands, to tens of thousands fewer victims, all while the number of privately owned guns have gone through the roof in our country.
Fifty wrote: Even before the ban, you weren't allowed to walk around with a handgun in the UK. It is not like people were packing, and others were afraid to rob them in case they pulled a gun. There was no deterrent in that regard.
There is no widespread desire to own handguns in the UK.
My personal feeling is that owning a handgun doesn't make you feel free, it makes you feel powerful, and some people like feeling powerful. Talking about freedom is better than talking about power though.
well, owning a gun does actually make you free to own a gun. You can be free to not own a gun, and i can be free to own one. that does sound more free then "you can be free to not have a gun"
we have two groups of people, those that use guns properly, and those that do not.
those that do not, are unaffected, if not helped, by banning those who do use guns properly from using them so.
That I know plenty of people who have been asking for their guns back for years in England, a couple ex pats actually compete with me here on occasion as well, because while thats a valid overview of my life experience, in your mind Im sure I am either fictitious or a statistical fluke.
The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.
If you are really that afraid of your neighbors, and that ambivalent about the career criminals I dont know what to say. I just dont see my adult neighbors who pass background checks owning a gun being anything but an ASSET in case they end up being the first responder to some career criminal making his paycheck of them.
No one was talking about the stereotypical "power" complex, thats basically a nicer way of arguing by insult. Really no better then arguing gun owners only do it for "compensation" of certain nature.
Still not answering my question though. I've got no horse in this race. You guys can do what you want with your country. In the event I ever get stationed there I've already got someone to hold onto my guns while I'm gone. But I would like to know what the British viewpoint of significant numbers are.
You guys have attacked our violence rates plenty enough, even though we've seen statistically significant drops in violence over the last 15 years. As much as 69% in some categories, resulting in thousands, to tens of thousands fewer victims, all while the number of privately owned guns have gone through the roof in our country.
You do have a horse in this race, or rather you're trying to hoist the results of this race to apply to your horse.
As to what significant numbers are, I have no idea, ideal numbers would be 0, and continually climbing numbers of Homicide would be pertinent, but the figures I've already provided prove the homicide rate is not increasing year on year. So a rate of death increasing consistently would be relevant.
But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
Did anyone else read this and think "Why would I want to Shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and Police Officers?"....So much for sentence structure.
I don't want this nor is it allowed, and I don't feel anything for this incoherent argument.
It amuses me how the quote from the proposer asks "why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns?" Why the inverted commas? They're not "allowed" to have guns, that's kind of the point. If they have them, they're breaking the law.
Fortunately I think I can say with certainty that nothing will come of this. I've frankly got to wonder how the mind of the person who came up with this proposal works. They see that despite guns being tightly controlled, a small amount of gun crime still exists. Their solution is to introduce more guns and make them easier to acquire. Yay, logic!
You should include the statistics on murder and assautl in general as well. Same for rape if thats not included.
The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.
You realise that this sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever? If it is illegal for someone to own a gun then it is also illegal for a criminal to hold a gun.
If you are really that afraid of your neighbors, and that ambivalent about the career criminals I dont know what to say. I just dont see my adult neighbors who pass background checks owning a gun being anything but an ASSET in case they end up being the first responder to some career criminal making his paycheck of them.
Until your neighbours disgruntled teenage son grabs his dad's gun and goes to the nearest school and starts shooting everyone in sight.
Look at the numbers that MGS posted: 36 gun related deaths on average each year out of 62 million people.
Please, please, please keep you gun "freedom" laws out of Europe we really don't need them.
Allow me to provide a measured, restrained and I feel widely representative response of a typical UK resident to this claim of the Telegraph's.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
...yes, that was restrained.
I know those of you over the pond might be thinking that I can't possibly speak for an entire nation, but trust me... the British haven't ever really *had* guns. How could we want them *BACK*? Even in the days that they were available without legal recourse, most people couldn't afford them.
We simply have never been in a position like the US where it's not considered unusual to have a firearm in the house. Hell, it's a little eccentric even to own a sword.
Gun Crime figures do not always correlate to Death Rate. You can have alot of Gun-Crime without many fatalities, such as Armed Robbery or intimidation / Threatening behaviour. Pistol whipping is recorded as a Gun Crime and not an assault.
Equally an individual with a Single weapon can cause disproportionate Harm. Especially in a country with a very low Gun Murder rate.
Case in Point, 0.1 per 100,000 in Norway has been skewed by Anders Beering Brevik's gun massacre and the high number of dead will skew the figures.
In Britain, despite what any third party makes our statistics and says the Murder Rate is higher than in the US, well it might be but the it isn't murder using guns or firearms. So it's muddying the waters.
If you have a Firearm weapon, even a replica, a mock-up or something that looks vaguely like a gun in public, British Police will do a full-on tactical take down. Quite simply there is no reason to carry a Weapon in Public, unless you are a Police Officer, part of one of the Security services or the Military on Guard or Ceremonial Duties.
Farmers etc can have Weapons for pest control, but you cannot carry it in Public. So it must be kept securely and on Private land.
The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.
You realise that this sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever? If it is illegal for someone to own a gun then it is also illegal for a criminal to hold a gun.
It does make sense, one of the arguments about banning guns in the US is, "Criminals don't care about whether or not guns are banned, they will possess guns regardless. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of people that can legally own them and thus defend themselves should they be met with a firearm." It becomes a leveling of power.
If the UK doesn't have problems with guns because less than 40 people are killed by guns every year on average, then that's fine, keep them banned, it works for their culture and their country, it currently "doesn't" work for our country. We're just diametrically opposed on this stance.
Also to the level of significance, is this survey providing significant numbers for polling participants? I know you can generally get a statistically significant response after a thousand or so people, but what the Telegraph gets 1.7 million views a day? (still trying to get their numbers of unique view/visitors), so potentially 11,000 people out of 1.7 million saw that, clicked on it, and completed the poll. Does 11,000 people answering this not provide a level of significant results, or do they need to add about 89,000 more? I'm honestly asking, I barely passes statistics in college
It amuses me how the quote from the proposer asks "why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns?" Why the inverted commas? They're not "allowed" to have guns, that's kind of the point. If they have them, they're breaking the law.
Fortunately I think I can say with certainty that nothing will come of this. I've frankly got to wonder how the mind of the person who came up with this proposal works. They see that despite guns being tightly controlled, a small amount of gun crime still exists. Their solution is to introduce more guns and make them easier to acquire. Yay, logic!
You should include the statistics on murder and assautl in general as well. Same for rape if thats not included.
The laws were always about just getting guns out of citizens hands, and never the criminals, never about saving lives.
You realise that this sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever? If it is illegal for someone to own a gun then it is also illegal for a criminal to hold a gun.
It does make sense, one of the arguments about banning guns in the US is, "Criminals don't care about whether or not guns are banned, they will possess guns regardless. Banning guns takes guns out of the hands of people that can legally own them and thus defend themselves should they be met with a firearm." It becomes a leveling of power.
If the UK doesn't have problems with guns because less than 40 people are killed by guns every year on average, then that's fine, keep them banned, it works for their culture and their country, it currently "doesn't" work for our country. We're just diametrically opposed on this stance.
Also to the level of significance, is this survey providing significant numbers for polling participants? I know you can generally get a statistically significant response after a thousand or so people, but what the Telegraph gets 1.7 million views a day? (still trying to get their numbers of unique view/visitors), so potentially 11,000 people out of 1.7 million saw that, clicked on it, and completed the poll. Does 11,000 people answering this not provide a level of significant results, or do they need to add about 89,000 more? I'm honestly asking, I barely passes statistics in college
We have to be careful about statistics from Newspapers, The Telegraph is quite right of Centre (Republican leaning I think in your terms ) so alot of it's content caters to that audience, equally the Guardian is left - Leaning ( Liberals / Democrats). So it's like polling 11,000 Republicans and saying it's a fair representation of the public's views on Democrats.
So actually the National Audit Office (NAO) or Office for National Statistics (ONS) are setup as independent arms of government to perform Independent statistical analysis and they often upset Governments because what they say might not be Politically Convient to the Administration of the day.
The problem with independent is that they aren't influenced by Politics, or painting a rosy picture for political convenience. They are very reputable and their figures and methods are very robust.
Oh and for some context to British Constitutional Affairs..
Until recently, English statute was not concerned with absolute rights and rights that were recognized in law, such as the right to life have traditionally been part of the common law. There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled for the common good. The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689. The first serious control on firearms after this was not made until the passing of the Pistols Act 1903 more than 200 years later.
Since the gun ban has been passed, more gun crimes have been committed, ergo the gun ban does not work?
I mean, that's some pretty woolly thinking and reading of statistics. The conclusion is inherently flawed, as it fails to consider the serious possibility that without the gun ban, gun crime would be even higher still. Just because gun crime is on the rise does not necessarily equate to the gun ban being ineffective.
After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Ahtman wrote: After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Everyone has there homework for the day.
US to Europe: the joy of of Tex Mex.
Europe to the US: COnvince the Wife the I need a Ducati (almost there!!!)
Just waiting for D-USA to come onto this thread and throw down on somebody because he had to say for the 1 millionth time that gun crime is recorded differently in the UK compared to the USA
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just waiting for D-USA to come onto this thread and throw down on somebody because he had to say for the 1 millionth time that gun crime is recorded differently in the UK compared to the USA
Ahtman wrote: After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Everyone has there homework for the day.
Well, we have Tex Mex. Ducatis are great and all, but there's something romantic in a good old-fashioned Harley.
Here's my suggestion, the British stereotype as seen in the US is bowler hats, monocles, canes and moustaches right? Let's live up to it!!
Criminals will always get guns...so it's kind of stupid arguing from that standpoint either way on the issue. Although by allowing them in Civilian ownership I would say it's easier for Criminals to get them
What a ban does do is reduce the amount of guns in active circulation and the chances of aficionado's, the mentally ill, idiots and well meaning owners the accidents, the potential use in a suicide, the potential to cause unintentional harm from an incomplete knowledge of events but decide that the best course of action is to use or discharge a firearm, a weapon designed to kill with a single finger pull....
Now people will make a lot about "Well people can kill with a hammer or Kitchen Knife" well yes they can, but it's not easy and you will have to tussle with an opponent. A firearm, loaded, well aimed, will kill with pull of a finger, and kill at range without endangering yourself up close, it is that easy.
So really you are protecting society from those moments when the Red mist descends and someone does something stupid, like the man who finds out his "Wife is sleeping around and shoots her in a fit of rage" granted he could stab here or straggle her, but without a gun the option isn't even there is it? Or the mentally ill or the drug crazed fool getting hold of these things and threatening or killing citizens.
So if he does want to do it he's going to have to do it up close and personal and hopefully he will realise the folly of his action.
We cannot ban kitchen knives, they are designed to cut things in the kitchen as a tool.
We can ban Firearms, because they are designed to kill Human beings, you can argue a Firearm is a tool, but it's a tool 99.9% of society doesn't need.
I only got one when I joined the Military as an Officer, and it was considered an honour and great responsibility to bear arms in the name of my Sovereign and my Country. I never took the weapon home, it lived in the Armoury or was issued when I was on duty, Exercise, Ceremonial duties or on OPS. Leave firearms in the Professionals hands, and do not think for one second that increasing Gun Ownership will reduce unnecessary deaths.
Ahtman wrote: After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Everyone has there homework for the day.
What's wrong with the F-150? It's a solid truck, sure it might get stuck down some of the side streets in Europe, but if they knew what was good for them, they would have built their cities wider! And let's be honest, kissing a breast isn't NC-17, kissing a nipple is
Ahtman wrote: After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Everyone has there homework for the day.
Well, we have Tex Mex. Ducatis are great and all, but there's something romantic in a good old-fashioned Harley.
Here's my suggestion, the British stereotype as seen in the US is bowler hats, monocles, canes and moustaches right? Let's live up to it!!
Well if I want a motorcycle that actually functions I wouldn't get a Harley.
Ahtman wrote: After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Everyone has there homework for the day.
Well, we have Tex Mex. Ducatis are great and all, but there's something romantic in a good old-fashioned Harley.
Here's my suggestion, the British stereotype as seen in the US is bowler hats, monocles, canes and moustaches right? Let's live up to it!!
Well if I want a motorcycle that actually functions I wouldn't get a Harley.
I'm not sure Italian engineering could be considered much better.
Ahtman wrote: After this thread what American values should we project onto Europe next and pretend that everyone feels that way? Soda cup size? Ford F150 in every driveway? Bloated military budgets? Kissing a breast is NC-17 but cutting it off is R or PG-13? I mean, really, there is a smorgasbord of things to choose from.
Of course, I think the other side should be doing the same as well, and find European values that the US should pretend to hold.
Everyone has there homework for the day.
Well, we have Tex Mex. Ducatis are great and all, but there's something romantic in a good old-fashioned Harley.
Here's my suggestion, the British stereotype as seen in the US is bowler hats, monocles, canes and moustaches right? Let's live up to it!!
Well if I want a motorcycle that actually functions I wouldn't get a Harley.
Ayah, agreed on that.
I'm not sure Italian engineering could be considered much better.
I'm going to ask a question out of general ignorance. (I do that a lot in the Off Topic forum...)
Firstly, not a gun fan at all. Figured I'd say that to start.
Couldn't it be said that by having an almost total ban on handguns could be quite helpful visually?
I mean, basically, if you see a gun on someones body out and about and it isn't a polisman or a dude with a floppy hat and a green cardigan in a field, you can quite reasonably surmise.
"He isn't supposed to have that. Wait. He really isn't supposed to have that, I should get away."
Then once you get away. "I should phone the police, I saw a handgun like object sticking out the back of someones hoody. Therefore they can do something about it."
Compel wrote: I'm going to ask a question out of general ignorance. (I do that a lot in the Off Topic forum...)
Firstly, not a gun fan at all. Figured I'd say that to start.
Couldn't it be said that by having an almost total ban on handguns could be quite helpful visually?
I mean, basically, if you see a gun on someones body out and about and it isn't a polisman or a dude with a floppy hat and a green cardigan in a field, you can quite reasonably surmise.
"He isn't supposed to have that. Wait. He really isn't supposed to have that, I should get away."
Then once you get away. "I should phone the police, I saw a handgun like object sticking out the back of someones hoody. Therefore they can do something about it."
You are talking about carrying a handgun in the UK right? Just making sure you're not also including the US in this, as many states have open and concealed carry laws.
Yeah, that was supposed to be the point of my question.
I pressed 'submit' before finishing the actual thought.
Also, for some reason, dakka thinks I'm american now. - I'm Scottish!
But basically, yeah. I'm imagining that the different attitudes and laws in the US might cause a different thought process.
Eg. "Ok, he does look a bit shifty but well, concealed carry laws, it's his right to have guns and he's not waving it about like a looney. I'm not gonna waste the polices time, off I go."
in a perfect world where we always saw the bad guys gun, without him seeing us, and had time to run away, and call the cops, who arrive before he notices you or leaves?
just look at that poor army bloke who was chopped up in broad daylight, took cops 20 minutes to respond.
dangerous people are going to target the innocent, normal people are almost always the first responders to crime. They need the tools to deal with it.
easysauce wrote: in a perfect world where we always saw the bad guys gun, without him seeing us, and had time to run away, and call the cops, who arrive before he notices you or leaves?
just look at that poor army bloke who was chopped up in broad daylight, took cops 20 minutes to respond.
dangerous people are going to target the innocent, normal people are almost always the first responders to crime. They need the tools to deal with it.
Indeed, everyone needs...full auto wiener dogs! There's never a report of bad guys attacking someone armed with a brace of full auto BADGER dogs.
easysauce wrote: in a perfect world where we always saw the bad guys gun, without him seeing us, and had time to run away, and call the cops, who arrive before he notices you or leaves?
just look at that poor army bloke who was chopped up in broad daylight, took cops 20 minutes to respond.
dangerous people are going to target the innocent, normal people are almost always the first responders to crime. They need the tools to deal with it.
I'm sure he's complaining bitterly about it in heaven, to 20 dead five year olds, their dead teachers and a lot of ex-movie goers.
motyak wrote: With no further stats. The further stats provided seem to directly contradict the initial statement
In the year the ban was passed, there were 4,903 fire arm offences recorded by police. In 2011 there were 6,285. In some years since the ban, there has been more then 10,000 offences.
I've gotta get to work, so can't keep digging for now, but the facts are the rates have climbed since the ban was passed. Whether it's 40%, 89%, or 10%, there is more gun violence in Britain now, then before the ban.
1. you are assuming "firearm offences" = "gun violence". However, I bet that it also includes "illegal possession" as a firearm offence, which would naturally increase after the ban, as suddenly many of those guns are now banned and thus illegal. It would be like declaring left-handed people to be illegal, and then wondering why crime suddenly went up 11% (1 in 9 people are southpaws, I believe).
2. you can tout 40% all you like, but without the rate, that percentage is meaningless drivel, and you know it. A change from one year to the next of 2 up to 3 is a 50% increase; but it's still only three.
What we should really be focusing on is the rate of lego weapon related crime. A ban on lego guns would just be taking the lego guns out of the hands of good children and putting them into the hands of hardened thugs like Billy Johnson who always steals the kickball during recess. Is that what we want?
rubiksnoob wrote: What we should really be focusing on is the rate of lego weapon related crime. A ban on lego guns would just be taking the lego guns out of the hands of good children and putting them into the hands of hardened thugs like Billy Johnson who always steals the kickball during recess. Is that what we want?
rubiksnoob wrote: What we should really be focusing on is the rate of lego weapon related crime. A ban on lego guns would just be taking the lego guns out of the hands of good children and putting them into the hands of hardened thugs like Billy Johnson who always steals the kickball during recess. Is that what we want?
They can also be used as caltrops!
~Tim?
And the same pieces that your weapons are made of can make getaway vehicles. Lego is really the criminal's Swiss army knife
Lego bricks are officially the best Caltrops in the world, my sisters and Mother wouldn't enter my Bedroom for fear of crippling their feet...That was back in the *Ahem* 80's.
That Lego Technic stuff was the absolutely amazing / awful depending on your point of view...
1. you are assuming "firearm offences" = "gun violence". However, I bet that it also includes "illegal possession" as a firearm offence, which would naturally increase after the ban, as suddenly many of those guns are now banned and thus illegal. It would be like declaring left-handed people to be illegal, and then wondering why crime suddenly went up 11% (1 in 9 people are southpaws, I believe).
2. you can tout 40% all you like, but without the rate, that percentage is meaningless drivel, and you know it. A change from one year to the next of 2 up to 3 is a 50% increase; but it's still only three.
Good to see Common sense still thrives in Canada, couldn't agree with your Sentiments more QFT!
From what I've heard (I'll admit I'm not an expert,) don't criminals use unregistered firearms most of the time anyway? So the gun laws wouldn't really change anything in that sense seeing as they are illegally obtained anyway.
Ardaric_Vaanes wrote: From what I've heard (I'll admit I'm not an expert,) don't criminals use unregistered firearms most of the time anyway? So the gun laws wouldn't really change anything in that sense seeing as they are illegally obtained anyway.
Won't people drive drunk even if you make it illegal? Yeah, but as it turns out the number of annual drunk driving deaths and injuries plunged dramatically. No one believes it will go away, but you can make it more difficult for incidents to occur.
Theft is illegal as well, do we also want to make stealing legal, since having laws against it hasn't stopped it from happening? Come to think of it pretty much anything listed in the criminal justice system still occurs (which is why there are laws against them), so maybe we shouldn't even have a criminal justice system. While we are at it, having the best trained and equipped army hasn't kept there from being belligerent states and actors that get all uppity with us, so I guess we should get rid of them as well. Think of all the money we can save!
I dealt with a Swedish transportation unit once in Europe due to a busted fighter from a air show. Every house hold in Sweden has a military grade rifle. Being I'm not Swedish...nor know any country that's crazy enough to try to invade...but to invade Sweden where mandatory enlistment (not sure females to) where you serve your time and leave the military with all your gear and weapon...where the government pays for ammo every year to keep you current on qualification...still can't get over the fact what a European sparrow did to the aircraft...anyway I digress......has anyone thought of Sweden? Actually as anyone in Britain thought about what would happen if access to fire arms was made readily available?......Ever seen what a Barn Owl does to a BlackHawk traveling 100 knots bouncing off the forward Mod and getting sucked down the #2 engine...that then FoD's out...that then goes to pieces...that then say pieces goes up into the Main Rotor blades...that then takes a tip cap off...that then strikes the tail rotors.....that we then then landed on a high school track field...almost lost the left landing strut...and tire...didn't even piss myself.....half a pack of smokes though....back to back with both pilots and the other crewchief...where were we?
easysauce wrote: in a perfect world where we always saw the bad guys gun, without him seeing us, and had time to run away, and call the cops, who arrive before he notices you or leaves?
just look at that poor army bloke who was chopped up in broad daylight, took cops 20 minutes to respond.
dangerous people are going to target the innocent, normal people are almost always the first responders to crime. They need the tools to deal with it.
I have heard many variants of this argument... the problem is that in all cases it winds up with *someone* being dead. We have also had cases of people being wrongly killed by firearms (by authorities no less) because they were believed to be dead. It's arguable that without any guns, those people would be alive today.
To completely nullify this particular example... two men instigated the attack. One had a gun. The other - the one who actually murdered the poor guy - used a machete. The only gun crime committed here was brandishing the weapon, however a man still died. Which proves the point - man will always find means to kill other men. Why make it easy for common people without training and/or better judgement to do so?
Jihadin wrote: I dealt with a Swedish transportation unit once in Europe due to a busted fighter from a air show. Every house hold in Sweden has a military grade rifle. Being I'm not Swedish...nor know any country that's crazy enough to try to invade...but to invade Sweden where mandatory enlistment (not sure females to) where you serve your time and leave the military with all your gear and weapon...where the government pays for ammo every year to keep you current on qualification...still can't get over the fact what a European sparrow did to the aircraft...anyway I digress......has anyone thought of Sweden?
Sweden also has a radically different culture and mindset, and ignoring everything else just to focus on one part of it doesn't really work very well. If we can get everyone to adopt the rest of Sweden's values and lifestyles it may work, but outside that, it doesn't really work.
MetalOxide wrote: We don't need guns, we are doing just fine without them believe it or not.
I'm pretty fine with Britain setting its own gun policies.
But I do think it taking twenty minutes to get guys with guns to the scene of an ongoing crime is pretty ludicrous for a major metropolitan area. Guess it's a good thing those guys decided to stop at one.
Generally speaking, however, in the UK the police who wield guns *are* the professionals. You're not going to see Jimmy the Community Support Officer on firearms detail.
Compel wrote: Generally speaking, however, in the UK the police who wield guns *are* the professionals. You're not going to see Jimmy the Community Support Officer on firearms detail.
Good luck getting either on the scene on time though.
Compel wrote: Generally speaking, however, in the UK the police who wield guns *are* the professionals. You're not going to see Jimmy the Community Support Officer on firearms detail.
Never really looked in to it, but what are the opinions on police brutality and whatnot over there?
Compel wrote: Generally speaking, however, in the UK the police who wield guns *are* the professionals. You're not going to see Jimmy the Community Support Officer on firearms detail.
Never really looked in to it, but what are the opinions on police brutality and whatnot over there?
Cases of it (real or not) can get into the news occasionally, but it's not really a big thing over here like it is for you guys over there.
I shot my first rifle last week, it was awesome and I'm going to take up range shooting and maybe pest control at my sisters property when i "know" i can expect to hit my target at range.
One thing that really struck me was how easy it was to actually hit the target reliably , I've only done archery before and i shot the target, looked at my mate and said "it's that easy?".
After that experience I have decided that guns most definitely need to be controlled and put in gun safes when not used. With no practice at all I could pretty much get next to the bulls eye even with my shaky hands. After witnessing the shake calming factor of breathing out, I'm now going to try it with painting - shooting taught me something.
It just seems that it's too easy to kill someone ( i know people move ect but that's not the point) .It's point and pull and someone has a serious injury. No up close and personal ripping through muscle with a bladed instrument ect.
This all being said , I now have an enthusiasm for shooting I'd really prefer a crossbow but i guess a rifle is the next best thing
This all being said , I now have an enthusiasm for shooting I'd really prefer a crossbow but i guess a rifle is the next best thing
Not to drag this OT, but it is really relaxing isn't it? Going prone and lining yourself up and everything, even the shot doesn't stop it being relaxing. When I get set up in a house more permanently I'm definitely getting my license (waiting till it's permanent so I can get a good and proper safe for the rifle, hard to justify bolting holes in the ground and wall in a rental property).
It so is motyak, when we switched to a smaller target I had the best fun sighting the target then waiting for the barrel wriggle ( I dunno what it's called) to come back to roughly where I aimed then snapping off a shot. Maybe i should try skeet shooting eventually, i figure the movementg might lessen my shakes, or maybe drinking less alcohol would work?
Hopefully I will try a pistol eventually. My "lol it's so easy" comment was due to archery being so much harder, i was expecting a similar learning curve but it seems when firing a rifle you start on a higher learning curve plateau.
I shall eagerly await your slow clap in about 5 years time, you flying over for it?
Alf I actually just finally handle one of those rifles this past weekend. Prone supported position be my advice for that rifle.....practice maintaining sight picture...which be a dime at the end of the barrel...squeeze the trigger....after you blink the dime should still be on the barrel (I am not going to go in depth in marksmanship training ) Make sure you squeeze the trigger between breaths....the body at the most relax
Jihadin wrote: Just curious....what was your thoughts before experiencing fire arms?
Before experiencing target shooting I kinda didn't get it. I thought guns are cool for properties and farmers but who needs them in the city.
I thought they should be controlled still (definitely in a gun safe whilst in the house) but I thought it would be much harder to hit something. Thing is, before shooting one I didn't realise the joy of shooting! I liked archery, I kinda should have realised.
If i keep enjoying shooting this much I might have to in a few years start a peacful march on canberra to over throw the australian government *waves to asio* If that statement i just made doesn't get flagged i really don't know what will.... oh yeah...Jihad...china ...hacker , that'll do it
I hate to kill a lot of debate, but after reading the thread title, I had a little hunch and checked out /k/. /k/ is the weapons board of 4chan, and tends to host some.... enthusiastic users. Apparently they've been trying to throw this poll off kilter ever since it was started.
So yeah, once again, internet polls get abused in hilarious ways.
Bullockist wrote: I shot my first rifle last week, it was awesome and I'm going to take up range shooting and maybe pest control at my sisters property when i "know" i can expect to hit my target at range.
One thing that really struck me was how easy it was to actually hit the target reliably , I've only done archery before and i shot the target, looked at my mate and said "it's that easy?".
After that experience I have decided that guns most definitely need to be controlled and put in gun safes when not used. With no practice at all I could pretty much get next to the bulls eye even with my shaky hands. After witnessing the shake calming factor of breathing out, I'm now going to try it with painting - shooting taught me something.
It just seems that it's too easy to kill someone ( i know people move ect but that's not the point) .It's point and pull and someone has a serious injury. No up close and personal ripping through muscle with a bladed instrument ect.
This all being said , I now have an enthusiasm for shooting I'd really prefer a crossbow but i guess a rifle is the next best thing
Compel wrote: Generally speaking, however, in the UK the police who wield guns *are* the professionals. You're not going to see Jimmy the Community Support Officer on firearms detail.
Never really looked in to it, but what are the opinions on police brutality and whatnot over there?
Still happens, would be very unlikely to involve firearms officers though, as said they are far more professional than your average bobby.
Firearms Officers are indeed much more highly trained, and constantly required to retrain and qualify at regular intervals.
They pick volunteers and weed out the unsuitable ones. The fitness requirements are higher than a normal Police Officer too, not too many donut munchers in there (still a few big pilsbury dough boys out there though).
We simply don't have State Troopers, Sheriffs Dept, Municipal / Metro Police, State Police, FBI, DEA, ATF and all the other diverse and numerous Gun Totting Law enforcement agencies like in the US.
Wouldn't criminals (who want guns) possess said guns regardless of whether they were legal or not? I can't imagine a bunch of hard core East End crims suddenly going:
"Oi lads, the jobs off. We can't rob the bank 'cause shooters are illegal still. I guess we'd better find ourselves some real jobs ay?" (/cockney accent)
I will put that down to bias, but I must say, under laws for rifle/shotgun ownership (Not sure on pistols pre-ban) self defence is NOT a valid reason to own a firearm, nor can they be carried in public, concealed or not. When being transported they must be in a secure gun case, and stored at home in a securely locked safe, with the ammunition kept separately, also locked away. I think laws covering shotgun and shotgun ammunition storage are a bit more relaxed, but rifle laws are quite strict.
Ownership is pretty much purely for those who take up sport shooting. (Or for pest control, farmers usually fall under this category) Not sure on US laws, and I know it differs by state, but over there, isn't self-defence a valid reason? That wouldn't work over here, and is not a reason I agree with personally.
easysauce wrote: in a perfect world where we always saw the bad guys gun, without him seeing us, and had time to run away, and call the cops, who arrive before he notices you or leaves?
just look at that poor army bloke who was chopped up in broad daylight, took cops 20 minutes to respond.
dangerous people are going to target the innocent, normal people are almost always the first responders to crime. They need the tools to deal with it.
Sorry but like much of the basis of this thread that is inaccurate. According to a Met Police spokesman police officers were on the scene within 6 minutes and firearms officers were on the scene within 10 minutes of being assigned, with the suspect being detained within a further 4 minutes. I am reasonably happy with this response as they achieved all of their goals without any further injuries.
If we were to address issues such as this or guns in general only of single or selected "fact" then we would soon be in the position where we were criticising the Boston PD for taking days to capture a pair of suspects indeed letting one escape for a further duration despite having all the guns, bells and whistles they could carry. This would be wrong as of course it ignores the detail of each case and what the officers in question experienced.
To the original topic, no thanks no guns needed here. I speak as someone that has worked with guns and has quite enjoyed using them in the past. As much as I would enjoy a bit of shooting again I'll not get back into it as I have greater concerns that over ride my own self interest - kids and guns don't mix IMHO
That said though there some fat pigeons that keep gakking on my lawn so I might be tempted to get an airgun again and put some .22 sized holes in them.....hmmm there's always temptation!
I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)
I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.
Full disclosure: I've had some weapons training with the OTC, and fired SA80s, LSWs and innumerable Air rifles. I'm also from the rural North where shotguns aren't unusual.
That being said, I don't want guns in the hands of the general public. They are incredibly dangerous, and increasing availability to my mind just increases the chances of something going wrong. To use an apt analogy, its like playing Russian Roulette, but adding more bullets to make it 'interesting'.
Heck, I don't like it when I go abroad and the Police carry guns as standard. I feel far safer knowing that my chances of seeing a gun on the street are next to nil.
marv335 wrote:At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Citation or it's BS.
I thought people in the UK could own firearms it just the laws are strict.
We can own rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but not handguns. Yes the laws for licensing are quite strict (Less so for shotguns, or so I'm told, but they come under a separate license.)
Also; Azazel; I have no citation, but anecdotal experience, and I fully agree with Marv. You would struggle to find people more knowledgable about firearms laws. It's mainly because of the effort that you need to go to to actually get a license.
Also, If you were even arrested, but not charged you could find your licence revoked.
The police didn't need to give a reason to deny the application.
The threat of having your fireams cert revoked (and to hold them you'd need to spend quite a bit to keep them secure) ensured that legitimate gun owners tended to be scrupulous about being law abiding. Even traffic offences could lead to withdrawal.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I hate to kill a lot of debate, but after reading the thread title, I had a little hunch and checked out /k/. /k/ is the weapons board of 4chan, and tends to host some.... enthusiastic users. Apparently they've been trying to throw this poll off kilter ever since it was started.
So yeah, once again, internet polls get abused in hilarious ways.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wouldn't criminals (who want guns) possess said guns regardless of whether they were legal or not? I can't imagine a bunch of hard core East End crims suddenly going:
"Oi lads, the jobs off. We can't rob the bank 'cause shooters are illegal still. I guess we'd better find ourselves some real jobs ay?" (/cockney accent)
There's an implicit assumption here that becoming a 'criminal' suddenly grants one access to enormous supplies of illegal weaponry.
If there's a ban on guns, than they're not being brought into the country legally or legally available for purchase. Most 'criminals' are petty small time drug peddlers, chavs, local hardboys, bag snatchers, house robbers and so on. Whilst the inner city London gangs and the more devoted career criminals will have always have the knowledge and wherewithal to access firearms, Pete the pickpocket from Bristol will not.
By removing guns from general circulation, you remove the ability of your average thug, small time drugs dealer, and occasional madman to get hold of them. Buying a gun on the black market is not particularly easy if you don't know the right people (and are known by them). If it wasn't that way, the police would nail them relatively quickly. Firearms smuggling/construction is a fairly serious crime and takes resources that more serious underground players would rather not lose.
So in answer to your question HBMC, no. Criminals do not instinctively and naturally acquire firearms. By removing them from general circulation, you make it much more difficult for any aspiring or small time crook to acquire them. And thus, the number of crimes involving guns will be much lower than it would otherwise be.
As a Brit, I can confirm that that article is a load of crap.
Criminals over here prefer to operate with knives.. silent, legal to buy, easily concealed, just as deadly/ threatening.
No point risking the time, expense and trouble involved with a gun when there is access to an easier weapon that gets the job done just as effectively.
Guns are mainly used in gang vs. gang warfare, where both sides are armed, and one side wants an advantage over the other.
marv335 wrote: I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)
I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.
You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.
Tibbsy wrote: Well it seems I am massively outnumbered
I will put that down to bias, but I must say, under laws for rifle/shotgun ownership (Not sure on pistols pre-ban) self defence is NOT a valid reason to own a firearm, nor can they be carried in public, concealed or not. When being transported they must be in a secure gun case, and stored at home in a securely locked safe, with the ammunition kept separately, also locked away. I think laws covering shotgun and shotgun ammunition storage are a bit more relaxed, but rifle laws are quite strict.
Ownership is pretty much purely for those who take up sport shooting. (Or for pest control, farmers usually fall under this category) Not sure on US laws, and I know it differs by state, but over there, isn't self-defence a valid reason? That wouldn't work over here, and is not a reason I agree with personally.
Self defense is a major reason a lot of people buy guns in the US, and many firearms are marketed for that purpose, as well as purpose built self defense rounds such as home defense shells for shotguns and hollowpoints for pistols. Heck, even our vice president apparently believes in it (albeit he has a very odd view on it) A lot of people I know keep a shotgun or a pistol in the house specifically in case someone breaks in.
In my state, we have laws that protect a person legally defending themselves whether we're at home, in our vehicle, or even out on the street. We have options to carry a weapon, either openly or concealed (the latter requiring a license) and Kentucky has a law that allows you to keep a loaded handgun in your car if it's in a "factory installed container" such as a glove compartment or center console, with no license required. Many states have "stand your ground" and "Castle doctrine" policies, which specifically cover self defense with a deadly weapon in order to protect yourself or your home.
Its a accountability issue. My weapons are secured at my house. I see them. I can touch them. I know where they are 24/7. As much money I put into my weapons I much prefer them at home, with me. If I live on post then I need to secure my weapons at the unit armory/weapons room where I have to trust the unit armorer. Arrange to draw my weapons which is a pain the arse for the armorer and to turn them back in. No chance in Hell on a weekend be it a 2,3 or 4 day to draw personnel weapons. Also its been known for personnel weapons to be drawn out without the owner being aware and fired at a range. Next time they see the weapon it hasn't been clean which is an indicator that you got "Blue Falcon"
marv335 wrote: I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)
I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.
You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.
As it happens I did store my guns at an armoury.
I didn't need them at home, and I had access to an armoury, so I used it as it was far cheaper than installing all the secure lockers I would have needed to be legally compliant.
As the law stands I can't own the handguns I previously owned.
marv335 wrote: I'm British.
I want my guns back.
In the '90s I had a Sec 1 Firearms license.
I owned a rifle and several pistols, all legally.
I had to store them securely, and was interviewed by the police to ensure suitability.
At the time that guns were legally held in the UK, gun owners were the most law abiding members of UK society.
Yes, there were a couple of incidents (although what is not common knowledge, the shooter at Dunblane should not have had his guns, the interviewing officer recommended against him being licensed, but the Chief Constable was a friend and overturned the decision.)
I enjoyed shooting, did it competitively, and I'd like to do it again.
The ban was a knee jerk reaction caused by media hype and political point scoring.
You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.
ahh the good old "you have a small penis" argument, classy projectionist argument coming from someone who cant show the empathy to acknowledge that guns are used for legitimate self defense, which by large does not even involve actually shooting anyone, far more often then illegitimate murder.
if a crook breaks into your house, has a gun/knife/bat/accomplices, and you are there with your wife and kids with help only a phone call and 15-20 minutes away, you can try telling them to leave, or risk your life ninja'ing them away with a baseball. Personally Im too old for that kind of movie mumbo jumbo. If the last time someone broke into your house you were fit and ninja skilled enough to fight them off with whatever you happened to have handy, good for you. Some people are small, non ninja-esque and generally unable to fight off one or more assailants, let alone armed assailants. Most people, be they man, woman, disabled, old, ect can rack a shot gun and scare off most hooligans simply because they present a hard target. If not even my grandmother can safely operate small caliber handguns.
I love how gun owners are the new gays, in that any bashing is ok, any stereotyping is ok, any calls for rights are dismissed as ludicrous.
If you are paranoid about freak occurrences of mass muder, but completely oblivious to the much more numerous mass "mundane" murders then the talking heads have done their job I suppose.
What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.
It's funny you comment about the paranoia over the freak chance of a mass killer taking precedence over the far more common killings as 'talking heads' doing their job. Every time there's a mass shooting in the US there are quickly people telling us that if gun ownership was easier and more people were able carrying guns in the street then it wouldn't have happened. It's fairly obvious that more guns result in more shootings, it's a simple matter of accessibility. It seems to me that it's you who live in a paranoid world of fear where more guns are the solution to the crime that is out to get you in the street or in your beds in the middle of the night.
You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.
Howard A Treesong wrote: What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.
You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.
This is the same guy who said that a lot of Australians are terrified of broad daylight home invasions and that we live in a nation of fear.
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
Guys do we really need another thread devolving into bickery? Literally every thread that mentions so much as a bb gun has this happen and all it does is annoy the mods.
Just agree to disagree and be done with it, please.
I'm quite fond of the set up and balance of gun regulation we have here at the moment...even those with illegally obtained firearms tend to be pretty wary of using them for whatever reason, in my experience, and I like it this way.
Howard A Treesong wrote: What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.
You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.
This is the same guy who said that a lot of Australians are terrified of broad daylight home invasions and that we live in a nation of fear.
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
Not my fault people I know from overseas happen to have a different opinion then you, might have something to do with being my mates and sharing common interest and all that. Just because the people I know are saying something, doesnt mean some aussie on dakka land cannot hold a different view point, but to continuously try to attack my character instead of my argument is what I come to expect.
Plenty of people do have their homes broken into, plenty of people use firearms for self defense, its not some fantasy, your anti gun side always pretends that there is no benefit to having a gun in self defense situation, and ignores all the people who bring up any of the benefits or examples of firearms saving lives.
Howard A Treesong wrote: What 'mass mundane murders'? You speak like we're living in the world of the Omega Man where we can expect to have people breaking into our houses to murder us every night.
You just don't get it, the UK really isn't that dangerous, we don't need guns, and gun crime is low, almost no one dies due to guns. The reason most if us feel safe walking in the street without the right to own a gun is that it genuinely isn't needed. Maybe they are in the US simply because there are so many guns around and they aren't going away. But here, there are very few guns, so there's no point in going out of your way to introduce them widely, you'll just create more of the problem you're trying to solve.
This is the same guy who said that a lot of Australians are terrified of broad daylight home invasions and that we live in a nation of fear.
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.
Not my fault people I know from overseas happen to have a different opinion then you, might have something to do with being my mates and sharing common interest and all that. Just because the people I know are saying something, doesnt mean some aussie on dakka land cannot hold a different view point, but to continuously try to attack my character instead of my argument is what I come to expect.
Plenty of people do have their homes broken into, plenty of people use firearms for self defense, its not some fantasy, your anti gun side always pretends that there is no benefit to having a gun in self defense situation, and ignores all the people who bring up any of the benefits or examples of firearms saving lives.
I'm not attempting to attack the character as much as the argument style. You are making statements of another country's opinions based upon the random people that you know in that country. That would be like me saying that the Yanks I know are part of the crowd who believe that gay marriage is going to bring down America, therefore "all the americans I know think they are worse off with homosexuals being allowed to marry, disintegrating society has become something to fear, since society no longer has structure.". It's just not a good way to argue, if you had said 'The Australians that I know, who could well be a minority, said these things to me', then I doubt you would have had so many people out and out disagreeing with you in the other thread, and it wouldn't have been brought up again.
I'm curious about the dingo's in Australia. Is it like the coyotes here in the States? Actually in Washington you need a license but if on an individual property you need a good justification to kill them. The prefer weapon is a 5.56mm rifle. Wondering because a few days ago I had neighbor that asked me a chuckleheaded question if I had an issue shooting coyotes. I've no problem shooting feral dogs in Afghanistan but shooting a coyote in a residential area a bit freaking much.
Australia is really weird with its animals (I know I'm going OT here but hey). Things that you'd expect wouldn't be an issue and act like real pests (like seagulls and crows) are actually protected, and I'm pretty sure that dingos are protected as well. I don't know if there is any way to legally hunt them. Feral dogs and cats you can hunt just fine at a farmer's request I believe, but I'm pretty sure dingos are a no go.
edit: after googling and what not I think I may be well wrong, dingos could be fair game, at least the NSW government uses poison and other means to cull them, so whether or not the public can as well I'm not sure of, but I wouldn't be surprised.
You can have your Guns, but at a Gun Range where you can shoot it as often as you like at targets and it gets securely away locked in an Armoury . Why would you need it at home? Sounds like a Power Issue / Fapping issue.
ahh the good old "you have a small penis" argument, classy projectionist argument coming from someone who cant show the empathy to acknowledge that guns are used for legitimate self defense, which by large does not even involve actually shooting anyone, far more often then illegitimate murder.
if a crook breaks into your house, has a gun/knife/bat/accomplices, and you are there with your wife and kids with help only a phone call and 15-20 minutes away, you can try telling them to leave, or risk your life ninja'ing them away with a baseball. Personally Im too old for that kind of movie mumbo jumbo. If the last time someone broke into your house you were fit and ninja skilled enough to fight them off with whatever you happened to have handy, good for you. Some people are small, non ninja-esque and generally unable to fight off one or more assailants, let alone armed assailants. Most people, be they man, woman, disabled, old, ect can rack a shot gun and scare off most hooligans simply because they present a hard target. If not even my grandmother can safely operate small caliber handguns.
I love how gun owners are the new gays, in that any bashing is ok, any stereotyping is ok, any calls for rights are dismissed as ludicrous.
If you are paranoid about freak occurrences of mass muder, but completely oblivious to the much more numerous mass "mundane" murders then the talking heads have done their job I suppose.
What? You are comparing the rule of Common Sense gun control, with the oppression of peoples freedom of Sexual Expression?
How about you being paranoid about having someone break into your house?
1. Buy better Locks.
2. Buy better Doors and Windows.
Your argument is flawed, because if you shoot someone in the UK even on your property it's against the law and you will be prosecuted and because a Firearm is a serious offence you go to Prison. The Law is blind, it's not a case of "He was stealing from me so I killed him" that isn't proportional, equally "I was afraid for my life so I killed him in Self Defence" that rarely ever washes either because 99% of Burglars will run if disturbed and won't fight it out because they will be much more likely to get caught.
Proving theft is equally difficult because you have to prove "The Intent to permanently deprive"
If there were Armed intruders why would they rob a Suburban House with few items and little or no Cash? If you have a Gun would you risk you life to Steal a few things from Someone's House, or would you go after a Higher pay-off like a Bookmakers, Bank or Post Office which may have £10,000's or more?
So fundamentally Gun's in the UK is about Machismo, Power and Prestige. There is no reason other than Pest Control, or Hunting (Deer / Birds). Personally I don't see any point in target shooting even the olympics now has Laser Guns, so really lets get down to the real issue. Guns are about machismo and Power, I saw it out Afghanistan all the time, Afghan Men didn't feel like Men unless they had a rifle or an AK. You see it all over the Middle East.
Firearm's has nothing to do with Freedom, it's actually the opposite it's the ability to impose your own will on events or people and empower the individual to subvert the rule of law as they see fit. It's a culture built on Paranoia that others will do what they will to me, if I don't have it.....The question is always "What are you going to do in a 1 in a Million event you get burgled at home, you gonna do nothing, or are you gonna be the big man grab your gun and kill him"...This is the net result...
Guns Deprive People of Freedom, like their life and their liberty. It means people think they can subvert the rule of Law, and it makes them believe they can protect themselves from "Oppression" which is nonsense because who determines what Laws are Oppressive and what is not? Isn't that the politicians we vote for?
Jihadin wrote: I'm curious about the dingo's in Australia. Is it like the coyotes here in the States? Actually in Washington you need a license but if on an individual property you need a good justification to kill them. The prefer weapon is a 5.56mm rifle. Wondering because a few days ago I had neighbor that asked me a chuckleheaded question if I had an issue shooting coyotes. I've no problem shooting feral dogs in Afghanistan but shooting a coyote in a residential area a bit freaking much.
Here in Colorado you just need a varmit permit. Year round unlimited bag. Justification? It is a goddessdamn coyote. Personally I do not hunt coyotes during the spring time. I would not want to leave a litter of pups motherless. That is just cold... besides once the pups grow up they are fair game as well. The Yotes are becoming a serious problem out here though, Arizona too, I cannot speak for any where else but the Yotes are getting bigger, they are smart and adaptable already, and they are starting to work in groups more as they increase in size. They threaten even suburban homes in some areas in Colorado Springs, my gran had to be careful when she walked the dog in the morning. As you get closer to the mountains, you still get yotes now and then and get the added benefit of my own personal Moby Dick. Mountain Lions. The first rifle I am building at school this fall is going to be purposefully built as a dangerous game rifle, just so I can apply for my tag next year and go get my cat. The most dangerous opponent I can legally face. Two apex predators, one is several hundred pounds of furry hate, claws and teeth, an optimized predator that is my physical superior in every way but the ability to walk up right and opposable thumbs. Then there is one man, me, with a rifle, a back up pistol to shoot the cat off the top of me if it manages to get me pinned. It shall be glorious, savage combat of the mind, intelligence vs. instinct with an opponent I can truly respect. If I die, it will be a good death indeed.
I love how gun owners are the new gays, in that any bashing is ok, any stereotyping is ok, any calls for rights are dismissed as ludicrous.
When gun owners are murdered in concentration camps for being born gun owners, when gun owners are beaten into comas, outcast from their families and friends, denied the basic rights of those around them and discriminated against every day of their lives, in all manner of ways, then you get to make that comparison.
Until that time, you should really tone down your infantile and offensive hyperbole.
Ketara wrote: There's an implicit assumption here that becoming a 'criminal' suddenly grants one access to enormous supplies of illegal weaponry.
Say what? I was sure there was like a club or something they all joined. Has its own Sears Catalogue-style gun magazine where you can order everything from .22 pistols to aircraft carriers.
Ketara wrote: So in answer to your question HBMC, no. Criminals do not instinctively and naturally acquire firearms. By removing them from general circulation, you make it much more difficult for any aspiring or small time crook to acquire them. And thus, the number of crimes involving guns will be much lower than it would otherwise be.
I see what you're saying, but that wasn't quite what I was getting at (I don't think criminal = sudden access to firearms). What I'm more saying is that once you've made that choice to be a criminal, the legality of the weapons you choose to use is kinda moot. Maybe I just don't think arming everyone else is an effective counter.
mwnciboo wrote: There is no reason other than Pest Control, or Hunting (Deer / Birds). Personally I don't see any point in target shooting even the olympics now has Laser Guns, so really lets get down to the real issue.
Only for pentathlon. All other Olympic sports use "live" rounds (If you can call air rifles live). A laser gun will never act like a real gun. Lasers do not fall, give recoil, blown by wind etc.
I see your point, but "manlyness" is not the case with most target shooting.
I agree with you about not needing guns for home protection etc. I don't agree with that argument for the UK at all. Even if you do have a gun the best thing to do to be safe is hide and give them what they want, not go confronting them.
The chances of someone using a gun in a crime in the UK is tiny. Having a US style system would massively increase the number of gun related deaths and use of guns in crime. It would make obtaining a gun for criminal use a matter of braking in to the right house rather than a complex system of knowing the right person who knows the right person to rent a gun from.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just waiting for D-USA to come onto this thread and throw down on somebody because he had to say for the 1 millionth time that gun crime is recorded differently in the UK compared to the USA
No... Violent Crime is recorded differantly.
Nobody likes a smart-ass!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.
But, TBH, and I've said this before, it makes sense for Americans to have guns because:
1) The country is full of them - every crook has one, so law abiding citizens need them.
2) The nearest sheriff could be miles away and/or bear attacks!
3) The well documented assault on individual liberties that has been steadily eroding people's rights these last decades
4) The permanent threat of Canadian/UN taskforce invading!
But seriously, reason number 3 is one that concerns me. I'm a student of American history/politics and what's been happening over there the last 20 years from both Democrats and Republicans is scary - and I don't even live there!
Also, Gun Owners aren't the new gays, that's silly. They are the new fat person. The butt of jokes and generally frowned upon for making poor life choices.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.
Speaking of bad doctors (or rather, bad medical systems) was supposed to have an appointment today. Turns out they fethed up and I had to re-arrange it for tomorrow. They tried to contact me using an old phone number when I've already had to dole out my new one a bunch of times. What is it with important organisations that deal with benefits and medical care and their obsession with never updating addresses and phone numbers? It's especially bad when they treat it as if it's your fault after you've already told about 4 different people in the ogranisation that their information is wrong and you've had to tell them, re-tell them, and re-re-tell them what the correct information is.
Why would I want to live in a health system like that? Where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? I would love NHS... if you could get it to work smoothly for the majority of people that need it/could use it.
That is all, we now return you to your regularly schedule "gun debate"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.
Speaking of bad doctors (or rather, bad medical systems) was supposed to have an appointment today. Turns out they fethed up and I had to re-arrange it for tomorrow. They tried to contact me using an old phone number when I've already had to dole out my new one a bunch of times. What is it with important organisations that deal with benefits and medical care and their obsession with never updating addresses and phone numbers? It's especially bad when they treat it as if it's your fault after you've already told about 4 different people in the ogranisation that their information is wrong and you've had to tell them, re-tell them, and re-re-tell them what the correct information is.
Why would I want to live in a health system like that? Where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? I would love NHS... if you could get it to work smoothly for the majority of people that need it/could use it.
That is all, we now return you to your regularly schedule "gun debate"
It's what happens when you let the government run things. Private industry is more likely to get it right, because their customers will find someone else to provide it if they screw it up. When it's all the government... well doesn't matter how jacked it gets, you got no where else to go.
Less guns in circulation = Less people killed by Guns.
Unless of course you advocate the idea that having everyone armed protects everyone more effectively and you are against Controlling guns.....
Which is the exact opposite when you talk about US Foreign Policy about Nuclear Weapons, where they seek to deny every Country having them....Because it makes their use much more likely.
Saying having more guns means we are safer is akin to saying "If we gave every Country Nuclear Weapons we would all be Safer". It's just the scale that's different.
Less guns in circulation = Less people killed by Guns.
Unless of course you advocate the idea that having everyone armed protects everyone more effectively and you are against Controlling guns.....
Which is the exact opposite when you talk about US Foreign Policy about Nuclear Weapons, where they seek to deny every Country having them....Because it makes their use much more likely.
Saying having more guns means we are safer is akin to saying "If we gave every Country Nuclear Weapons we would all be Safer". It's just the scale that's different.
Mutually assured destruction, is that still a valid defense policy?
Sanguinius5817 wrote: I have a compound bow and arrows, no license needed, just a bit of skill. I would rather have that than easily obtained handguns
Do you hit moving targets with your bow? Are these moving targets coming at you with knives, baseball bats, guns, etc... Are you sitting in the trees or brush when this moving target is on the move? If you answered yes to all three of these questions, congratulations General Zaroff will be getting in contact with you shortly.
Sanguinius5817 wrote: I have a compound bow and arrows, no license needed, just a bit of skill. I would rather have that than easily obtained handguns
Do you hit moving targets with your bow? Are these moving targets coming at you with knives, baseball bats, guns, etc... Are you sitting in the trees or brush when this moving target is on the move? If you answered yes to all three of these questions, congratulations General Zaroff will be getting in contact with you shortly.
He's British. He's legally required to be able to do all of that.
I have a compound bow.
It's lots of fun.
I also have a couple of longbows.
Traditional style, hand tillered (By me )
I'm not sure of the draw weight f the longbows as I've never measured it, but the compound is 60lb and takes a bit of technique to draw.
I've played with a mongolian horse bow in the past, they're a bundle of giggles, but use an entirely different draw style which is very hard to master.
everyone knows someone who has been hurt/killed by auto's.
cars are dangerous, we should only let police, and professionals like bus drivers operate automobiles.
you dont NEED a car, a bus or taxi will work just fine, and keep such deadly power out of your hands.
you only want that car to compensate anyways.
top ten worldwide causes of death according to the WHO
World Deaths in millions % of deaths
Ischaemic heart disease 7.25 12.8%
Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease 6.15 10.8%
Lower respiratory infections 3.46 6.1%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.28 5.8%
Diarrhoeal diseases 2.46 4.3%
HIV/AIDS 1.78 3.1%
Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 1.39 2.4%
Tuberculosis 1.34 2.4%
Diabetes mellitus 1.26 2.2%
Road traffic accidents 1.21 2.1%
cars are, a distant 10th place, but we cant ban diseases, or at least we could, and the the anti disease crowd would extoll the virtue of the ban if less people died from disease, but if more people die, they would say yet even more would have died had not the ban gone through.
Why would you think I'm joking? Have you ever been shot at before? Those things can kill you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: Cars kill far more people, they are far more dangerous.
No one gives a gak, car and guns are hardly comparable in terms of purpose and amount of time spent, you're comparing apples and oranges. If there's one thing we can all benefit in gun debates it is to stop pretending that guns and cars are similar, besides I bet if you looked at the
amount of regulation involved in cars then you would most likely find a decrease in car related deaths as it's regulation increases.
Why would you think I'm joking? Have you ever been shot at before? Those things can kill you.
And so can cars, hammers, screw drivers, knives, pencils, car keys, windex, a can of cambells soup, my Red Wings hat, and just about any other item I'd care to name, when their in the hands of someone who is trying to kill you.
Why would you think I'm joking? Have you ever been shot at before? Those things can kill you.
And so can cars, hammers, screw drivers, knives, pencils, car keys, windex, a can of cambells soup, my Red Wings hat, and just about any other item I'd care to name, when their in the hands of someone who is trying to kill you.
So your point is?
But guns are more effective at killing than those examples, that being said I'm not saying people shouldn't own guns it's just that they should be careful around them because you are dealing with a dangerous tool (this applies to cars, power tools, etc as well be careful). Plus he asked
for reasons on why you shouldn't own firearms and I think not owning something cause you feel it might harm yourself or others is legitimate concern.
Why would you think I'm joking? Have you ever been shot at before? Those things can kill you.
And so can cars, hammers, screw drivers, knives, pencils, car keys, windex, a can of cambells soup, my Red Wings hat, and just about any other item I'd care to name, when their in the hands of someone who is trying to kill you.
So your point is?
Quite clearly that guns are disproportionately lethal for the time spent in use. Cars will of course have a higher incidence of lethality because of the bigger part they play in the average life.
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse to put guns forward as a positive option.
When people Compare Cars (this applies to many other objects) with Guns, they fundamentally miss out one essential Truth.
1. A Car is a Device specifically Designed to Transport people & goods from A to B.
It's raison d'etre is to move people & things.
2. A Firearm is a Device specifically Design to Kill living things.
It's raison d'etre is to Kill & destroy things.
Now many things can kill you, that aren't design to kill you. Like a parachute that fails to open, or a Car, or just about anything on this planet of ours.
Firearms give even the weakest amongst us, the ability to kill the strongest. It is a leveller, and worse it takes nothing more than a moderate amount of strength and skill and the ability to pull a trigger to end a life. It makes the ability to deliver death, easy, quick and efficient.
That is power, true power, the power to impose your will, to take lives as you see fit, lives you have no right to decide upon their right to live or die. This is a subversion of the Law.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that less guns in circulation, outright bans on firearms, vastly reduce the levels of gun death in a civilized country. Other issues like assault and rape is clouding the issue with conjecture "If she'd had a Gun she wouldn't have got raped, is conjecture".
In the USA for some reason the combination of localism, combined with the right to have arms is so ingrained, it has resulted in so many Weapons in circulation that the USA can never outlaw guns without Blood shed on such a massive scale within society and against the Government and Law enforcement that it would cause Social Cohesion to fall apart.
Jihadin wrote: Everyone keeps forgetting the "da humanz"
No one is forgetting them. Neither is anyone the making the argument that removing guns means no one will ever die from a firearm. Pretending we can't do better at curtailing firearm deaths because we can't get it to zero is a bit silly.
Jihadin wrote: Everyone keeps forgetting the "da humanz"
No one is forgetting them. Neither is anyone the making the argument that removing guns means no one will ever die from a firearm. Pretending we can't do better at curtailing firearm deaths because we can't get it to zero is a bit silly.
And yet time and again I see people arguing against almost every single thing they can because it doesn't work "100%".
cars, despite being designed for transport, kill more actual people then guns.
no one needs a private vehicle, leaving autos only in the hands of the police, fire, bus and taxi professionals would save more lives and not compromise your phallic need to have your own private drunk driving death derby machine.
You can still get around, and save more lives, because that's what it is about right? saving lives.
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
Reality is banning legal ownership doesn't affect criminals, and its a fantasy land to blame legal gun owners for the illegal guns.
You wouldn't blame pharmacies for the illegal drug trade would you?
You seem to comprehend that criminals can manufacture their own complicated chemical drugs, why not simple machine shops?
ignoring the fact that plenty of people use guns for self defense, even in canada where carry laws dont exist unless you are privileged and connected.
Armed Self defense: the Canadian case
page 2
Armed self defense: the Canadian case
Abstract
There is a vigorous debate over the frequency with which private citizens resort to the use of firearms
for self defense. No information has been previously available about how often firearms are used
defensively outside of the United States. This paper estimates the frequency with which firearms are
used for self protection by analyzing three telephone surveys of the general public in Canada and a
fourth survey of the general public in the United States. Canadians report using firearms to protect
themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. More
importantly, between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats.
in the states, its far more then 19,000-37,500 people a year are being actively protected with guns.
It is absolutely hypocritical to continue ignoring the benefits of guns, they are very real, often dont involve people dieing, are are more numerous then incidents of illegitimate use.
easysauce wrote: cars, despite being designed for transport, kill more actual people then guns.
no one needs a private vehicle, leaving autos only in the hands of the police, fire, bus and taxi professionals would save more lives and not compromise your phallic need to have your own private drunk driving death derby machine.
You can still get around, and save more lives, because that's what it is about right? saving lives.
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
Reality is banning legal ownership doesn't affect criminals, and its a fantasy land to blame legal gun owners for the illegal guns.
You wouldn't blame pharmacies for the illegal drug trade would you?
You seem to comprehend that criminals can manufacture their own complicated chemical drugs, why not simple machine shops?
ignoring the fact that plenty of people use guns for self defense, even in canada where carry laws dont exist unless you are privileged and connected.
Armed Self defense: the Canadian case
page 2
Armed self defense: the Canadian case
Abstract
There is a vigorous debate over the frequency with which private citizens resort to the use of firearms
for self defense. No information has been previously available about how often firearms are used
defensively outside of the United States. This paper estimates the frequency with which firearms are
used for self protection by analyzing three telephone surveys of the general public in Canada and a
fourth survey of the general public in the United States. Canadians report using firearms to protect
themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. More
importantly, between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats.
in the states, its far more then 19,000-37,500 people a year are being actively protected with guns.
It is absolutely hypocritical to continue ignoring the benefits of guns, they are very real, often dont involve people dieing, are are more numerous then incidents of illegitimate use.
Seriously.....I'm kind of fed of reading your ill-informed clap trap.....
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it?
Reality is banning legal ownership doesn't affect criminals, and its a fantasy land to blame legal gun owners for the illegal guns.
Really, are you saying then that the only Cause of Gun Deaths is by Criminals? I have never mentioned Criminals because they are Constant and you cannot affect or stop that, in the same way you will never stop crime or Terrorism. I am arguing that you will reduce the overall Death Rate from Firearms (which includes, the mentally ill, Suicides, people storing guns inappropriately, accidental discharges, misfires and all that in encompasses).
Here is the real kicker however...If you outlaw guns, by definition anyone with a gun is a criminal and therefore it has a very direct impact and affect on those Criminals....So I'm not sure where you get this Banning Legal Ownership doesn't affect criminals....It does it makes all owners and possessors criminals.
You wouldn't blame pharmacies for the illegal drug trade would you?
You are comparing Drugs "Design to cure" ailments produced under licenses with strict government controls, with "illegal Recreational Drugs" designed to cause addiction which are destructive and made illegally in backstreets where they are cut with crap and cause endless misery heartache and death.
In answer to your Question I wouldn't blame any Pharmaceutical Company for illegal Drugs, because that is like blaming Water Companies for the Weather!
You seem to comprehend that criminals can manufacture their own complicated chemical drugs, why not simple machine shops?
So, let me get this straight........You entire argument hinges on "Criminals could make their own Machine Shops and make their own Weapons" so we should all be armed to protect ourselves from this hypothetical situation. Why would criminals bother doing this when guns are so freely available in wider society ? If guns were banned, do you think the federal and Law enforcement wouldn't shut these down....
On top of this, as I posted earlier in this thread,
"Criminals will always get guns...so it's kind of stupid arguing from that standpoint either way on the issue. Although by allowing them in Civilian ownership I would say it's easier for Criminals to get hold of them. Also it's very easy for a Law Abiding Citizen to become a Criminal with a single trigger pull"
So answer this point...You agree Criminals will always get guns, so your argument is to make it even easier for them to get hold of them because everyone has access to them?
Hypocritical.....Read my posts from the start you illiterate, firebrand. There is a requirement for Firearms, in the hands of Professionals (Soldiers, Police Officer etc) and also for Pest Control (farmers etc), I have no problem them having guns but they must be tightly controlled.
For the wider society, there is no need for Guns, it's a destructive force we don't need to wield, but many seem to believe with a Gun "I am empowered, I can defend myself, I can kill anything that threaten's me" the key problem is threat is subjective.
Go tell Trayvon Martin's parents why he was killed, buying a pack of skittles, by a paranoid jumped up Vigilante who thought he was a threat. Trayvon was about his lawful business and his life was ended by a Civilian with a Gun who thought "I am empowered, I can defend myself, I can kill anything that threaten's me" when in reality he was a fearful Paranoid douche bag.
For clarity
A Car is a vehicle, designed to move things, not to kill. It can kill but that's not it's reason for being.
B Drugs are a Chemical, designed to treat ailments. It can kill if you overdose it not it's reason for being.
C Guns are a Weapon, designed to Kill. It's primary purpose is to kill, you cannot travel to work on it, or treat ailments with it (Maybe once and permanently)
Your lack of clarity of thought is bringing your argument down.
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it?
I'm just going to address this one point, because it is important: Violent crime in America, including gun crime, has been decreasing since the 90s and is now at the lowest point it's been in a long time. There are also many, many more people legally carrying concealed weapons. That doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other, but it is the case that violent crime and gun crime is and has been decreasing significantly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.
Speaking of bad doctors (or rather, bad medical systems) was supposed to have an appointment today. Turns out they fethed up and I had to re-arrange it for tomorrow. They tried to contact me using an old phone number when I've already had to dole out my new one a bunch of times. What is it with important organisations that deal with benefits and medical care and their obsession with never updating addresses and phone numbers? It's especially bad when they treat it as if it's your fault after you've already told about 4 different people in the ogranisation that their information is wrong and you've had to tell them, re-tell them, and re-re-tell them what the correct information is.
Why would I want to live in a health system like that? Where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? I would love NHS... if you could get it to work smoothly for the majority of people that need it/could use it.
That is all, we now return you to your regularly schedule "gun debate"
Nobody said it was perfect (least of all the people who actually use it.) Besides, what's the alternative? America? They can't even make decent bread or cheese!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a cultural thing. Americans will never understand our love for the NHS and we'll never fully get to grips with gun culture.
Speaking of bad doctors (or rather, bad medical systems) was supposed to have an appointment today. Turns out they fethed up and I had to re-arrange it for tomorrow. They tried to contact me using an old phone number when I've already had to dole out my new one a bunch of times. What is it with important organisations that deal with benefits and medical care and their obsession with never updating addresses and phone numbers? It's especially bad when they treat it as if it's your fault after you've already told about 4 different people in the ogranisation that their information is wrong and you've had to tell them, re-tell them, and re-re-tell them what the correct information is.
Why would I want to live in a health system like that? Where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing? I would love NHS... if you could get it to work smoothly for the majority of people that need it/could use it.
That is all, we now return you to your regularly schedule "gun debate"
It's what happens when you let the government run things. Private industry is more likely to get it right, because their customers will find someone else to provide it if they screw it up. When it's all the government... well doesn't matter how jacked it gets, you got no where else to go.
Private industry is more likely to get it right!? Obviously you've never travelled on our privatised railway system
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it?
I'm just going to address this one point, because it is important: Violent crime in America, including gun crime, has been decreasing since the 90s and is now at the lowest point it's been in a long time. There are also many, many more people legally carrying concealed weapons. That doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other, but it is the case that violent crime and gun crime is and has been decreasing significantly.
Is there proper statistical Analysis available for this, could you post up a link. CHeers.
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it?
I'm just going to address this one point, because it is important: Violent crime in America, including gun crime, has been decreasing since the 90s and is now at the lowest point it's been in a long time. There are also many, many more people legally carrying concealed weapons. That doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other, but it is the case that violent crime and gun crime is and has been decreasing significantly.
Is there proper statistical Analysis available for this, could you post up a link. CHeers.
There's been two recent studies by the Department of Justice and the Pew Research Center. Here are some articles:
Again, it is a certifiable fact that we as Americans are safer then we have been in a very long time (My old man pointed out that the numbers were triple or more what they are now when he was my age) and the fact remains that as a country we are more heavily armed then we have ever been, I suppose you could make an argument that we had a higher percentage of gun ownership during the 17 and 1800s when a solid musket was the difference between you and being dead (whether to some nefarious red coat, a bear or starvation hardly mattered, and that condition lasted for a long time in many parts of the country, cept for the red coat thing, got that cleared up in 1812 mostly, but that would require statistics that don't exist to prove, we are more heavily armed then ever post world war two shall we say, and far more legally able to protect ourselves since them, with the bulk of states passing some form of concealed carry law in that time frame.
Armed Self defense: the Canadian case
page 2
Armed self defense: the Canadian case
Abstract
There is a vigorous debate over the frequency with which private citizens resort to the use of firearms
for self defense. No information has been previously available about how often firearms are used
defensively outside of the United States. This paper estimates the frequency with which firearms are
used for self protection by analyzing three telephone surveys of the general public in Canada and a
fourth survey of the general public in the United States. Canadians report using firearms to protect
themselves between 60,000 and 80,000 times per year from dangerous people or animals. More
importantly, between 19,000 and 37,500 of these incidents involve defense against human threats.
in the states, its far more then 19,000-37,500 people a year are being actively protected with guns, and in canada thats JUST protection against people. 60,000-80,000 people are protected each year from animals and people combined, you keep ignoring these kinds of benifits.
Or is 60,000-80,000 people being protected each year in canada by guns, not proof in your mind that people are protected by guns?
that's tens of thousands of people protected from people and animals in my country, and many more times that in the states. Those are real people protecting themselves, yet again, you ignore the benefit they have enjoyed, which is far more numerous then illegitimate usage
It is absolutely hypocritical to continue ignoring the benefits of guns, they are very real, often dont involve people dieing, are are more numerous then incidents of illegitimate use.
Seriously.....I'm kind of fed of reading your ill-informed clap trap..... <<---personal attack, Im kinda getting tired of you making remarks of this nature, while ignoring thousands of real people who actually used firearms for self defence.
Guns are designed to protect their owner from violence, they can achieve this without killing anyone, most self defense uses of guns dont involve anyone being shot or killed.
The Deterrence factor? Really prove it? If that was the case as Gun-Ownership in America increased then violent crime would have decreased or plateau'd wouldn' it? <---again the #'s of people who use firarms for protection is well into the tens of thousands here, and much higher in the states, people using guns for self defense is actually pretty good proof that people use guns for self defense. Gun crime is down in the states, if you actually knew the facts you would know that.
Reality is banning legal ownership doesn't affect criminals, and its a fantasy land to blame legal gun owners for the illegal guns.
Really, are you saying then that the only Cause of Gun Deaths is by Criminals? I have never mentioned Criminals because they are Constant and you cannot affect or stop that, in the same way you will never stop crime or Terrorism. I am arguing that you will reduce the overall Death Rate from Firearms (which includes, the mentally ill, Suicides, people storing guns inappropriately, accidental discharges, misfires and all that in encompasses). <<<--- again, you ignore the thousands of lives saved by guns, to focus on things that happen less often. If it were really about saving lives, you would be all gung ho to ban cars too, professional only access to vehicles would save more lives. You can still use the bus/taxi to get places, any need you state for personal autos can be fulfilled without a private auto. If it were really about saving lives you would be acknowledging that people actually do protect themselves and others with guns. Its a proven fact they do.
Here is the real kicker however...If you outlaw guns, by definition anyone with a gun is a criminal and therefore it has a very direct impact and affect on those Criminals....So I'm not sure where you get this Banning Legal Ownership doesn't affect criminals....It does it makes all owners and possessors criminals. <----right making your neighbors paper criminals overnight for owning a legitimate firarms a great idea. I suppose this sounds like a great idea if the point is to make more criminals of otherwise lawful people
"Criminals will always get guns...so it's kind of stupid arguing from that standpoint either way on the issue. Although by allowing them in Civilian ownership I would say it's easier for Criminals to get hold of them. Also it's very easy for a Law Abiding Citizen to become a Criminal with a single trigger pull"<--- very easy for law abiding drivers to become a criminal just be hitting someone with their car, happens more often, kills more people. Every one is law abiding till they are not, your argument is in the "orwellian thought crime" realm. Anyone can just as easily commit stabbings and vehicular homicide, and both happen all the time. it is a proven fact that people use guns to save lives, and prevent people from being the victim of crimes. You are literally calling all the people who basically say "I have used guns to protect myself" liars, and pretending their lives are not real, with your fingers in your ears saying "guns dont save anyone, I cant hear you"
So answer this point...You agree Criminals will always get guns, so your argument is to make it even easier for them to get hold of them because everyone has access to them?[/b]<<---lawful people owning guns is not making it easier for criminals to get guns. that is not my argument at all, way to write your own argument and attribute it to me. My argument is that guns save more lives more often then negative incidents occur. Just like cars they have a use, and when used responsibly they are a boon to society. Just like cars they can be used irresponsibly, but the net benefits outweigh the net detriments.
Hypocritical.....Read my posts from the start you illiterate, firebrand.<-- more insults, not helping your arguement, nor keeping it polite and civil as per this sites rules
Your lack of clarity of thought is bringing your argument down. [/quote]<---- more of the same
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Again, it is a certifiable fact that we as Americans are safer then we have been in a very long time (My old man pointed out that the numbers were triple or more what they are now when he was my age) and the fact remains that as a country we are more heavily armed then we have ever been, I suppose you could make an argument that we had a higher percentage of gun ownership during the 17 and 1800s when a solid musket was the difference between you and being dead (whether to some nefarious red coat, a bear or starvation hardly mattered, and that condition lasted for a long time in many parts of the country, cept for the red coat thing, got that cleared up in 1812 mostly, but that would require statistics that don't exist to prove, we are more heavily armed then ever post world war two shall we say, and far more legally able to protect ourselves since them, with the bulk of states passing some form of concealed carry law in that time frame.
Actually, you had a higher rate of gun ownership in the 1960s than you do right now. Since then the number of homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining (the average number of guns per household increases only because those homes with a gun are increasingly likely to own lots of guns).
And so, in terms of some nefarious criminal planning some of his nefarious criminal activity, the odds of his victim being a proud, patriotic American with a gun is actually lower than it used to be. And yet violent crime including crime committed with firearms is declining.
So your claim that increasing guns is driving down rates of crime just doesn't work. And when you look at the rate of murder and rate of murder by firearm in other developed countries, it not only doesn't work, its a claim that looks just plain ridiculous.
And, like I've said plenty of times before, I like guns. I think they're a great hobby, and just plain cool. But that doesn't mean I get to pretend that they don't drive up the rate of murder. Reality fething matters, and the reality is told in a simple set of stats - the US murder rate is four or five times higher than in other developed countries.
Now, that doesn't mean that guns have to be banned. As has been pointed out in threads like this plenty of times, about 80,000 people die in alcohol related incidents each year, that's 8 times more than the murder rate, but it doesn't mean banning alcohol... because there's a basic social good to alcohol - having a few drinks is fun. Similarly, it is perfectly okay to say that you like guns, and sure there existance gets more people killed than would otherwise be the case, but we can't chase absolute safety for all people at the expense of never getting to do anything fun anymore.
That's fine. But just don't play pretend. Be honest about the real impact of guns in society. It's basically the only way of ending up with legislation that makes any kind of sense at all.
Actually, you had a higher rate of gun ownership in the 1960s than you do right now. Since then the number of homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining (the average number of guns per household increases only because those homes with a gun are increasingly likely to own lots of guns).
And so, in terms of some nefarious criminal planning some of his nefarious criminal activity, the odds of his victim being a proud, patriotic American with a gun is actually lower than it used to be. And yet violent crime including crime committed with firearms is declining.
So your claim that increasing guns is driving down rates of crime just doesn't work. And when you look at the rate of murder and rate of murder by firearm in other developed countries, it not only doesn't work, its a claim that looks just plain ridiculous.
It's important to look at the numbers, but you have to look at cultural factors as well. When it comes to guns there are a lot of cultural factors that are different in America compared to many other developed countries. The claim that crime is decreasing due to guns doesn't just have to do with the increase in the number of guns. As you pointed out, there are more guns, but fewer households with guns overall. There are also way, way, way more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons now, something that you probably didn't see as much of in the 60s (at least not legally). I would argue that that is a much larger factor than a simple increase in the number of guns in the country, especially considering that the number of households with guns has been decreasing. It's not just the number of guns that matters; how those guns are being used is also significant.
Also keep in mind this... other than anecdotal evidence, it's rare that a successful use of guns in self-defense is accurately "documented".
That makes research on this subject matter rather difficult. You don't know what the end-game of said event would be had the defender didn't have said guns.
Hordini wrote: It's important to look at the numbers, but you have to look at cultural factors as well. When it comes to guns there are a lot of cultural factors that are different in America compared to many other developed countries. The claim that crime is decreasing due to guns doesn't just have to do with the increase in the number of guns. As you pointed out, there are more guns, but fewer households with guns overall. There are also way, way, way more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons now, something that you probably didn't see as much of in the 60s (at least not legally). I would argue that that is a much larger factor than a simple increase in the number of guns in the country, especially considering that the number of households with guns has been decreasing. It's not just the number of guns that matters; how those guns are being used is also significant.
Only if you presume that concealed carry weapons have any kind of deterrent on crime, when no study has ever shown anything we could call a meaningful impact on rates of crime. The closest the gun lobby has ever gotten is claiming that the cities with the highest murder rates have handgun bans... which of course neglects the simple fact that those cities had the highest rates of murder before they banned guns (which is why they tried banning guns in the first place).
And, basically, there's a reason no study has ever shown that relationship - it's because it doesn't exist. There is no relationship. The threat that a civilian might draw a gun, even in a CC state, is so miniscule that it just doesn't impact criminal behaviour. I mean, in the height of the bankrobbing crime spree there were instances of local shop owners grabbing their guns to take on bank robbers as they left the bank. This impacted on the rate of bank robberies not one bit. It took the development of scientific policing techniques and effective police co-ordination to greatly increase the chance of arrest & conviction to finally drive down the bank robbing crime spree.
Hordini wrote: It's important to look at the numbers, but you have to look at cultural factors as well. When it comes to guns there are a lot of cultural factors that are different in America compared to many other developed countries. The claim that crime is decreasing due to guns doesn't just have to do with the increase in the number of guns. As you pointed out, there are more guns, but fewer households with guns overall. There are also way, way, way more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons now, something that you probably didn't see as much of in the 60s (at least not legally). I would argue that that is a much larger factor than a simple increase in the number of guns in the country, especially considering that the number of households with guns has been decreasing. It's not just the number of guns that matters; how those guns are being used is also significant.
Only if you presume that concealed carry weapons have any kind of deterrent on crime, when no study has ever shown anything we could call a meaningful impact on rates of crime. The closest the gun lobby has ever gotten is claiming that the cities with the highest murder rates have handgun bans... which of course neglects the simple fact that those cities had the highest rates of murder before they banned guns (which is why they tried banning guns in the first place).
And, basically, there's a reason no study has ever shown that relationship - it's because it doesn't exist. There is no relationship. The threat that a civilian might draw a gun, even in a CC state, is so miniscule that it just doesn't impact criminal behaviour. I mean, in the height of the bankrobbing crime spree there were instances of local shop owners grabbing their guns to take on bank robbers as they left the bank. This impacted on the rate of bank robberies not one bit. It took the development of scientific policing techniques and effective police co-ordination to greatly increase the chance of arrest & conviction to finally drive down the bank robbing crime spree.
We're not really talking about bank robberies...
We're really talking about self-defense.
Here's another angle seb... let's assume that your premise is rock solid accurate, in that CC laws do "miniscule" impact to violent crimes.
Having said that, wouldn't you rather have that "miniscule" chance to defend yourself... rather than none at all?
A chicking have a CCW has a better chance to prevent a rape than w/o one... cuz, you know... a gun is a great equalizer vs. the rapist.
whembly wrote: Also keep in mind this... other than anecdotal evidence, it's rare that a successful use of guns in self-defense is accurately "documented".
That makes research on this subject matter rather difficult. You don't know what the end-game of said event would be had the defender didn't have said guns.
And efforts to document stated incidents of gun use have been unsuccessful, largely because such events are extremely scarce.
Whereas efforts to document the number of deaths to firearms is easy peasy, because the numbers are really big. You get about 10,000 murders with a gun each year, and another 20,000 suicides.
whembly wrote: Also keep in mind this... other than anecdotal evidence, it's rare that a successful use of guns in self-defense is accurately "documented".
That makes research on this subject matter rather difficult. You don't know what the end-game of said event would be had the defender didn't have said guns.
And efforts to document stated incidents of gun use have been unsuccessful, largely because such events are extremely scarce.
Whereas efforts to document the number of deaths to firearms is easy peasy, because the numbers are really big. You get about 10,000 murders with a gun each year, and another 20,000 suicides.
I disagree with "extremely scarce" part.
Sure, it's waaaay smaller than murders/suicides... but, I'm firmly in the belief that it's more significant than "miniscule". This is just one site that has 899 posted self defense story... just one site.
Why is anyone still engaged in this perpetual argument? Studies put up that contradict Brady Campaign or Violence Prevention Center nonsense are going to be routinely ignored, and one side of the 'debate' is still going to ramble on about hemidemiautomatoozle clip machines and how we need to stop people from being able to have Carl Gustavs delivered to their door from the interwebs.
Meanwhile, gun violence is dramatically down, gun laws have become less restrictive, and despite the crazy amount of money Bloomberg's throwing around, national legislation's dead on arrival, and we've pretty much seen the extent of state legislation. The debate's over, guys. One side won, one side lost, and none of it has anything to do with Britain's preference for self defense through dentistry rather than firearms.
Seaward wrote: Why is anyone still engaged in this perpetual argument? Studies put up that contradict Brady Campaign or Violence Prevention Center nonsense are going to be routinely ignored, and one side of the 'debate' is still going to ramble on about hemidemiautomatoozle clip machines and how we need to stop people from being able to have Carl Gustavs delivered to their door from the interwebs.
Meanwhile, gun violence is dramatically down, gun laws have become less restrictive, and despite the crazy amount of money Bloomberg's throwing around, national legislation's dead on arrival, and we've pretty much seen the extent of state legislation. The debate's over, guys. One side won, one side lost, and none of it has anything to do with Britain's preference for self defense through dentistry rather than firearms.
I doubt "one side won"... it'll always be up for debate as this is a contentious issue.
Having these debates is a good thing as it'll strengthen/weaken whatever we're discussing.
whembly wrote: We're not really talking about bank robberies...
That was an example, in which really overt level of civilian bravery didn't impact the on-going incidents of crime... so the idea that a civilian drawing on a mugger and scaring him off could meaningfully impact the mugging rate is a massive stretch.
We're really talking about self-defense.
Here's another angle seb... let's assume that your premise is rock solid accurate, in that CC laws do "miniscule" impact to violent crimes.
Having said that, wouldn't you rather have that "miniscule" chance to defend yourself... rather than none at all?
That's not the point of what I'm saying here. I'm not saying 'guns don't stop crime therefore ban guns'.
I am saying 'guns don't stop crime, therefore stop pretending they do'. Learn what is actually true in the real world, and base your arguments on the reality of the situation.
That doesn't mean 'ban guns', because ultimately, the simple fact that guns are desired by the population and a fun hobby is enough of a justification for them. But in accepting the actual real world and how guns really affect it, well then maybe you might actually start to develop legislation that does something other than annoy gun owners.
And that applies to both sides of course. The same level of self-deception exists among the anti-gun crowd, and has led them to incredible levels of ignorance. That ignorance, of course, produced the assault weapons ban. And now equivalent levels of self-deception among the pro-gun crowd has led them to declare that a decline in gun violence must be directly correlated to the increase in gun ownership... for no other reason than because that is what they'd like to believe is true.
A chicking have a CCW has a better chance to prevent a rape than w/o one... cuz, you know... a gun is a great equalizer vs. the rapist.
Whoever is ready and willing to commit the crime, and therefore has their gun drawn, has more of an advantage than size could ever give.
And more to the point, the incidents of rape in which a random stranger, with or without weapon, physically forces himself on a girl, is a miniscule proportion of rape. Implied pressure from a known person is far, far more common.
And that's kind of the whole problem with the whole 'CC stops crime' thing the pro-gun side attempts... crime doesn't work that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Meanwhile, gun violence is dramatically down, gun laws have become less restrictive, and despite the crazy amount of money Bloomberg's throwing around, national legislation's dead on arrival, and we've pretty much seen the extent of state legislation.
Yeah, mention the Bloomberg money... but don't mention the NRA money coming straight from gun manufacturers.
And just keep pretending 'gun violence is down, therefore there's no problem'. Doesn't matter gun murder is 45 times higher per capita than the UK, because it's down. Just keep following the NRA method of picking out whatever number looks good in isolation, and refusing to even recognise the existance of the aggregate numbers, because those don't look good for the cause.
The debate's over, guys. One side won, one side lost, and none of it has anything to do with Britain's preference for self defense through dentistry rather than firearms.
Oh look, the end of history fallacy.
Pro-tip - demographics change, and culture changes with it. And gun owning households are a declining demographic. You might want to get some effective legislation in place now, while you wield enough influence to ensure the legislation doesn't negatively impact gun ownership in unnecessary ways.
I mean, actually look at the examples of the UK and Australia. Legal gun users are jerked around in ways that'll make an American gun owners head explode, and it's because by the time the gun bans were put in place there was no large, gun using base to effectively argue for their side.
Or you can declare permanent victory now, and then just assume that nothing will ever change again. How did that work out for Rove's permanent majority in 2000?
Seb, you really do make good points in that both sides do fall into that "self-deception" trap. But I believe the truth is somewhere between the two.
I just feel like you're disregarding that self-defense can occur successfully.
I know of 2 chicks who has CCW where one stopped a mugging already in progress... and a different one stopped an assault on her, whereas she got away long enough (read, she fought the assailent) to pulled out her gun, which her assailant fled the scene. Cops never found that fether . She swears to me that she'd be raped if she didn't have that weapon.
Yeah, yeah anecdotal evidence... sue me.
Another example to think about. My ex's uncle was an absolute gun nuts, NRA-love'n, 'Murrican red-neck. That guy has an Armory that'll make Jihadin and Frazzeled really jealous. He was also a really depressed man who killed himself by hanging himself (and not using his multitude of weapons). Weird huh?
sebster wrote: Yeah, mention the Bloomberg money... but don't mention the NRA money coming straight from gun manufacturers.
Don't forget members. I picked up a lifetime membership this year, and then threw its cost at the ILA.
And just keep pretending 'gun violence is down, therefore there's no problem'. Doesn't matter gun murder is 45 times higher per capita than the UK, because it's down. Just keep following the NRA method of picking out whatever number looks good in isolation, and refusing to even recognise the existance of the aggregate numbers, because those don't look good for the cause.
No, it's not just down. It's massively down, and continuing down. And despite the fact you've made a lot of terrible arguments in the past, I don't think you're anywhere near foolish enough to believe we'll ever get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, even with a complete ban on all private firearms.
Oh look, the end of history fallacy.
Pro-tip - demographics change, and culture changes with it. And gun owning households are a declining demographic. You might want to get some effective legislation in place now, while you wield enough influence to ensure the legislation doesn't negatively impact gun ownership in unnecessary ways.
I mean, actually look at the examples of the UK and Australia. Legal gun users are jerked around in ways that'll make an American gun owners head explode, and it's because by the time the gun bans were put in place there was no large, gun using base to effectively argue for their side.
I know you're not that familiar with the Constitution, but it's a pretty important difference in the way we do things here versus the UK or Australia. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in that document, and the Supreme Court has been quite aggressive in guaranteeing that right throughout its history. See: Heller, the Illinois concealed carry ban, etc.
Demographics can change all they like. If you think repeal of the Second Amendment is remotely likely, consider this: in the wake of Newtown, support for the Second Amendment shot to the highest percentage Pew has ever polled. That's assuming that demographic change is a negative for the right, which is, of course, false. Minorities and women - especially women - are the fastest-growing new owner demographic out there.
whembly wrote: Seb, you really do make good points in that both sides do fall into that "self-deception" trap. But I believe the truth is somewhere between the two.
I think that might be a slight re-casting of the golden mean fallacy. That fallacy normally describes that both sides have some truth about them, and the reality includes the true bits from both sides. In this case though, I think that, basically, both the pro and anti gun lobbies are basically just a bunch of donkey-caves with nothing useful to say about anything.
The truth isn't so much in between the two positions, but has nothing to do with the nonsense argued by each side. The way to the truth isn't to sift through the claims of each to find the bits of truth, but to ignore them and their nonsense entirely.
I just feel like you're disregarding that self-defense can occur successfully.
If incidents of self-defence occurred in any serious number, then we'd have some kind of measure of them. Instead we've just got anecdotes.
Now, I'm not saying they don't happen, I'm saying they're not very common, and very, very rare compared to the incidents of homicides and firearms. And as such, they don't work very well as an argument for protecting guns.
Seaward wrote: Don't forget members. I picked up a lifetime membership this year, and then threw its cost at the ILA.
Follow the conversation, please. You made a dig at Bloomberg throwing millions behind the anti-gun lobby. I thought that was funny, given the millions given to the NRA by gun manufacturers every year. Your response is to point out that gun ownership also has personal membership... which is only a valid response if no individual persons contribute to gun control lobbies, or if the existance of personal membership in the NRA somehow meant that there could be no corporate sponsorship.
As both of those things are pants on the head crazy, it becomes clear your response is basically irrelevant.
Please, try again.
No, it's not just down. It's massively down, and continuing down. And despite the fact you've made a lot of terrible arguments in the past, I don't think you're anywhere near foolish enough to believe we'll ever get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, even with a complete ban on all private firearms.
Uh huh. So when deaths by firearms decline, it must be because there's more guns out there. But when the overall rate remains 45 times higher than the UK, that must be because of the inherently murderous nature of Americans.
This is ridiculous. You post without thinking, and you have based your argument on nothing but what you'd like to believe is true.
I know you're not that familiar with the Constitution, but it's a pretty important difference in the way we do things here versus the UK or Australia.
And I know you like to think a document can be a forever protection that will hold strong, no matter how public opinion might change, but if you ever spend any time reading about the realities of politics and society, you'll learn that's incredibly naive.
"The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. "
If incidents of self-defence occurred in any serious number, then we'd have some kind of measure of them. Instead we've just got anecdotes.
Now, I'm not saying they don't happen, I'm saying they're not very common, and very, very rare compared to the incidents of homicides and firearms. And as such, they don't work very well as an argument for protecting guns.
There have been studies on defensive gun uses. The results vary depending on the study, but even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses per year are significantly higher than the total number of firearm homicides per year.
Hordini wrote: There have been studies on defensive gun uses. The results vary depending on the study, but even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses per year are significantly higher than the total number of firearm homicides per year.
There have been lots of studies. The ones that attempt to base their results on instances formally recorded in police databases produce very low numbers and are dismissed immediately by the pro-gun crowd. And the ones that simply ask the public produce insanely high numbers (almost certainly do to the problems of false positives when dealing with low incident events), and are embraced by the pro-gun crowd.
Hordini wrote: There have been studies on defensive gun uses. The results vary depending on the study, but even the lowest estimates of defensive gun uses per year are significantly higher than the total number of firearm homicides per year.
There have been lots of studies. The ones that attempt to base their results on instances formally recorded in police databases produce very low numbers and are dismissed immediately by the pro-gun crowd. And the ones that simply ask the public produce insanely high numbers (almost certainly do to the problems of false positives when dealing with low incident events), and are embraced by the pro-gun crowd.
Don't you think it's possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle? Not insanely high but not so low as to be insignificant either?
sebster wrote: Follow the conversation, please. You made a dig at Bloomberg throwing millions behind the anti-gun lobby. I thought that was funny, given the millions given to the NRA by gun manufacturers every year. Your response is to point out that gun ownership also has personal membership... which is only a valid response if no individual persons contribute to gun control lobbies, or if the existance of personal membership in the NRA somehow meant that there could be no corporate sponsorship.
As both of those things are pants on the head crazy, it becomes clear your response is basically irrelevant.
Please, try again.
Not until you bother to learn even the basics of what you're talking about, I'm afraid. The NRA gets plenty of donations from gun manufacturers, but member dues and donations still make up the bulk of its funding. Which is irrelevant, because the NRA does no lobbying. That money goes to law enforcement training programs, classes, public service projects, etc. The NRA-ILA does the lobbying, and tracing its funding will hopefully disabuse you of some of your misconceptions. Hopefully.
Furthermore, the NRA-ILA actually doesn't attack issues the way you think it does. Bloomberg's money is funny because he's throwing it at media campaigns in targeted markets. And he's throwing a lot of money at those campaigns. The ILA, by comparison? It's simply e-mailing members. That's what makes it so effective, of course. As a single-issue advocacy group with a committed base, it can marshal way more phone calls, letters, and e-mails than Bloomberg's crowd, precisely because only 4% of this country views gun control as an "important" issue, and they view it as "important" the same way people view anti-sweat shop activity as "important;" they'll respond to a poll about it, but it's not like they're going to stop shopping for discount goods at Walmart. The anti-gun movement needs to be driven by big money media campaigns because they simply don't have a public network willing to pick up the phone and call a Congressman.
Uh huh. So when deaths by firearms decline, it must be because there's more guns out there. But when the overall rate remains 45 times higher than the UK, that must be because of the inherently murderous nature of Americans.
This is ridiculous. You post without thinking, and you have based your argument on nothing but what you'd like to believe is true.
Try reading what I actually wrote next time, please. This is the same old problem with you: you pick the argument you'd like to defend against rather than the one that was actually made.
The facts are pretty simple. Gun laws have become less restrictive, and gun crime is way, way down. Do the two have anything to do with each other? Who knows? Or even cares? What we can surmise, though, is that loosening gun laws does not equal a spike in gun crime, so the anti-gun argument has zero factual basis to it.
Our murder rate is higher - and is going to remain higher - because we have drugs and gangs. I know you like to think you have hardcore career criminals, too, but let's be realistic for a while here. The 2009 FBI Gang Assessment put gangs as holding responsibility for as much as 80% of all crime in many communities across the country, and made the case that the drug trade is tangentially linked to a hell of a lot of violent crime. As long as we want drugs, we're going to have much higher violent crime rates than the rest of the industrialized world.
And I know you like to think a document can be a forever protection that will hold strong, no matter how public opinion might change, but if you ever spend any time reading about the realities of politics and society, you'll learn that's incredibly naive.
"The relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. "
George Orwell, in the Tribune, 1945.
So I provide a few historical examples - and there are many, many, many more - of the Second Amendment being protected by the courts, and you provide an Orwell quote. Intentionally or not, that's a brilliant way of putting this in a nutshell.
The problem you're facing is that public opinion isn't changing. People are in favor of universal background checks. Whoopty-fething-do, that's been the case for a long time. But that's it. That's the massive sea change you're arguing is the herald of the coming demographic doom for the Second Amendment. And I understand why, really; there's nothing else out there supporting your assertion.
Seaward wrote: Not until you bother to learn even the basics of what you're talking about, I'm afraid. The NRA gets plenty of donations from gun manufacturers, but member dues and donations still make up the bulk of its funding.
And so, to repeat myself again... in a conversation that went; 'Some rich guy gave the anti-gun movement lots of money' 'So, large donors give money to the pro-gun side'
Your subsequent response 'but most NRA money comes from members' doesn't change one fething thing about the fact that there are also lots of large donors, like Bloomberg is to the anti-gun lobby, which makes your effort at calling out Bloomberg alone a piece of nonsense.
Which is irrelevant, because the NRA does no lobbying. That money goes to law enforcement training programs, classes, public service projects, etc. The NRA-ILA does the lobbying,
Distinction without difference, and all miles beyond the point - for your criticism of Bloomberg to make sense, there would have to be no large donors on the pro-gun side, but there is and as such, your point is nonsense. Moving on...
Try reading what I actually wrote next time, please. This is the same old problem with you: you pick the argument you'd like to defend against rather than the one that was actually made.
It's sad when I can read your underlying assumptions and comment on them, and all you can do is look dumbfounded that anyone could form such conclusions. You need to just think a bit about your own beliefs, start to become aware of your own assumptions.
Anyhow, you said that you'll never get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, which begged the conclusion that there is something in America other than the easy access to tools that are really good at murder that makes people more murderous. I commented on that. You looked stunned, as if such a thing could never be conceived of, let alone an implied point within your answer.
The facts are pretty simple. Gun laws have become less restrictive, and gun crime is way, way down.
Those facts are pretty simple. In fact, to present them as the only facts is not just simple but simplistic. Hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic. Which explains why your conclusion is also hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic.
Anyhow, here's some other facts. The murder rates in the developing world are in decline everywhere. Having more material wealth, more education, more effective policing and a bunch of other things just does that. Welcome to the happy history of improving human societies. To see them in decline across the globe and think the cause for that is something unique to the US is incredibly stupid.
And yes, while they are in decline in the US, they remain much, much higher than in the rest of the developed world. You have equal or more material wealth, equivalent public education, and police that are on a par with the rest of us. And yet, all that murder. And yet you refuse to consider that having tools which make it easier to commit murder might result in more of it. Its incredible. Truly incredible.
Our murder rate is higher - and is going to remain higher - because we have drugs and gangs. I know you like to think you have hardcore career criminals, too, but let's be realistic for a while here. The 2009 FBI Gang Assessment put gangs as holding responsibility for as much as 80% of all crime in many communities across the country, and made the case that the drug trade is tangentially linked to a hell of a lot of violent crime.
Only works if you assume a direct correlation between crime and murder, which is nonsense. Given I've previously shown you the FBI numbers on murders related to gang violence, it's not only nonsense, it's wilful ignorance on your part.
As long as we want drugs, we're going to have much higher violent crime rates than the rest of the industrialized world.
Yeah... because the rest of the world has no interest in drugs. I mean, fething hell, this is absurd. You really just are not thinking about this at all, are you?
So I provide a few historical examples - and there are many, many, many more - of the Second Amendment being protected by the courts, and you provide an Orwell quote. Intentionally or not, that's a brilliant way of putting this in a nutshell.
Did you read the quote? I'm not convinced you read the quote. If you did, I'm afraid you didn't understand the quote. Because to just repeat your claim that the courts have found in favour of gun ownership, as if that was somehow a seperate existance to public opinion means you completely misses Orwell's point.
The courts, despite your naivety, are simply a reflection of public opinion. Not a crude, automatic reflection of whatever 50%+1 of the population might think at any given time, but ultimately, where public opinion goes over the course of history, so too will the courts. Maybe the courts will follow, maybe even follow by a generation, and maybe they'll lead. But the idea of objective, considered judges presiding without regard to the social values of the time is something you really should have stopped believing by the time you put your adult pants on.
The problem you're facing is that public opinion isn't changing. People are in favor of universal background checks. Whoopty-fething-do, that's been the case for a long time. But that's it. That's the massive sea change you're arguing is the herald of the coming demographic doom for the Second Amendment. And I understand why, really; there's nothing else out there supporting your assertion.
Anyhow, your claim that the numbers aren't changing is inane - "it hasn't changed and therefore it never will" is the reasoning of five year olds... and also the GOP circa 2004.
sebster wrote: And so, to repeat myself again... in a conversation that went;
'Some rich guy gave the anti-gun movement lots of money'
'So, large donors give money to the pro-gun side'
Your subsequent response 'but most NRA money comes from members' doesn't change one fething thing about the fact that there are also lots of large donors, like Bloomberg is to the anti-gun lobby, which makes your effort at calling out Bloomberg alone a piece of nonsense.
Until you understand the NRA/NRA-ILA split, and what the cash is used for and how it's raised in both cases, you're absolutely right.
The problem is, once you actually know what the feth you're talking about, you're left with a pretty big difference.
It's sad when I can read your underlying assumptions and comment on them, and all you can do is look dumbfounded that anyone could form such conclusions. You need to just think a bit about your own beliefs, start to become aware of your own assumptions.
The trouble is, sebster, you argued against a phantom. You argued against a point I wasn't making. I don't know how much simpler I can say it. I'm not even sure it's worth trying, at the moment, because your rage is going to be stronger than any amount of logic.
Anyhow, you said that you'll never get anywhere close to the UK's per capita murder rate, which begged the conclusion that there is something in America other than the easy access to tools that are really good at murder that makes people more murderous. I commented on that. You looked stunned, as if such a thing could never be conceived of, let alone an implied point within your answer.
No, I made it pretty clear that there was something other than guns that makes Americans more murderous.
Those facts are pretty simple. In fact, to present them as the only facts is not just simple but is in fact simplistic. Hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic. Which explains why your conclusion is also hopelessly, ridiculously simplistic.
Anytime you've got contradictory statistics, bucko, you're welcome to post them. In the meantime, watching you flounder is amusing.
And yes, while they are in decline in the US, they remain much, much higher than in the rest of the developed world. You have equal or more material wealth, equivalent public education, and police that are on a par with the rest of us. And yet, all that murder.
And I've explained why, many times. As have numerous law enforcement agencies.
Only works if you assume a direct correlation between crime and murder, which is nonsense. Given I've previously shown you the FBI numbers on murders related to gang violence, it's not only nonsense, it's wilful ignorance on your part.
No, you showed that you're incapable of reading statistics, and very, very capable of jumping to wild conclusions, such as "if someone killed an acquaintance, that removes them automatically from the 'involved in crime' category." It was pretty funny, but not particularly helpful. Or factual.
Yeah... because the rest of the world has no interest in drugs. I mean, fething hell, this is absurd. You really just are not thinking about this at all, are you?
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you're genuinely this uneducated about how drugs are trafficked in the US. I don't know which it is, so you tell me. Do you need a primer on American drug trafficking and how much violence attends it compared to the rest of the world? Do you really need me to go through this with you? Are you genuinely not capable of making any distinctions between how things work in countries like, for example, Australia, with a population smaller than some of our states, and how they work over here? Different laws, different culture? No? None of this has ever been considered by you before?
Sad.
Did you read the quote? I'm not convinced you read the quote. If you did, I'm afraid you didn't understand the quote. Because to just repeat your claim that the courts have found in favour of gun ownership, as if that was somehow a seperate existance to public opinion means you completely misses Orwell's point.
The courts, despite your naivety, are simply a reflection of public opinion. Not a crude, automatic reflection of whatever 50%+1 of the population might think at any given time, but ultimately, where public opinion goes over the course of history, so too will the courts. Maybe the courts will follow, maybe even follow by a generation, and maybe they'll lead. But the idea of objective, considered judges presiding without regard to the social values of the time is something you really should have stopped believing by the time you put your adult pants on.
So for over two hundred years, the courts have been constant on the Second Amendment, but that's all going to change because George Orwell said so. No, that's not a loopy argument at all.
Anyhow, your claim that the numbers aren't changing is inane - "it hasn't changed and therefore it never will" is the reasoning of five year olds... and also the GOP circa 2004.
They aren't changing. You're welcome to look up any major poll you like.
Seaward wrote: Until you understand the NRA/NRA-ILA split, and what the cash is used for and how it's raised in both cases, you're absolutely right.
The money could be given to your left butt cheek for all it matters, the simple fact is that there are large donors on both sides, and as such your effort to sound out Bloomberg alone was inane.
No, I made it pretty clear that there was something other than guns that makes Americans more murderous.
And that thing, as we've established in previous threads, is a terrible explanation.
Anytime you've got contradictory statistics, bucko, you're welcome to post them. In the meantime, watching you flounder is amusing.
See, there's no content there. Just more patented Seaward inane bickering. You need to actually put some substance into your posts.
Anyhow, to try and drag some kind of substance out of your pissy little efforts at debate, let's look at what stats you might deem contradictory.
Do you dispute either of the following statements; 1) Murder rates across the developed world are in decline 2) Murder rates in the US are much higher than than elsewhere in the developed world.
If you don't dispute either of these, then your conclusion of 'guns have no effect or a reducing effect on the murder rate' is complete bunk. And if you do dispute them, well then sure, I can produce those 'contradictory statistics', bucko.
And I've explained why, many times.
Yes, but your explanation is stupid. Very stupid. As such, those of use that don't want to accept very stupid explanations are forced to go looking for other explanations.
No, you showed that you're incapable of reading statistics, and very, very capable of jumping to wild conclusions, such as "if someone killed an acquaintance, that removes them automatically from the 'involved in crime' category." It was pretty funny, but not particularly helpful. Or factual.
Oh dear. Seriously? That's your effort to keep pretending that murder is all about drugs and crime? fething that?
Yes, it is true that some portion of murder of friends and family will be crime related. But, of course, an assertion that a large portion of it would be, all in order to continue pretending that murder is all about crime is, frankly, flying rodent gak crazy loco.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you're genuinely this uneducated about how drugs are trafficked in the US. I don't know which it is, so you tell me. Do you need a primer on American drug trafficking and how much violence attends it compared to the rest of the world?
And are you really so fething stupid as to think that violence exists in isolation of the culture around it? The gun culture. That somehow, through the magic of Seaward's loose grip on reality, that the rest of developed world has created a kinder, gentler breed of drug gangs, that don't use more violence just because instead they'd rather talk about things?
Or do you think that just possibly, when lots of places in the world have drug trades full of seasoned, professional criminals, and one has a lot more gun violence than the other... and that happens to be the place that's got lots and lots of guns... that maybe the guns have something to do with it?
So for over two hundred years, the courts have been constant on the Second Amendment, but that's all going to change because George Orwell said so. No, that's not a loopy argument at all.
Are you honestly sitting there and saying that constitutional interpretation has never changed? I mean fething hell, read a book.
They aren't changing. You're welcome to look up any major poll you like.
Holy gak. I point out that fallacy that just because a thing hasn't changed, doesn't mean it won't change later, and you reply with 'it hasn't changed'. That's remarkable.
This is ridiculous. You have the intelligence to type in to a computer, but you type stuff like that?
Actually, no. You know what's more ridiculous? Me responding to you. You aren't trying to make an argument, you're just saying 'nuh uh' with the first piece of stupid crap that pops in to your head. It doesn't matter that is makes no sense, it doesn't matter that you don't even need to argue half of it, you're just going to, because you don't understand how thinking works.
feth it, whatever, you don't want to think, and I can't make you.
Quite apart from whatever might be the case in Americaland, in the UK we are quite happy and safe without guns.
Would i like to shoot targets and things more easily? Yes, i would love to. Do i think we should have the same access to firearms as the US? Hell no. Would i relax our firearm laws at all? No.
This whole argument about a rise by 40% in UK gun crime is Not represented very well. The lower the number of deaths the higher the percentage increases. For example. 1 person dies the next year 2 people die. On paper thats a Massive 50%.
Im happy we don't allow Guns. The UK is a much safer place when the majority can settle a dispute with a fist rather than a hand gun.
sebster wrote: The money could be given to your left butt cheek for all it matters, the simple fact is that there are large donors on both sides, and as such your effort to sound out Bloomberg alone was inane.
And I'm afraid we're back to "you don't know what you're talking about" land. There's only one guy single-handedly bankrolling campaigns around the gun issue in a variety of states at the moment. It ain't anybody associated with the NRA or the multitude of other Second Amendment organizations. Nor is it the much-touted gun manufacturers.
And that thing, as we've established in previous threads, is a terrible explanation.
That it conflates with your fiction does not make it a terrible explanation, I'm afraid. Simply terrible for your argument.
Do you dispute either of the following statements;
1) Murder rates across the developed world are in decline
2) Murder rates in the US are much higher than than elsewhere in the developed world.
If you don't dispute either of these, then your conclusion of 'guns have no effect or a reducing effect on the murder rate' is complete bunk. And if you do dispute them, well then sure, I can produce those 'contradictory statistics', bucko.
I swear I'm only typing this one more time, Sebster. I'm begging you to actually read it this time.
Whether or not guns have a reducing effect on the murder rate is irrelevant. What we know is that the anti-gunner argument of, "Liberalizing gun laws makes gun crime go up!" is false.
I don't know how to say it any more simply than that.
Yes, but your explanation is stupid. Very stupid. As such, those of use that don't want to accept very stupid explanations are forced to go looking for other explanations.
See above re: terrible explanations and your own private fiction.
Oh dear. Seriously? That's your effort to keep pretending that murder is all about drugs and crime? fething that?
All murder? No. Most murder? Yep.
Yes, it is true that some portion of murder of friends and family will be crime related. But, of course, an assertion that a large portion of it would be, all in order to continue pretending that murder is all about crime is, frankly, flying rodent gak crazy loco.
Ah, but we're not talking about family and friends, which you would be aware of if you actually read what was written. As I recognize that's a lost cause, I'll simply say it again: your assertion that murders of an "acquaintance" stemming from "a dispute or argument" could not possibly involve people engaged in criminal enterprise on a regular basis is laughable.
And are you really so fething stupid as to think that violence exists in isolation of the culture around it? The gun culture. That somehow, through the magic of Seaward's loose grip on reality, that the rest of developed world has created a kinder, gentler breed of drug gangs, that don't use more violence just because instead they'd rather talk about things?
Or do you think that just possibly, when lots of places in the world have drug trades full of seasoned, professional criminals, and one has a lot more gun violence than the other... and that happens to be the place that's got lots and lots of guns... that maybe the guns have something to do with it?
This is where your argument falls apart, unfortunately. Our violent crime rates in general are higher than yours. Not simply gun crime, but all violent crime. I suppose we could blame that on guns, too? Or maybe, just maybe, we simply have a more violent criminal culture due to a whole host of factors.
Are you honestly sitting there and saying that constitutional interpretation has never changed? I mean fething hell, read a book.
I'm saying it hasn't changed in any significant fashion on the Second Amendment, and your claims of being able to predict the future notwithstanding, there's no indication it will.
Holy gak. I point out that fallacy that just because a thing hasn't changed, doesn't mean it won't change later, and you reply with 'it hasn't changed'. That's remarkable.
I consider pointing to the historical evidence that belies your claim - once again, I presume, derived from some sort of crystal ball apparatus - about what will happen in the future, evidence that directly contradicts it, to be pretty relevant.
Honestly, saying, "Despite no supporting evidence right now, I can tell you what will happen in the future!" isn't exactly the high-minded debate you claim it is.
Easy E wrote: Mine are better because they get me paid!
I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?
To be honest, I always try and keep clear. Well most of the time
Whenever the subject comes up with people I know, I defend America. Their country their rules. Remember the NHS debates a couple of years ago with right-wingers attacking the NHS because of Obama care? Remember how mad Brits were? That's what I say to people.
Funnily enough, whenever I defend America on this board, I sometimes get attacked....by American posters!
Easy E wrote:Mine are better because they get me paid!
I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?
Not really sure, you could ask the same for British people being invested in America's gun laws, or Americans being invested in Canada's health program, etc. Etc. I guess we all just love to stick our noses in other peoples business
cerbrus2 wrote:This whole argument about a rise by 40% in UK gun crime is Not represented very well. The lower the number of deaths the higher the percentage increases. For example. 1 person dies the next year 2 people die. On paper thats a Massive 50%.
I'm happy we don't allow Guns. The UK is a much safer place when the majority can settle a dispute with a fist rather than a hand gun.
Safer for the criminal, yes. He has nothing to worry about. You on the other hand do. He could still have brass knuckles, a knife, a bat, or any other number of things that could kill you, no bullets required. And this is a criminal, he's not going to toss you a knife for a fair fight, if he wants to stab you he will. Even in a fist fight he could kill you easily.
I realize neither side is going to budge at this point, but do you guys really want no option to protect yourselves? Seriously? After what happened to that model sculptor who got stabbed and beaten and the horrible incident with the soldier, I would've thought you guys would at least begin to understand where the "gun crowd" is coming from here. And that's just really publicized ones, I'm sure you guys have plenty more beatings and murders that don't get international attention. Would you at least want pepper spray or a tazer, or are you guys against that too? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smart arse.
I'm sorry but the idea that a person would want no option to protect themselves whatsoever absolutely amazes me. I guess this is how you guys must feel hearing us say "I wouldn't live anywhere where I couldn't use a gun for self defense."
MrMoustaffa wrote: Safer for the criminal, yes. He has nothing to worry about. You on the other hand do. He could still have brass knuckles, a knife, a bat, or any other number of things that could kill you, no bullets required.
Wait, what stops you from having these things?
Doesn't everyone in the UK have a sword cane or umbrella? I thought it came with the accent and NHS card?
Btw why are we bouncing back mostly to US Laws. I thought this was a big issue with UK.....and curious on where this bill stand......making progress...dead in the water...still garnering support?
Even in the roughest towns and areas, you are safer when there are no guns. It takes a lot to beat someone to death. And because we have no guns, assault with other weapons (such as a knife) is seen much more seriously.
You dont have to carry anything for protection because the odds of you being attacked are minute.
If eveyone at the bpston marathon was carrying a couple of uzis would that have protected them? If the two men hacked apart asentioned abpve had been armed would it have saved them from aomepne who jumps them with a large bladed weapon?
Prevention is better than cure, and most of the rest of the western world has gone the same way yet aociety hasnt collapsed into an orgy of blood as armed criminals lord it over the disarmed public.
Easy E wrote:Mine are better because they get me paid!
I'm really interested in why so many Gun folks from the US are so invested in the UKs gun laws? Care to share some insight?
Not really sure, you could ask the same for British people being invested in America's gun laws, or Americans being invested in Canada's health program, etc. Etc. I guess we all just love to stick our noses in other peoples business
cerbrus2 wrote:This whole argument about a rise by 40% in UK gun crime is Not represented very well. The lower the number of deaths the higher the percentage increases. For example. 1 person dies the next year 2 people die. On paper thats a Massive 50%.
I'm happy we don't allow Guns. The UK is a much safer place when the majority can settle a dispute with a fist rather than a hand gun.
Safer for the criminal, yes. He has nothing to worry about. You on the other hand do. He could still have brass knuckles, a knife, a bat, or any other number of things that could kill you, no bullets required. And this is a criminal, he's not going to toss you a knife for a fair fight, if he wants to stab you he will. Even in a fist fight he could kill you easily.
I realize neither side is going to budge at this point, but do you guys really want no option to protect yourselves? Seriously? After what happened to that model sculptor who got stabbed and beaten and the horrible incident with the soldier, I would've thought you guys would at least begin to understand where the "gun crowd" is coming from here. And that's just really publicized ones, I'm sure you guys have plenty more beatings and murders that don't get international attention. Would you at least want pepper spray or a tazer, or are you guys against that too? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be a smart arse.
I'm sorry but the idea that a person would want no option to protect themselves whatsoever absolutely amazes me. I guess this is how you guys must feel hearing us say "I wouldn't live anywhere where I couldn't use a gun for self defense."
Sorry, but that's one of the best argumemts against gun control as far as I'm concerned (along with the rest if the UK).
Think about it this way - if I start carrying a gun what do you think a criminal will do in response?
In fact, the criminal is likely to own i gun first...
So would you rather be mugged by someone using their fists, or a gun?
How many people die in the US as a result of muggings, robberies, botched burgularies and the like? In the UK it's so small as to be effectively zero.
In addition to which it's pretty much impossible to massacre a classroom of schoolchildren with only a knife. It's impossible for your child to kill themselves with your brass knuckles.
Btw why are we bouncing back mostly to US Laws. I thought this was a big issue with UK.....and curious on where this bill stand......making progress...dead in the water...still garnering support?
It's not a big issue in the UK and it's not a bill, this thread was started as a result of an online limited choice poll carried out by a right-leaning UK newspaper.
motyak wrote: , "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
Is this actually happening more often than pre ban?
Yes, though the ban was incidental. The main reason for the change was unchecked immigration while had the dual nightmare of importing people from countries where life is generally cheaper and allowing guns importation to proliferate.
This is not to say that immigrant = gun wielding fanatic, gun crime is rare but out of the millions who have come to the UK if only a tiny percentage come from societies where carrying a gu and using on just about anyone is an unfortunate fact of life then there will be problems. The vast majority of shootings are ethnic on ethnic and don't make the press easily.
However the kneejerk handgun ban after Dunblane hasn't helped. The ban was there to give instant credibility for Tony Balir at the dawn of his tenure at the expense of lawful gun owners and the public at large. The Uk used to have the mosrt rerlaxed gun laws in the western world but had very rigorous self policing by gun clubs. The general principle is that you can haver a gun, even a fully automatic but first you have to have the responsibility to use it. All gun ownership has long been registered but back in the day to get a gun other than as a farmer one had to convince the gun clubs who in turn would recommend to the police. The ideal, workable in practice was simple, to get a gun you had to convince other gunowners you weren't a trigger happy douchbag. As this system needed to be workable for the gun owners to keep their collections they were hard to please.
"Yes you can join our club, here get a handle on this unloaded gun, but to have a loaded gun you have to convince us you have 0% ATTITUDE PROBLEM, this will take time. We can start when you are ready."
This golden age of gun ownership ended in 1987 when Michael Ryan a gun owner flipped went postal and shot a lot of people in Hungerford with legally held automatic weaponry including an M-16 and an AK-47 copy. While to the credit of the gun owning public Ryan was a solitary case, up until this point large scale ownership of automatic weapons in the general public was possible and passed without serious incident.
However Hungerford raised questions and rthe government could find no reason why fully automatci weaponry should be legal in the UK. So fully automatidc weapons were withdrawn but people could still shoot single shot weapons.
Next came Dunblane. the newly elected government made the gun clubs take the blame for Dunblane, however in actual fact the system had worked, at least from their end. The local gun clubs has repeated recommended, even begged the police to withdraw Hamiltons gun licences, but they had failed to act. The result was a spin fest a catchy song and some rallies and a near total ban on guns. The Labour govenment wanted a total ban but could not due to agriculture so they went with what we have today andf unworkably draconian and at first badly worded gun law. under the initial legislation a definition loophole allowed people to still legally own a long barreled .45 "Dirty Harry" under a shotgun licence.
Frankly the result is a mess while guns proliferate legal gun owners have to jump through a number of insanely complex expensive and inconvenient hoops, which do very little to stop the actual proliferation of guns.
The final nail in the coffin is the over-regulated gun clubs, which used to be places people with an interest in firearms could go and have the attitude removed from them so they could carry. They no longer can afford to have that function due to liabilities anf gun control dogmas which overly target the lawful gun owning community. So people who like guns don't get the maturity to use them properly and sensibly helping the UK has turned from a country with relaxed gun laws and low gun crime to one with the very strictest gun laws short of an outright ban, abut ironically amongst the highest gun crime rates in Europe.
Seaward wrote: Ah, but we're not talking about family and friends, which you would be aware of if you actually read what was written. As I recognize that's a lost cause, I'll simply say it again: your assertion that murders of an "acquaintance" stemming from "a dispute or argument" could not possibly involve people engaged in criminal enterprise on a regular basis is laughable.
Did you even read the table? Or do you read things and just ignore/forget them just forget things when you they threaten the worldview you've put up around you?
The FBI figures state the number of murders committed as part of a felony. Including those suspected of being related to a felony, it was 1,876, out of the total of 12,664. 14.81%.
That's the number that per your grand theory accounts for 'most' of the murder rate. 14.81%.
You are fething wrong. Completely fething. And totally fething ignorant about it.
You do not know what you are talkign about. In order to defend guns you have invented a ridiculous theory, and the real world has shown you completely fething wrong.
So fething stop it.
This is where your argument falls apart, unfortunately. Our violent crime rates in general are higher than yours. Not simply gun crime, but all violent crime.
In terms of the rate of assaults per capita, New Zealand, Portugal, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Sweden, and Scotland are all greater than you. And yet each has a much, much lower murder rate.
In terms of robberies, the UK, Spain and Belgium are all higher than you. Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada and Italy are all roughly on par with you. And yet your murder rate is many times greater than all of them.
Your theories do not match the statistical realities. You are wrong. fething accept it.
I'm saying it hasn't changed in any significant fashion on the Second Amendment, and your claims of being able to predict the future notwithstanding, there's no indication it will.
You claimed that gun rights are protected because of the constitution. I pointed out that any realistic study of politics doesn't just assume that because it's presently written on paper that it will at all future times be protected. Society does change, and when it does the political will to maintain rules, even those written in the constitution, can drop away.
You have now drifted away from your original claim that the constitution was a protection, to the idea that because it's been upheld so far, it will forever more. Due to arrogance or ignorance, or likely some combination of the two, you didn't even notice that you'd given up your original claim, but whatever.
Honestly, saying, "Despite no supporting evidence right now, I can tell you what will happen in the future!" isn't exactly the high-minded debate you claim it is.
I've explained my evidence - the long term trend is towards a smaller and smaller proportion of homes in the US owning guns. That you remain ignorant of that point says a lot, really.
HHmmmm some here a really anti gun. I'm curious would that attitude change if you as an individual were beating within an inch of your life or a love one getting hammered on for not giving up wallet/purses, watches and jewelry. If something of that nature happen to you within your circle of friends would you still have the same view? If your friends start carrying weapons for self defense will you still consider him/her your friends. Would you talk them out of it? I live in a very good neighborhood. I own my weapons because one. I'm comfortable with them. I do enjoy them on the range. I do enjoy giving classes on proper handling of weapons on and off range. I do enjoy giving advices on for first time buyers. It also gives me a since of security. One that develope on deployments.
Also since being married to a woman that has the ability to De-nats, deny, bring up charges on fraud on applications to be a US citizen, or ask for additional informations that clients are not willing to put forward or let it come out. She has a long list of people that do not like her. Met two of them already over time. Once in uniform and once out of uniform. Needless to say it was comedy gold till threats were made at the wife....never ever Google my wife name.
IN regard to someone beating me up/or someone i knew. It is then up to the law system (criminal law) to deal with the perpetrator , I know this isn't much but if i don't have faith in the law system I don't have much faith in the society I'm living in.
If my friends start carrying weapons for defence . I would not feel comfortable around them. If someone feels the need to carry a weapon on them in this country they either have something SERIOUSLY wrong with them or have suffered a significant trauma, both of which would lead me to not feel safe around them, particularly if i'm going drinking with them. Most people who carry knives tend to be met with derision or suspicion.
Jihadin wrote: HHmmmm some here a really anti gun. I'm curious would that attitude change if you as an individual were beating within an inch of your life or a love one getting hammered on for not giving up wallet/purses, watches and jewelry. If something of that nature happen to you within your circle of friends would you still have the same view?
I know people who've been in car accidents, and even one person who was in the terror attack on Bali, and the Mumbai terror attacks hit India a few weeks before I went there. Those events never changed my willingness to drive a car, or to travel overseas. Because, as much as it can be challenging, it's important not to let personal experience and single events over-ride our understanding of probabilities.
If your friends start carrying weapons for self defense will you still consider him/her your friends. Would you talk them out of it?
It depends why they owned a gun, and why they carried it around with them. If they said they owned a gun because guns are fething cool and love to go target shooting, all I'd do is ask them if I can come with them some time.
If they owned that gun because their ex-partner was complete nut and they genuinely feared for their lives and the lives of their children, well then I'd consider that a pretty good reason.
But if it was because they thought at some point an evil stranger might attack them on the street or in their home, I'd tell them that gun is far more likely to get used in a heated family argument, or in a suicide attempt, than to defend himself and his family against some random stranger who wants to do him harm. If that didn't make an impression, well whatever, it wouldn't affect our friendship and I'd still hang around with them. I'm not their mother.
Sebser and Bullick....what's you imprssion on me. I don't C&C nor willing to apply for one. I know my limitation mainly due to the type of drugs I'm on. Home defense is what I'm for. I will try to the best of my ability not to kill anyone. I do not need to add more to my mental burden. I will though incapacitate the aggressor to "non threat". I will take you out for shooting because its fun. Type of male bonding, and beers after wards. I try t angle yu towards the M1 because that sucker is fun to shoot
Jihadin wrote: Sebser and Bullick....what's you imprssion on me. I don't C&C nor willing to apply for one. I know my limitation mainly due to the type of drugs I'm on. Home defense is what I'm for. I will try to the best of my ability not to kill anyone. I do not need to add more to my mental burden. I will though incapacitate the aggressor to "non threat". I will take you out for shooting because its fun. Type of male bonding, and beers after wards. I try t angle yu towards the M1 because that sucker is fun to shoot
Sounds pretty cool to me.
And I know people probably make a lot of assumptions about me because I end up arguing with the pro-gun set in these threads, but I'm not actually anti-gun. I think guns are great fun. I just argue against a lot of the myths that surround guns.
Jihadin wrote: HHmmmm some here a really anti gun. I'm curious would that attitude change if you as an individual were beating within an inch of your life or a love one getting hammered on for not giving up wallet/purses, watches and jewelry. If something of that nature happen to you within your circle of friends would you still have the same view?
As already mentioned, if I was carrying a gun in this situation, then the chances are very high indeed that the criminal is also doing so, effectively escalating the whole position and changing a dangerous but probably not life-threatening situation into a potentially deadly one - in which the criminal probably still has the upper hand.
Knife crime has been in the news in the UK over the past few years due to a small number of high-profile stabbings (still extremely small compared to US murder rates) and one set of figures is very clear - the individuals most likely to be stabbed are those who carry a knife. Has anyone done any research into the murder rates of gun-owners in the US? There's been a lot of talk about how carrying a gun prevented muggings and robberies - but does it also change your chances of actually being killed? Isn't it likely that in at least some instances an attempted mugging or robbery will become a murder when the victim pulls a gun and the criminal kills them in reaction?
In Britain the overwhelming point of view is that there's no problem with having very strict gun controls because we don't need guns. Partly this is because we look at America and (rightly or wrongly) see what happens when there are widely available firearms. America has a whole host of historical and cultural reasons for having a very pro-firearms lobby - non of those reasons apply in the UK. The price in lives the US pays for this has no balancing factor for the UK.
Jihadin wrote: Sebser and Bullick....what's you imprssion on me. I don't C&C nor willing to apply for one. I know my limitation mainly due to the type of drugs I'm on. Home defense is what I'm for. I will try to the best of my ability not to kill anyone. I do not need to add more to my mental burden. I will though incapacitate the aggressor to "non threat". I will take you out for shooting because its fun. Type of male bonding, and beers after wards. I try t angle yu towards the M1 because that sucker is fun to shoot
I think jihadin that you live in a very different world to the one sebster and I inhabit. If you want guns for home defence that sounds fine to me, I wouldn't like to live in an area i felt i needed one , but if it makes you feel better, why not?
What drugs are you on? I gotta say they have wiorked well, you don't seem to be a raging ball of anger like you were a month or two ago
I don't think I'd like to shoot an M1 , I'd probably either shoot the ceiling in or accidentally shoot someone (I have no idea of the recoil to expect having only fired a centre fired low cal rifle.
You be safe Bullick I keep very good care of my weapons. Beside be shooting bu=owling pins with the 30 cal. the M4 we be litaerally plinking,I agree with Sebster. Ti each is to their own on what their oerception on a weapon is. I for one go to fun end of the spectrum but I do know very very very rarely that I would go to self defense and then try to avoid escalating it.. Hence I go for the foot of knee cap shoot. all chain of thoughts pretty much desist and if they continue. The I go for the weapon wrist and then kick the weapon away,,,,and then I zip cuff and render first aid,,,,,,after TAPE HIS MOUTH . As for my posting the type of drugs I;m on. well lets say its a lot, Chemo, PTSD, Pain meds, also mood meds,,,anti anviety meds....celexa...3 pills a day 10 milligram a pill at once, steroid shoots,,,,,,well hell....its a couple sheet full.....and they're still tying to find the right mix to rtry to keep me normal. Manny and DJJones caught me when my mix was wrong yesterday plus two beers to
You know, what's the point? All of your supposed issues have been addressed countless times, by myself and others. You're unwilling to change from your entrenched position of ignorance, so why even bother? I'm just going to get more Orwell quotes and assurances that, despite all the evidence, all the many, many, many court cases, all the polling, the prediction of the near future that you've pulled out of a bodily orifice will absolutely come true. You'll rage, get a couple warnings, and we'll be right back where we started when the next thread pops up. What's the point? Back to ignore for you.
Seaward wrote: You know, what's the point? All of your supposed issues have been addressed countless times, by myself and others. You're unwilling to change from your entrenched position of ignorance, so why even bother? I'm just going to get more Orwell quotes and assurances that, despite all the evidence, all the many, many, many court cases, all the polling, the prediction of the near future that you've pulled out of a bodily orifice will absolutely come true. You'll rage, get a couple warnings, and we'll be right back where we started when the next thread pops up. What's the point? Back to ignore for you.
You claim that most homicides are crime related. I point out that only 14.81% were, as per the FBI's own figures.
You claim that the high murder rate in the US has to be seen in the context of the generally high overall violent crime rate. I point out that violent crime in the US is about standard for the OECD, with many developing countries having much higher rates of violent crime overall, as per UNODC figures.
In response, you address none of that. You don't concede you were wrong and reconsider some or all of your argument, you don't even attempt to make up some new nonsense to justify your claims. You just ignore all that and attempt some kind of vague, pissy little complaint about me in general.
Sanguinius5817 wrote: I have a compound bow and arrows, no license needed, just a bit of skill. I would rather have that than easily obtained handguns
Do you hit moving targets with your bow? Are these moving targets coming at you with knives, baseball bats, guns, etc... Are you sitting in the trees or brush when this moving target is on the move? If you answered yes to all three of these questions, congratulations General Zaroff will be getting in contact with you shortly.
Further, do you expect grandma to have to defened herself with a bow and arrow in her bedroom, in the middle of the night when startled awake?
lol ,I had to look up what that was. I think the name " people with the large tipi flaps" sounds a little raunchy, but it's probably just my diistorted mind in action.
I'll change it to; she probably has alot of practice chasing injuns off her ranch
purplefood wrote: I don't think my grandma could do that with a gun...
Actually could many people do that?
yeah...actually thats very common... my 80+ year old grandma can shoot anything 12g or smaller without discomfort.
thats the whole point of guns, now older weaker people are not at the mercy of stronger/younger criminals.
with proper training anyone can effectively use a gun to defend themselves, most of the time it doesnt require fireing the gun even.
tens of thousands of people use guns for self dence in canada evey year, 40,000-80,000 including animal and human defence. Its much higher in the states.
Frazzled wrote: Further, do you expect grandma to have to defened herself with a bow and arrow in her bedroom, in the middle of the night when startled awake?
Fraz, that's ridiculous! I expect her to be protected by Weiner Dogs!
Frazzled wrote: Further, do you expect grandma to have to defened herself with a bow and arrow in her bedroom, in the middle of the night when startled awake?
Fraz, that's ridiculous! I expect her to be protected by Weiner Dogs!
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
/sarcasm
I thought that when you took away peoples ability to protect their stuff with guns, only the criminals will have guns and so the crime rate goes up :confused:
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
/sarcasm
Well there's nothing quite like misrepresenting the counter arguments eh? Noone is arguing that more guns means more crime, the level of overall crime is far more complex an issue. The indisputable fact is that less guns means less gun crime in comparable cultures.
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
/sarcasm
I thought that when you took away peoples ability to protect their stuff with guns, only the criminals will have guns and so the crime rate goes up :confused:
Which is why the NRA and gun snatching politicians are both full of crap.
Americans seemed to have forgotten one of the primary reasons for the 2nd. If a nation is well armed it has less of a need for a large standing army. The things a large standing military is really good at is driving a nation into debt and increasing the power of government. The 2nd wasn't put into place to fight tanks with ar15s, it was put into place to defund the tanks because they are not needed in a nation that has more guns than citizens, oceans to the easy and west, and friendly neighbors to the north and south.
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
/sarcasm
I thought that when you took away peoples ability to protect their stuff with guns, only the criminals will have guns and so the crime rate goes up :confused:
Which is why the NRA and gun snatching politicians are both full of crap.
Americans seemed to have forgotten one of the primary reasons for the 2nd. If a nation is well armed it has less of a need for a large standing army. The things a large standing military is really good at is driving a nation into debt and increasing the power of government. The 2nd wasn't put into place to fight tanks with ar15s, it was put into place to defund the tanks because they are not needed in a nation that has more guns than citizens, oceans to the easy and west, and friendly neighbors to the north and south.
That's true... but, we really don't have a "large standing army" with respect to our population.
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
/sarcasm
I thought that when you took away peoples ability to protect their stuff with guns, only the criminals will have guns and so the crime rate goes up :confused:
Which is why the NRA and gun snatching politicians are both full of crap.
Americans seemed to have forgotten one of the primary reasons for the 2nd. If a nation is well armed it has less of a need for a large standing army. The things a large standing military is really good at is driving a nation into debt and increasing the power of government. The 2nd wasn't put into place to fight tanks with ar15s, it was put into place to defund the tanks because they are not needed in a nation that has more guns than citizens, oceans to the easy and west, and friendly neighbors to the north and south.
That's true... but, we really don't have a "large standing army" with respect to our population.
We just have a lot of expensive toys.
The toys were not available in 1776, but one thing has remained consistent over thousands of years of human history. Maintaining a powerful military in peacetime is expensive. It really doesn't matter how military spending changes over time, what matters is the following is what the founders were trying to avoid.
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
sorry that makes too much sense, and puts the burden of work on the elected officials instead of convention scapegoats. Everyone knows that more guns = more crime is an absolute indisputable fact, and that if you disagree, its only because your just a killer in waiting (gun owner)
/sarcasm
I thought that when you took away peoples ability to protect their stuff with guns, only the criminals will have guns and so the crime rate goes up :confused:
Which is why the NRA and gun snatching politicians are both full of crap.
Americans seemed to have forgotten one of the primary reasons for the 2nd. If a nation is well armed it has less of a need for a large standing army. The things a large standing military is really good at is driving a nation into debt and increasing the power of government. The 2nd wasn't put into place to fight tanks with ar15s, it was put into place to defund the tanks because they are not needed in a nation that has more guns than citizens, oceans to the easy and west, and friendly neighbors to the north and south.
That's true... but, we really don't have a "large standing army" with respect to our population.
We just have a lot of expensive toys.
The toys were not available in 1776, but one thing has remained consistent over thousands of years of human history. Maintaining a powerful military in peacetime is expensive. It really doesn't matter how military spending changes over time, what matters is the following is what the founders were trying to avoid.
Um... how so? (the founder father part).
And... so what? It just means, don't feth with us.
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
Those are the major factors that determine a murder rate. All gun ownership or gun control does for personel safety against crime is give people an easy to produce illusion of safety when the real issues causing the crime are very difficult to solve.
1. Is this another thread on why lawful gun owners are bad people?
2. Is this another thread why owning weapons are bad?
3. Is this another thread on why owning certain weapons are bad?
4. Is this another thread on why my perception of owning a weapon is immoral?
5. Is this another thread where since I own multiple weapons I might be a danger to the public?
I need to make one correction for Frazz...It was Native Americans and Mexican Bandits she ran off her front lawn of 40 acres.....with an old school scatter gun.....bowie knife that put the fear in Bowie himself.....tough old betty that can shave with dull busted glass by moonlight...She always had on hand her CSAAWDL unit......
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
Sure, and you can pick out all the countries that are wealthy, and in which various programs and economic conditions greatly reduce the underclass and the conditions they suffer, and in which effective policing with minimal corruption has greatly reduced the overall crime rate... and call this the developed world.
And you can line all them up, UK, US, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Japan etc.., and you can see they've all got very, very low rates of murder... except the US. The US has a murder rate about 4 or 5 times higher than the worst of the rest. And while the rate among the rest varies very little, the US is way out there. I mean, your per capita rate is worse than India, and I don't think anyone would want to claim they've got police that are anywhere near as effective, or a smaller permanent underclass.
And then you got to think about why that is. When other forms of crime like assault and robbery are consistent with those other countries, and even lower than many of those other countries, why would murder be so much higher? What unique features about the US might cause a spike in murder.
From there, it really shouldn't be too hard to look at the proliferation of guns.
Now, as I've said many times in this thread, that doesn't mean the solution is to ban guns. Alchohol kills plenty more people, but the social good is in the opinion of most people worth it. But it does mean to stop pretending that having more tools designed to make killing easier doesn't mean that there won't be more killing.
Economic collapse is making the point way too strongly. But it's a simple fact that when you spend a billion on one thing, then you can't spend it on something else. A billion on a new high end weapon platform is a billion that could have been spent improving roads, which would make transport less costly and therefore encourage economic development.
And so you have to look at what you get from spending 700 billion a year on your military. It doesn't improve your national security - you have great big oceans on both sides, and there is not one nation in the world with the force projection to cross that ocean with a combat effective force, let alone maintain supply to any occupying army. It does allow you to protect your economic and political interests elsewhere in the world, as per the two wars with Iraq, and Afghanistan and all the rest. But that functionality represents only a tiny portion of that 700 billion budget, much of it gets piled in to next gen fighter craft and the like designed to fight a straight up conventional war with... all of the no countries trying to directly compete with you militarily.
SilverMK2 wrote: If the two men hacked apart asentioned abpve had been armed would it have saved them from aomepne who jumps them with a large bladed weapon?
I'm afraid I must cite Indiana Jones in support that it would:
1. Is this another thread on why lawful gun owners are bad people?
2. Is this another thread why owning weapons are bad?
3. Is this another thread on why owning certain weapons are bad?
4. Is this another thread on why my perception of owning a weapon is immoral?
5. Is this another thread where since I own multiple weapons I might be a danger to the public?
I need to make one correction for Frazz...It was Native Americans and Mexican Bandits she ran off her front lawn of 40 acres.....with an old school scatter gun.....bowie knife that put the fear in Bowie himself.....tough old betty that can shave with dull busted glass by moonlight...She always had on hand her CSAAWDL unit......
This is a thread discussing tax reforms in Elizabethan England!
Seriously, I know what you're saying. These threads pop up every 2-3 days and always follow the same arguments. The mods should make a gun thread sticky so people can just sound off their views when they're in the mood.
To sum up 1000 threads on guns (past present and future)
1. America has a lot of guns. Seriously! 2. Britain doesn't like guns.
3. Good guys have guns, bad guys have guns.
1. Is this another thread on why lawful gun owners are bad people?
2. Is this another thread why owning weapons are bad?
3. Is this another thread on why owning certain weapons are bad?
4. Is this another thread on why my perception of owning a weapon is immoral?
5. Is this another thread where since I own multiple weapons I might be a danger to the public?
I need to make one correction for Frazz...It was Native Americans and Mexican Bandits she ran off her front lawn of 40 acres.....with an old school scatter gun.....bowie knife that put the fear in Bowie himself.....tough old betty that can shave with dull busted glass by moonlight...She always had on hand her CSAAWDL unit......
No I think the title of the thread was Britain wants her guns back. Britain be the the main emphasis here. I personally couldn't care less about Americans and there Gun laws. No offense but its not my problem. You can Justify the right to owning guns all you want, "Defending your country so the Military doesn't have to" and all the other crap that has been posted by Americans.
But as some one who actually lives in Britain. I do not want Guns. Knives are banned in England, But yet there is a high level of Knife crime. If Guns where more available these Stabbings would soon turn to shootings. And Its a lot easier to point a gun and pull a trigger than it is for someone to physically stab someone. I will take my chances against someone threatening my life and the life of my family with a knife. But if someone has a gun, then you have no chance.
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
The argument made by Americans here is only to justifies there own "Love for guns" little to none of your arguments have anything to do with Britain or its inhabitants.
Look at this map and tell me it's gun control or freedom to buy guns that drives the homicide rate.
The factors I see that cause the rate to go up and down are
#1 Is the country poor, on an economic downturn, or possessing a large permanent underclass?
#2 Is there a lot of crime and/or drug use?
#3 Is the government effective at catching criminals?
Sure, and you can pick out all the countries that are wealthy, and in which various programs and economic conditions greatly reduce the underclass and the conditions they suffer, and in which effective policing with minimal corruption has greatly reduced the overall crime rate... and call this the developed world.
And you can line all them up, UK, US, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, Japan etc.., and you can see they've all got very, very low rates of murder... except the US. The US has a murder rate about 4 or 5 times higher than the worst of the rest. And while the rate among the rest varies very little, the US is way out there. I mean, your per capita rate is worse than India, and I don't think anyone would want to claim they've got police that are anywhere near as effective, or a smaller permanent underclass.
And then you got to think about why that is. When other forms of crime like assault and robbery are consistent with those other countries, and even lower than many of those other countries, why would murder be so much higher? What unique features about the US might cause a spike in murder.
From there, it really shouldn't be too hard to look at the proliferation of guns.
Now, as I've said many times in this thread, that doesn't mean the solution is to ban guns. Alchohol kills plenty more people, but the social good is in the opinion of most people worth it. But it does mean to stop pretending that having more tools designed to make killing easier doesn't mean that there won't be more killing.
Economic collapse is making the point way too strongly. But it's a simple fact that when you spend a billion on one thing, then you can't spend it on something else. A billion on a new high end weapon platform is a billion that could have been spent improving roads, which would make transport less costly and therefore encourage economic development.
And so you have to look at what you get from spending 700 billion a year on your military. It doesn't improve your national security - you have great big oceans on both sides, and there is not one nation in the world with the force projection to cross that ocean with a combat effective force, let alone maintain supply to any occupying army. It does allow you to protect your economic and political interests elsewhere in the world, as per the two wars with Iraq, and Afghanistan and all the rest. But that functionality represents only a tiny portion of that 700 billion budget, much of it gets piled in to next gen fighter craft and the like designed to fight a straight up conventional war with... all of the no countries trying to directly compete with you militarily.
#1 The US isn't poor, but the middle class has been in an economic downturn for decades, and we have a large permanent underclass.
#2 We have huge drug and crime problems. Drug prohibition seems to have caused more problems than alcohol prohibition. We have more people behind bars and in our criminal justice system than China, and they have 4 times as many people as we do.
#3 We have well funded police that are spread way too thin. It takes a lot of time and money to imprison 1% of your population and fight a war on drugs, there is not much time and money left to catch people for murder, and most people don't care all that much because it's criminals killing criminals. In literally 90% of murders the suspect knows the victim. People only really care when murders don't fit the pattern and threatens their own sense of security.
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
I suspect I can better defend my family with a gun than with my fists, and I know for a fact my wife can better defend with a gun than with her fists. I'm glad we have that choice.
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
The argument made by Americans here is only to justifies there own "Love for guns" little to none of your arguments have anything to do with Britain or its inhabitants.
translation: I don't have a family to defend, and I'm Mike Tyson.
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
I suspect I can better defend my family with a gun than with my fists, and I know for a fact my wife can better defend with a gun than with her fists. I'm glad we have that choice.
But you don't have a choice regarding escalation, we do, and the majority of Brits are perfectly happy with a low number of guns among criminals.
easysauce wrote: and i am sure you would rather spit on a fire then have a fire extinguisher,
some of us are not chuck norris super heros and use the right tools for the job,
40-80 THOUSAND people use guns to defend themselves from people and animals combined in canada.
its far more in the states, so please stop being willfully ignorant of the benifits of guns.
its disegenuous and dishonest to have a debate about the pros and cons of something when you completely ignore the pros.
The right tool for not being the victim of crime is a better society, not lethal weapons to anyone who wants them regardless of skill, basic safety training or mental health.
So what would be the pros of owning a gun in the UK?
dæl wrote: So what would be the pros of owning a gun in the UK?
We could keep out those damn Yankees!
It could be a fun hobby I suppose but other than that I can't think of any particular pro of owning a gun in the UK unless you used it for pest control like most firearms owners in the UK currently do anyway.
But you don't have a choice regarding escalation, we do, and the majority of Brits are perfectly happy with a low number of guns among criminals.
Choice regarding escalation? You guys dont' have a choice. You cannot choose to escalate. We do get the choice.
You misunderstand, the situation there has been escalated already, criminals have and use guns because they are easily available and the chance of coming up against another gun is quite high. The situation here is that that escalation hasn't happened, so we could choose to proliferate guns but why would we want to do that?
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
The argument made by Americans here is only to justifies there own "Love for guns" little to none of your arguments have anything to do with Britain or its inhabitants.
translation: I don't have a family to defend, and I'm Mike Tyson.
I do have a wife and two children, what kind of a keyboard warrior goes around accusing people of lying about there family? Just because you don't like the fact that a British person, living in a Britain, sees no need for owning a firearm. Again read the Thread topic. THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMERICA, i have no interest on your gun laws. Its too late to ban guns in countries, where probably every house hold owns at least 1 firearm. And saying there are benefits to holding a handgun is a mute point coming from countries where the majority do own firearms, of course you are going to see a benefit, you don't know any other way.
But in a country like Britain (the one in the thread title) Guns are not freely available and the need to defend our self's with guns is not needed. By introducing a law where by anybody can apply for a gun. you are creating a hell of a lot more problems. I know its hard for people from countries that have guns to understand, as that's all you know. But i for one am glad that if someone breaks into my house at night, the chances of them carrying a firearm are slim to none. And is far more easier to defend your family against. Open gun laws mean that the chances of someone breaking into your house wile being armed with a firearm are 90% because of the availability of the firearms.
Look at the American police. Most of the time if they pull someone over they have there hand on there gun ready to draw it. WHY? because guns are easily available and they have to protect them self's because of this. In Britain (the one in the thread title, Because you seem to keep forgetting) All our police officers need is a Pen and Note Pad, WHY? because guns are not easily available and the chances of someone pulling a gun on them are slim to none.
And I'm not debating anything. I'm telling you, Britain does not need guns. And yes I live in Britain. An American or Canadian cannot preach to me the Pros of owning a gun. In your countries the criminals carry guns. So yeah the whole why should it only be criminals carrying the guns, is a valid argument for YOUR countries. Not Britain. We don't have many Criminals carrying guns here. And its a much safer place because of it.
Stop watching Snatch, and thinking that's the average British criminal. There is actually a very small amount of Shotgun wielding cockneys.
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
The argument made by Americans here is only to justifies there own "Love for guns" little to none of your arguments have anything to do with Britain or its inhabitants.
translation: I don't have a family to defend, and I'm Mike Tyson.
I do have a wife and two children, what kind of a keyboard warrior goes around accusing people of lying about there family? Just because you don't like the fact that a British person, living in a Britain, sees no need for owning a firearm. Again read the Thread topic. THIS IS NOT ABOUT AMERICA, i have no interest on your gun laws. Its too late to ban guns in countries, where probably every house hold owns at least 1 firearm. And saying there are benefits to holding a handgun is a mute point coming from countries where the majority do own firearms, of course you are going to see a benefit, you don't know any other way.
But in a country like Britain (the one in the thread title) Guns are not freely available and the need to defend our self's with guns is not needed. By introducing a law where by anybody can apply for a gun. you are creating a hell of a lot more problems. I know its hard for people from countries that have guns to understand, as that's all you know. But i for one am glad that if someone breaks into my house at night, the chances of them carrying a firearm are slim to none. And is far more easier to defend your family against. Open gun laws mean that the chances of someone breaking into your house wile being armed with a firearm are 90% because of the availability of the firearms.
Look at the American police. Most of the time if they pull someone over they have there hand on there gun ready to draw it. WHY? because guns are easily available and they have to protect them self's because of this. In Britain (the one in the thread title, Because you seem to keep forgetting) All our police officers need is a Pen and Note Pad, WHY? because guns are not easily available and the chances of someone pulling a gun on them are slim to none.
And I'm not debating anything. I'm telling you, Britain does not need guns. And yes I live in Britain. An American or Canadian cannot preach to me the Pros of owning a gun. In your countries the criminals carry guns. So yeah the whole why should it only be criminals carrying the guns, is a valid argument for YOUR countries. Not Britain. We don't have many Criminals carrying guns here. And its a much safer place because of it.
Stop watching Snatch, and thinking that's the average British criminal. There is actually a very small amount of Shotgun wielding cockneys.
You're going to defend your family against two or three people, invading the home, with your bare hands? Seriously? I hope you have a lot of life insurance.
I'd much rather defend my family with my fists rather than a hand gun.
I suspect I can better defend my family with a gun than with my fists, and I know for a fact my wife can better defend with a gun than with her fists. I'm glad we have that choice.
But you don't have a choice regarding escalation, we do, and the majority of Brits are perfectly happy with a low number of guns among criminals.
I guess I disagree. I do have a choice regarding escalation. I can choose to escalate up to the point the perp is bleeding out on the floor, or can attempt to detain or scare away as the situation merits. Holding the gun gives me that choice. Conversely I can choose to not be armed. Not being armed at all gives too much initiative to the perp, he then chooses the level of violence he is willing to commit. I don't like him having that choice at all. Even more important to me, if my wife and I are not together (we spend way too much time with split households due to the military) I very much prefer HER deciding the level of escalation vice any perp that decides she would make a good victim.
I guess it comes down to a willingness to commit acts of violence to include taking another's life in defense of property, family, and self. If you are willing to do so, providing yourself with the best tool to do so makes a lot of sense. If you are unwilling to do so, no need to get the tool. However there is no need to impose rules which would disallow others from having those tools if they so desire. I know me. I know my wife. We fall into the category where we want the best tool. I could really care less about what others choose for themselves, but believe they should have the right to choose.
You may have a low level of guns amongst criminals, but you do not have a low number of criminals willing to commit acts of violence. Instead, you seemingly (from my view) have a society that accepts that level of violence and the resulting victimization because it isn't gun violence. For you, the tool used for the violence makes a difference. You are willing to give up the best tool to defend yourselves in the hopes that the criminal that attacks you won't have a gun and won't kill you with what he does have. A rape or beating is okay as long as the perp doesn't do it at gun point.
easysauce wrote: and i am sure you would rather spit on a fire then have a fire extinguisher,
some of us are not chuck norris super heros and use the right tools for the job,
40-80 THOUSAND people use guns to defend themselves from people and animals combined in canada.
its far more in the states, so please stop being willfully ignorant of the benifits of guns.
its disegenuous and dishonest to have a debate about the pros and cons of something when you completely ignore the pros.
The right tool for not being the victim of crime is a better society, not lethal weapons to anyone who wants them regardless of skill, basic safety training or mental health.
So what would be the pros of owning a gun in the UK?
the benifits in the UK are the same as everywhere else, people defend their lives and property with guns every day, most often without anyone being hurt or killed.
why do you ignore 40,000-80,000 people, in my country alone and it much more in the states, who use guns defensivly against animals and people. People in britain used to (and some still do) have that protective benifit.
canada doesnt give guns away to anyone regardless of background, and neither does the states. background checks are the norm.
lethal weapons are freely available in britain, knives/bats/cars are all lethal weapons, and are all used as such.
Some people are not chuck norris' like yourself, and would rather rack a shotgun and watch the crooks run way without firing a shot or getting into some kung fu fantasy land where every elderly person or small stature person can fend off multiple attackers with their bare hands.
That is my take on the arguments I have been responding to.
UK Citizen: We don't have a lot of gun crime because we don't have a lot of guns.
US Citizen: But you do have a lot of violent crime. And therefore a lot of victims of violent crime.
UK Citizen: But our criminals don't use guns! And we can defend our families with our fists and are happy to do so! If we add guns to the mix then the criminals will have them!
You guys seemingly have accepted the non-gun violence. A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.
One of the reasons for that lack of comparison is the oft explained and quoted, in this off topic forum, difference in how America and the United Kingdom define violent crime. Essentially we're left with guess work, as the figures shown are not comparable.
You should know this, it's brought up time and again.
From what I've looked at, violent crime, as judged by US law, is similar in both countries (though the UK is definitely higher, it's been falling for over a decade).
It's murder rates that should be looked at. Something sebster has said time and again, and seemingly been ignored because he presents a reasonable point of view instead of pants on head crazy "I'd take on a mountain lion with my fists" or "rape is fine so long as no guns are involved" points of view. Both of which are pathetic.
I've only just noticed that this is actually a thread on UK laws of gun ownership, and not a thread that the UK is demanding weapons from the American War of Independence back.
CptJake wrote: I guess it comes down to a willingness to commit acts of violence to include taking another's life in defense of property, family, and self.
I would absolutely not be ok with taking a life for the sake of property, to defend life it would be justifiable but to murder someone because they tried to steal something is just plain wrong.
If you are willing to do so, providing yourself with the best tool to do so makes a lot of sense. If you are unwilling to do so, no need to get the tool. However there is no need to impose rules which would disallow others from having those tools if they so desire. I know me. I know my wife. We fall into the category where we want the best tool. I could really care less about what others choose for themselves, but believe they should have the right to choose.
Personal choice in matters such as this must play second fiddle to public good, and the public good is to have less people being killed with guns, so therefore no guns without proper licensing.
You may have a low level of guns amongst criminals, but you do not have a low number of criminals willing to commit acts of violence. Instead, you seemingly (from my view) have a society that accepts that level of violence and the resulting victimization because it isn't gun violence. For you, the tool used for the violence makes a difference. You are willing to give up the best tool to defend yourselves in the hopes that the criminal that attacks you won't have a gun and won't kill you with what he does have. A rape or beating is okay as long as the perp doesn't do it at gun point.
Do you think because we haven't armed everyone we don't care about reducing crime? Do you think that if the government handed out rifles to everyone tomorrow violent crime would increase or decrease? Arming people isn't the solution to violent crime, it just adds another problem, and it doesn't even solve the issue of violent crime, otherwise you guys wouldn't have any.
CptJake wrote: That is my take on the arguments I have been responding to.
UK Citizen: We don't have a lot of gun crime because we don't have a lot of guns.
US Citizen: But you do have a lot of violent crime. And therefore a lot of victims of violent crime.
UK Citizen: But our criminals don't use guns! And we can defend our families with our fists and are happy to do so! If we add guns to the mix then the criminals will have them!
You guys seemingly have accepted the non-gun violence. A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.
Making Guns available to the public more easily means it is also easier for the people that do the violent crimes to get a Gun. And it takes a lot less effort for someone to shot someone with a gun.
I think it is pretty clear cut, that every single British person in this thread who has commented, is against the ownership of guns in the UK. (apart from the one who's dad owns a gun club and will make a huge profit out of it)
Because we all know what will happen. The violent crime will stay the same. It will just be replaced by gun shot wounds rather than stabbings. it doesn't solve anything, just makes it easier for those crimes to happen.
And i think its clear to see that Britain is not actualy that keen on getting her guns back.
the benifits in the UK are the same as everywhere else, people defend their lives and property with guns every day, most often without anyone being hurt or killed.
why do you ignore 40,000-80,000 people, in my country alone and it much more in the states, who use guns defensivly against animals and people. People in britain used to (and some still do) have that protective benifit.
canada doesnt give guns away to anyone regardless of background, and neither does the states. background checks are the norm.
lethal weapons are freely available in britain, knives/bats/cars are all lethal weapons, and are all used as such.
Some people are not chuck norris' like yourself, and would rather rack a shotgun and watch the crooks run way without firing a shot or getting into some kung fu fantasy land where every elderly person or small stature person can fend off multiple attackers with their bare hands.
First of all check who you're talking to, I have made no claim of being chuck norris or defending anything with my fists.
You defend yourselves by making your society more violent, we strive toward the opposite. Our 60 Million citizens don't need guns to protect ourselves, not at all, so how is it a pro to be able to defend yourself when it is only needed after the proliferation of guns?
CptJake wrote:That is my take on the arguments I have been responding to.
UK Citizen: We don't have a lot of gun crime because we don't have a lot of guns.
US Citizen: But you do have a lot of violent crime. And therefore a lot of victims of violent crime.
UK Citizen: But our criminals don't use guns! And we can defend our families with our fists and are happy to do so! If we add guns to the mix then the criminals will have them!
You guys seemingly have accepted the non-gun violence. A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.
What on earth makes you think we are ok with violent crime? We are working to reduce crime and are succeeding in that. Our criminals don't use guns so what the feth would we want to give them easy access to guns? It makes absolutely no sense as a step forward.
CptJake wrote: A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.
And you never see an American who wants to compare American murder rates to UK murder rates.
There lies the problem. Arming people doesn't actually make you safer, it makes BOTH SIDES more willing and able to use violence. So now you have a situation in which there is roughly the same amount of violence, but it's now far, far more lethal.
And easysauce - one of your benefits listed is the prevention of violent animal attacks through the use of guns. There are no dangerous animals in Britain...
Overall, I'm proud of the fact that in my country, even the police officers don't carry guns - I think that's an incredible achievement. I am 100% sure that Britain doesn't want guns, and 100% sure that the British people are right to not want guns.
The people I really pity are the Americans in this thread who are so insecure they feel the need to own a weapon capable of killing someone, just on the off chance they are the victim of a violent crime. Are you guys really that scared? It is literally incomprehensible to me, and to most Britons I think, how the US can be so obsessed with guns - to the extent americans are even trying to persuade people in other countries without a gun problem to get them!
I think it is pretty clear cut, that every single British person in this thread who has commented, is against the ownership of guns in the UK. (apart from the one who's dad owns a gun club and will make a huge profit out of it)
I'm British, I have no affiliation with any kind of gun lobby/store/etc.
I don't mind the fact that guns are legal in the UK, barring short revolvers/handguns/fully automatic weapons.
Hedgehog, there wasn't really any need for that last part.
The people I really pity are the Americans in this thread who are so insecure they feel the need to own a weapon capable of killing someone, just on the off chance they are the victim of a violent crime. Are you guys really that scared? It is literally incomprehensible to me, and to most Britons I think, how the US can be so obsessed with guns - to the extent americans are even trying to persuade people in other countries without a gun problem to get them!
I take umbrage from this...
There is no need for this... come over here and live here for awhile before making such proclamation.
CptJake wrote: A way to illustrate this is you hardly ever see someone from the UK compare violent crime rates with the US. Instead, they generally only compare GUN crime rates. It genuinely appears to someone sitting outside that as long as a gun isn't the tool, you are willing to accept the violence.
And you never see an American who wants to compare American murder rates to UK murder rates.
Or, even better, lets compare the rate of school shootings, or police officers killed in the line of duty, or people killed while defending against an attacker...
That last one should be particularly pertinent to the "I need guns to protect myself" crowd.
stupid.
I'd really prefer a crossbow but i guess a rifle is the next best thing 
