Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Situation in England is thus:

1 guy goes mad, all Guns are pretty much outlawed.
Kids can't get guns anymore, so now they use knives.

The result? Less Dead kids, but much more severalty maimed and disabled for life, while the major gangs still have their illegal assault rifles.

Now the UK government wants to ban knives with points.
Predicted result? Even MORE maiming, as slashes are much more horrific than stabs.

Serious? Knives without points?

You supposed to use a damn butter knife to cut a steak (never seen a round tipped steak knife)?

Wow. That's some serious bullshite.

Wrexasaur wrote:Your also in entirely different countries, with entirely different demographics, with their own, entirely different set of problems. Statistically, I would not be surprised if you made up for it in other ways. People are people after all...

No, we kill a lot less people per capita than you do. The difference in murder rates is almost entirely made up by the difference in gun killings.

This is a complex issue and most of the efforts to curb gun control are not the only solution (and possibly not part of the solution at all) but the reality is that the US is a lot more violent than other developed countries. It is important to recognise that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not saying the study wasn't done well within the boundaries of what a study like that is capable of; I'm saying it's going to be inherently limited by the fact that it's not doing a dissection of each individual shooting, and what led up to it. It's not showing causation.

Once all other identifiable factors have been removed, if the relationship still remains it is an indicator of causation. That is basically the only way we can establish causation.

The study isn't definitive proof, of course, because it is only one study, in only one city, but if similar results were produced in multiple studies in multiple cities then the evidence for causation would be substantial.

Unless guns secretly get up in the middle of the night and shoot you there are things that lead up to being shot by them. Possessing a gun, and burying it in a safe under your cellar, is not going to make you more likely to be shot by it. You need to look at what would cause a correlation. Burglars seizing your gun? You getting shot by burglars while trying to shoot them? Accidentally shooting yourself? Being killed by the person you bought the gun to protect yourself from? Being killed in the criminal activity you engage in that requires you to buy a gun to try and protect yourself? Suicide?

Yeah, the relationship needs to be greater understood through further research and analysis. It is amazing that something so political and so large would have such a scarcity of research (what's out there is generally very politicised, but even ignoring that there is a real scarcity of research).

Thing is, I'm not arguing for more or less gun control. If you really like guns and are responsble, collect as many as you want. I was pointing out that Falconlance's girlfriend's point, that had been dismissed as irrational, wasn't an irrational thought, and may well be true.

Fateweaver wrote:Serious? Knives without points?

You supposed to use a damn butter knife to cut a steak (never seen a round tipped steak knife)?

Wow. That's some serious bullshite.

Yeah, they want to make all knives sold in the uk into this:


Because, ya know, kids slashing other kids across the gut and disembowelling them, causing them to die a slow painful death is far less bad than just stabbing them in the face.
And Grinders are impossible to find of course.

Gwar! wrote:Now the UK government wants to ban knives with points.

I can see where this is going....

Pictures can't describe that "WTF" orkeosaurus.

Fateweaver wrote:Pictures can't describe that "WTF" orkeosaurus.

You think that's bad? Irelands government is worse.

Ireland has the Highest VAT (not sure what a US Equivalent would be. Sales Tax?) in Europe. At the start of 2009 it was at 21% on "Luxury Goods". In the UK it was at 17.5%
So, with the Euro and Pound Reaching Parity (lowest trough was, £1 = €1.01 iirc) people were driving to Northern Ireland for their Weekly shop, as it was cheaper to actually go there and buy your shopping and drive back, even after Petrol costs. So the government bitches and moans and asks people to "Stop paying the Queens Taxes" (True Story). Then they found out 90% of Government contracts were going to Northern Ireland companies, because they were cheaper than Irish ones.

THEN! The Banking Crisis hits, people are losing jobs left and right, people have less money and the economy is going down the s***er. The UK gov goes "To encourage spending and Economic recovery, lets lower VAT to 15% until the end of the year!" and much joy was had by all, not least by the Irish people who got cheaper shopping from the north.

The Irish government goes "To encourage spending and Economic recovery, lets raise VAT to 22%!"

Yes, in the Biggest depression since WW2, in a country where the Prime Minister has a larger salary than the President of the USA, where unemployment has hit the highest level in years, they RAISED THE COST OF EVERYTHING by 1%.

Facepalm if you please.

If I am not mistaken... I should be able to keep almost all of my killin kit...



What a bunch of nonsense though... what is the point? Heh...

What could possibly be the reason for that? Are they going to outlaw big, scary, scissors next?

No offence but living in California, it's like you have 2 strikes against you FalconLance from what I know about your states gun laws, but here's my $0.02 on bringing a gun into the house: 1. do some reseach on your own; find out about gun safety clases in your area (local law enforcement usually has free ones several times a year depending on your area or at local "rod&gun" clubs),surprise her & take the class together. 2. Don't start with bringing in a hand gun, for some reason it was easier when I started with a target rifle(my wife was against guns too). 3. Get some publications that don't have the LEFT WING/LEFT COAST slant on the news(ie join the NRA & you get a subscription to a NRA magazine, I suggest America's First Freedom) 4. Now I'm not religious(I don't want to go there, I've been kicked out of 2 churches), but try and get her to watch the 700 club. Believe it or not I've seen a good many news stories from them over the years that might change her mind about a right that is now available to her in this country. (and hey it's coming from a reverand)
I hope some of that helps I had a hard time bringing guns into the house after I got married. The odd thing about my situation when my wife met me; I was in the Army & her father was a police officer, & she also knew I came from a large hunting family. If any of this doesn't help ask her if she speaks German? If she says NO, tell her thats because of all those hillbilly redneck Americans coming over there with guns & pushing the Germans back. Sorry about that I couldn't help myself. I know that last statement upsets French people more, if thats any consolation.

sebster wrote:Once all other identifiable factors have been removed, if the relationship still remains it is an indicator of causation. That is basically the only way we can establish causation.

Not if causation is an impossibility.

The study isn't definitive proof, of course, because it is only one study, in only one city, but if similar results were produced in multiple studies in multiple cities then the evidence for causation would be substantial.

No, it still wouldn't be, because it's not physically possible for nothing but the ownership of a gun to increase the chances of you being shot. Having a gun in a place where your jaded lover might find it and shoot you, sure, having a gun and cleaning it without knowing how to properly, sure, but pure ownership cannot be it. Buying a gun (without ammo), putting it in a safe, and burying it forever under your basement floor cannot get you shot. Even though you own a gun.

Yeah, the relationship needs to be greater understood through further research and analysis. It is amazing that something so political and so large would have such a scarcity of research (what's out there is generally very politicised, but even ignoring that there is a real scarcity of research).

Thing is, I'm not arguing for more or less gun control. If you really like guns and are responsble, collect as many as you want. I was pointing out that Falconlance's girlfriend's point, that had been dismissed as irrational, wasn't an irrational thought, and may well be true.

I can't really say if she's being irrational or not, since I'm only going by what I can piece together from what Falcon said. Still, refusing to allow the gun to be locked up separate from the ammo makes me think it's more of an emotional fear than a logical one.

I'm thinking it's emotional fear too. Like fear of snakes or water or whatever.

Don't force a gun in her face but maybe if you encourage her slowly she might come to see they aren't all that bad.

Agree about the NRA. Check the site out and talk to some people down at the local gun shop or sheriffs department (they'll for sure be helpful as all hell down there).

Guns are as safe as the person holding them. If a gun goes off on it's own I'd hire an exorcist, not throw the gun out of the house because guns just don't go off on their own, it's a physical impossibility.

Fateweaver wrote:If a gun goes off on it's own I'd hire an exorcist, not throw the gun out of the house because guns just don't go off on their own, it's a physical impossibility.

You mean an Improbability. There is always the chance the Metal of the gun spontaneously converts to Explodium.

Unlikely, but not impossible

Oh you!

Thanks for the feedback fellas. Lot of stuff to chew on for a while.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:Once all other identifiable factors have been removed, if the relationship still remains it is an indicator of causation. That is basically the only way we can establish causation.

Not if causation is an impossibility.

The study isn't definitive proof, of course, because it is only one study, in only one city, but if similar results were produced in multiple studies in multiple cities then the evidence for causation would be substantial.

No, it still wouldn't be, because it's not physically possible for nothing but the ownership of a gun to increase the chances of you being shot. Having a gun in a place where your jaded lover might find it and shoot you, sure, having a gun and cleaning it without knowing how to properly, sure, but pure ownership cannot be it. Buying a gun (without ammo), putting it in a safe, and burying it forever under your basement floor cannot get you shot. Even though you own a gun.

Okay, I should probably explain my position, because in retrospect I sound a little pedantic.

It's not possible for ownership in it's simplest sense, to (noticeably) increase your chances of getting shot. The legal right to having the gun you bought cannot increase your risk; even the physical possession of a gun can't unilaterally.

The shootings that could potentially be pegged down as a result of "gun ownership" would really be because of the specifics of where the gun was kept, and things like that. Sort of a "guns don't kill people, leaving your gun in your dresser drawer where a burglar can grab it kills people" concept. A gun can be secured in a such a manner where it isn't going to have the ability to increase your risk of harm, so saying that simply posessing it puts you at risk is inaccurate.

And, as I said before, I don't think many gun deaths a result of simply having one in your closet/drawer either; I think accidents in use/maintance, a threat that spurs the desire for protection, possibly an overestimation of their ability to handle a threat, and suicide (if it was included) probably result in most of the gap between gun-owners and non-owners.

Something else I'll put out to anyone interested in the NRA. If you go to Shooting USA's web sight & go through them they will take $10 off your NRA menbership.

Hmmm... Auto-double posts now? I just let this one run it's course...

Here is an interesting show, talking about some of this stuff.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/25712/30-days-gun-nation?c=News-and-Information#s-p1-so-i0

Definitely stress why it's important to you!

That said, there's a lot to the idea of "having a gun makes it more likely for you/someone you love to be shot". Especially if you're planning on having kids, or don't own a gun safe yet, etc. If her concern really is safety, I would suggest going to extraordinary measures to make it safe.

I also thought that the person who mentioned paintballing or archery as good options had a good point. Some girls (my sister included) have a rule about guys with guns- it's just a no-go, for whatever reason. So if it's really a big deal, maybe you could compromise by going into something else that would be just as entertaining, but less revulting to her!

I'm coming to this party a bit late (later still because I tried to read most of it) but here's my take. I've lived around firearms my entire life because my dad hunted, reloads (what you might call "ballistic science"), and participates in all sorts of competitive shooting sports. There has only ever been one misfire around our house in the past twenty five years and even in that case, dad was handling the gun properly anyway so that it safely discharged into a concrete floor. That said, I have never had any interest in either owning or collecting firearms. I am not convinced that owning a firearm makes you either more or less safe. I have heard rumors of every so-called study claiming to indicate both propositions and don't give any of them credence since both are bound to be heavily politicized in every case without exception. If you are a reasonably responsible person who does not have some kind of cosmically bad luck, owning a gun will not make you any more or less likely to get shot.

As to your gf, I'd agree with dogma and Polonius: this isn't about logic or reason. This is about willingness to compromise. Decide if this is important to you. If it is and she refuses to compromise, you need to reconsider your relationship with her. This is likely a sign that she will not be willing to compromise on other issues. If this is just something of a passing interest, then don't bother. Any hobby involving firearms is expensive by default. Spend the money on more Eldar instead.

With regard to the UK, Ireland, and some of the Britishers posting in this thread, I can only say:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

The title of this reminds me of this security forces guy I used to know.

He was at a concert and this couple behind him was being obnoxious and getting on his nerves, so he turned around and politely asked if they would stop talking. The girl gets all huffy and starts talking about how her boyfriend's a lawyer and that they can do whatever they want.

He looks her in the eye and says very forcefully and very loudy, "I KILL PEOPLE FOR A LIVING!"

To which they stand up and leave.

The video that you posted wrex was interesting....I will admit though that I laughed when the gun-control activists called gun violence a disease. Worst argument ever.....

Orkeosaurus wrote:Okay, I should probably explain my position, because in retrospect I sound a little pedantic.

It's not possible for ownership in it's simplest sense, to (noticeably) increase your chances of getting shot. The legal right to having the gun you bought cannot increase your risk; even the physical possession of a gun can't unilaterally.

The shootings that could potentially be pegged down as a result of "gun ownership" would really be because of the specifics of where the gun was kept, and things like that. Sort of a "guns don't kill people, leaving your gun in your dresser drawer where a burglar can grab it kills people" concept. A gun can be secured in a such a manner where it isn't going to have the ability to increase your risk of harm, so saying that simply posessing it puts you at risk is inaccurate.

Thanks for the clarification, I really wasn't getting your point before this post and we were probably heading towards an argument. But I see your point now and I agree that that there's no measure made to control for the specifics of the gun ownership.

And, as I said before, I don't think many gun deaths a result of simply having one in your closet/drawer either; I think accidents in use/maintance, a threat that spurs the desire for protection, possibly an overestimation of their ability to handle a threat, and suicide (if it was included) probably result in most of the gap between gun-owners and non-owners.

Yeah, a study like that is going to have problems accounting for reverse causation, that a certain number of people will get guns because of a specific threat in their lives, such as a deranged partner.

The rest of it, though, accidents in use, an overestimation of ability in meeting a threat, increasing chance of suicide, these are increases in shootings and deaths that are more likely if a gun is purchased. It doesn't mean every specfic individual who buys a gun is more more likely to be shot, but specific individuals aren't all more likely to die in a car accident if they speed. It also doesn't address the answer of what should be done to cut back the gun deaths, would better training courses and mental health programs be more effective than yet more gun control? It isn't really what the study was about.

sebster wrote:The rest of it, though, accidents in use, an overestimation of ability in meeting a threat, increasing chance of suicide, these are increases in shootings and deaths that are more likely if a gun is purchased. It doesn't address the answer of what should be done as better training courses, mental health programs and the like could be more effective than yet more gun control, but it doesn't discount the assertion that having a gun in the house makes it more likely that you'll end up getting shot.

A lot of things should just be taught at school. I will not go too deeply into my sentiments about this, but one of the main problems with our schools, is the fact that most kids are not learning life skills. I like to call it common sense, but this is why I won't go too deeply into it.

People are very protective of their kids in the states, and that only poses other problems when it comes to addressing these issues early. Overall though, I would say that public opinion on this, would probably sway towards keeping schools out of that altogether.

I honestly believe, that most of the most heinous shooting we have had in the U.S. could have been avoided altogether. This has nothing to do with the guns, and a whole lot to do with helping those kids. Their are many types of people, and all of their issues should be addressed, and accounted for. Bullying, and a generally crappy life, can easily turn a rather average person into a very angry one; not to say that the majority of these types of people are at risk of harming others physically.

On a more positive note, the D.C. sniper is going to get executed.

If you really want a gun, try to convince your girlfriend to let you have something low-key, like a bolt-action/small magazine rifle. Why would you need anything more? I only have a handgun for target shooting and a rifle for when I can be bothered going hunting (the only good place is halfway up the state).

If she's stubborn, then I'd say a relationship is more important than a firearm.

jp400 wrote:Yay, yet another thread that started off with a legit and sensable question, and then devolved into a US bashing thread.

hmm..no it hasn't, regardless of how often you crash into a thread and claim this is the case doesn't make it true.
Several people have expressed their opinions but no one has attacked the USA been a fair few anti British cracks but nothing too OTT.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:.
Predicted result? Even MORE maiming, as slashes are much more horrific than stabs.

define "horrific". Most knife fatalites in the UK are caused by stabbing injuries not slashing injuries.

Slash Wounds

These are wounds where the length is greater than the depth, eg a slice wound across the skin. If the wound involves major blood vessels, it can be life threatening, but in general, they are not as serious as stab wounds.

Stab Wounds

These are wounds where the depth of injury is greater than the length. They penetrate more deeply than slash wounds and tend to come into contact with vital organs in the chest and abdomen.

Stabbing is the most common mode of homicide in the UK, due to the strict control of guns.

Stab wounds are caused most obviously by knives, but are also caused by bayonets and swords, as well as scissors and even blunter instruments such as screwdrivers.

Also..your not quite telling the whole truth with regards to the knife thing. For starters its not on all knives, only on long ( 6 inch + if memory serves..not sure..bust now..) kitchen type knives, not short knives. And this is mainly to cut down on their usage in domestic violence cases or crimes of passion when they tend to be easily available and to hand. It does seem a bit counter intuitive, I suppose it's a bit similar to the take home a rifle/handgun waiting (cooling off is it ?) period in places in the USA.

If it's a hobby and all you want to do is target shoot, then why not keep it at the range? It means you have a gun and get to enjoy it and she feels safer as it's not in the house.

@Wolfstan - Damn good point.

@OP - Look at it this way: I'm sure you're girlfriend wouldn't be too happy if you went to strip-clubs all the time. However, you'd be well within your rights as a US citizen. Do you go ahead and do it anyway? She'd be well within her rights to date other men - she wouldn't be breaking any law, but I assume you wouldn't like that.

Relationships are a trade-off sometimes, and a gun won't keep you warm at night.

Falconlance wrote:I need some help, fellas.

My girlfriend won't let me keep a gun in the house. Shes got this crazy idea that only hill billies and paranoid anti-government conspiracy theorists own guns. She seems to think that having a gun makes me more likely to be shot. Any attempt to tell her how unreasonable she is being only results in a reply of, "It is unreasonable to want a gun."

To be honest, it could be that I'm not trying hard enough, apparently "Because I want one" and "Why not?" aren't good enough reasons. I have brought up the protection/defense thing, but all that did was make her laugh for a solid 20 seconds.

Any of you gun guys out there have any advice?

1. Dump her. Morons should not be cottoned to.
2. Barring the preferred method above ask her this
"Why does she wear a seatbelt?"
She'll answer, in case of an accident.
"Thats why I have a gun. Just in case."

Also you have the absolute right to do so under the Second Amendment.
Why is your girlfriend dictating to you in the first place. Nut up or shut up!


Take her to a range. Rent a pistol. 80% of the time she'll be converted upon shooting one.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:

Sure,it's a movie..and he's talking about a sword,but the idea behind the final statement is the same.
Of course what do I know I'm a hillbillyanti-government nut.JK

Word.
Girlfriends come and go, but your Beretta 92fs will be around forever.
Besides don't you two have some separation of lives or does she have your cojones in a jar by the bedside? What else does she dictate to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:If it's a hobby and all you want to do is target shoot, then why not keep it at the range? It means you have a gun and get to enjoy it and she feels safer as it's not in the house.

Generally thats not how it works in the US.

If all else fails, here is a good compromise for you: store the gun at your local shooting range or a buddies house. If you don't know how serious you are about sport shooting, and since it seems like you have a solid, long lasting relationship, don't let this become a make or break issue until you know its a serious thing for you. Invite her to shoot with you and let her try it for herself. She basically needs to learn that pistols are inherently safe as long as they are used properly. If you are familiar with weapons, its very easy to know the difference between loaded and unloaded and weapons on safe and fire. If she's never really been exposed, she doesn't know the difference nor can you expect her too. Break her in slowly and let her learn what its about.