You should've seen this coming with all the recent shootings

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Not really, he's just taking your arguments and turning them upside-down. A parody, as it were.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, of course.

Since his statement was unapplicable to any of my arguments upside-down or right-side-up, I guess you're mistaken. I've never referred to the US constitution in the entire thread.

 

And frankly, I think that the constitution doesn't HAVE to be mentioned in any debate over gun-control. There are things called "logic" and "reasoning" that we can apply to legal questions, without referring to a mouldy old bit of paper all the time.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Yeah, 'cause of course they can't add numbers to the components as they assemble them.

I think you misunderstood, Toms is talking about a unique customer ID being engraved onto the bullets and firearm. Now... how will the manufacturer know who the ammunition will eventually be sold on to during the assembly process? They can't predict the end-user.

 

Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

 

I'm for gun control. The postive effects of stopping the sale of guns are much better than the negative ones.

Not that I disagree, mind you... but do you actually have any hard facts or numbers to base this assertion on, or is it merely an impression you've formed?

[Emperor Devon]

Not that I disagree, mind you... but do you actually have any hard facts or numbers to base this assertion on, or is it merely an impression you've formed?

 

You can't really give numbers for for that. It's just my opinion that there are more positive effects to banning the sale of firearms over allowing it.

[Spider AL]

You can't really give numbers for for that. It's just my opinion that there are more positive effects to banning the sale of firearms over allowing it.

Actually you could give at least some numbers, as the firearms-related statistics for the US are quite accessible. But at the very least, you could give some examples of what you're talking about.

 

Come now, why do you think the positive effects of banning guns altogether are more numerous than the positive effects of allowing people to arm themselves?

[Jae Onasi]

I live in a rural kind of state where outdoor sports are big. There'd be rioting here if someone even mentioned 'total gun-control'. Hunting is huge here. There are some people who can feed their families for quite awhile on what they kill, so in that sense taking guns away would take away someone's ability to feed his/her family. You could argue that most hunting is for sports, but a lot of the venison from the sport kills gets donated to homeless shelters, so it's not like the meat is going to waste, thank goodness.

 

I'm also a big believer in not messing around with the Constitution and Amendments and Bill of Rights. I know there was no way for them to anticipate students using assault weapons to gun down classmates, but they did a pretty good job of anticipating a lot of things and putting down laws to avoid the excesses and abuses they experienced under English rule.

 

However, I also realize that you don't need assault weapons to take out a deer to feed your family (and preferably it won't get tried unless you just like venison hash). So I'm OK with limits on types of weapons. I'm also OK with some kind of national database to prevent people from buying weapons unlawfully. You could have registration or lot numbers on all bullets/rounds for purposes of tracing, but I think you can make your own bullets for some weapons, so that might render it less effective. It's also not effective if someone picks up all their casings or if the bullet itself gets destroyed.

 

Our pediatrician, believe it or not, actually addresses gun safety with our kids at yearly check-ups--'what do you do if you see a gun? Don't touch it and get an adult.'. Of course, he deals with bike helmets, proper/improper touch, teeth brushing, and so forth, all while he's looking my kids over. It's never a dull moment in his office, believe me.

[Emperor Devon]

But at the very least, you could give some examples of what you're talking about.

 

Fine. In 2002, 875 known people in the U.S. were shot by an abusive intimate.

 

Come now, why do you think the positive effects of banning guns altogether are more numerous than the positive effects of allowing people to arm themselves?

 

Forgive me, not giving people an effective tool of suicide, abuse, murder, and accidents is definitely secondary compared to letting animals be shot for fun and keeping a ridiculously outdated view on liberty.

[Spider AL]

Fine. In 2002, 875 known people in the U.S. were shot by an abusive intimate.

Could you cite the source for this? it would help.

 

But trusting that your number is accurate, how many were inflicted with legally owned firearms, how many were fatal injuries, and how many of those injuries that WERE inflicted by legally owned firearms, do you think a ban on firearms would have negated? If you're an abusive husband or wife, a knife is always handy.

 

I'm not making some sort of a statement here, for all I know they could ALL have been murdered, and all with legal firearms.

 

No, I'm not making a statement. I'm posing questions of the type that you have to ask yourself on this topic. As an Englishman I was brought up in an anti-weapon society. I looked down on countries like the US for being more lax about legal ownership of all sorts of weapons. But when I grew older and did my own research on the topic, I discovered there is little or no correllation between gun control or lack of it, and gun crime. I learned that gun crime can flourish in both a tightly controlled country, and in a loosely controlled country. This is just the observable fact. A society's relative level of safety is determined by national culture and quality of policing. Not by what weapons can legally be bought.

 

People who register their ownership of an expensive weapon are less likely to use it for nefarious purposes than someone who buys a cheap illegal weapon. It's axiomatic.

 

Forgive me, not giving people an effective tool of suicide, abuse, murder, and accidents is definitely secondary compared to letting animals be shot for fun and keeping a ridiculously outdated view on liberty.

I don't agree with hunting for sport, personally. But hunting is done with rifles, and legally speaking handguns are of more concern to me as crime (and suicide to a lesser extent) is a handgun-related sport.

 

Guns are for one purpose only: To kill. Now that doesn't make them "bad". They're a tool. A tool for killing. I believe that law-abiding citizens should INDEED be allowed under the law to own and carry a weapon- such as a gun- with which they can defend their lives with lethal force, if necessary. Thus, the tool for killing can be placed into the right hands, for the right purpose.

 

Why do the police carry guns? To defend the public. Why should the law-abiding section of the public carry guns? To defend themselves.

 

Your constitution? Frankly I don't know it, I don't care about it. As I've said before, I'd rather apply logic to this debate than constantly reference a mouldy old document.

[TK-8252]

Your constitution? Frankly I don't know it, I don't care about it. As I've said before, I'd rather apply logic to this debate than constantly reference a mouldy old document.

 

I agreed with everything in your above post - with the exception of this one part.

 

Use that kind of thinking and you end up like Bush and his buddies!

[Emperor Devon]

Could you cite the source for this? it would help.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

 

But trusting that your number is accurate, how many were inflicted with legally owned firearms, how many were fatal injuries, and how many of those injuries that WERE inflicted by legally owned firearms, do you think a ban on firearms would have negated?

 

And what is the probability that at least some were? High, I'd think.

 

If you're an abusive husband or wife, a knife is always handy.

 

And it's not as dangerous a weapon as a gun.

 

Why do the police carry guns? To defend the public. Why should the law-abiding section of the public carry guns? To defend themselves.

 

You're saying that every person who owns a gun legally can be trusted with it?

[toms]

Nobody said we were a warring African state. But despite your scoffing even you have seemingly accepted that there has been a rise since the tighter controls were brought in. QED, I think.

 

But it was also rising before they brought in tighter gun controls. And in the UK so few people even owned guns that they were hardly a factor in crime prevention statistics. While its true that there has been a rise in gun crime, its still miniscule in relation to the amount of gun crime in the USA.. and knife crime has risen by a much higher amount (with no coresponding ban to blame that upon).

 

As for gun statistics, i tend to find they are useless, as they never prove cause and effect, and can be used to prove both sides of the argument at once.

And comparissons between countries tend to be equally meaningless as the society and culture has as much to do with anything as the guns. (eg: japan has no gns, but very low crime. canada has as manyguns as the USA but low gun crime.. though the odd school shooting).

 

I did a short study of violent crime rates VS levels of gun ownership in the various states of the USA. In general the states with the highest gun ownership also had the highest violent crime. But one or two had very LOW violent crime, and one or two of the one with low gun ownership had high violent crime.

 

So gun ownership doesn't seem to have as big an effect as poverty or other social issues.. but on the other hand gun ownership almost certainly DOESNT reduce crime.. and it does lead to a lot more gun accidents and potential for crazy people to get guns and go on shooting sprees. (isn't there a statistic that a gun in a home is as likely to be used against its owners (in an accident or arguement) as it is to be used in defence?)

 

So i don't see that banning guns would do much harm.. and it might potentially do some good in limited cases. (While crazy people trying to shoot up the school could probably still get hold of an illegal gun, it would be an extra step for them to go through. And its not as easy as it sounds for people without criminal contacts to get an illegal gun).

 

-

 

I think that everyone in schools and planes should be allowed to carry guns, as that would give them the chance to defend themselves if needed.

 

Its just a natural extension of the same argument that is used for gun ownership in the USA.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by TK-8252:

 

I agreed with everything in your above post - with the exception of this one part.

 

Use that kind of thinking and you end up like Bush and his buddies!

Ack! Not like Bush!

 

Seriously though I think that the problem with Bush and his handlers is not that they ignore the constitution, but that they ignore good sense and logic. If the constitution is in any way positive, it's because of the good sense and logic that it contains.

 

--

 

Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Ah, wikipedia. Wiki is very useful for quick info, but I wouldn't go to any publically editable website for hard facts, if I were you. One must go to the source of the person who edited the wiki article to find the truth.

 

The phrase you quoted (In 2002, 875 known people in the U.S. were shot by an abusive intimate) seems to come from a page on the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign website, and THEY say that they got their numbers from the department of justice website. ALL of these shootings were fatal shootings, by the way.

 

And the DOJ figures in question do NOT say how many of these shootings were committed with legally obtained firearms, and how many with unregistered guns. Without this important indicator, it is not possible to apply this statistic to the question of whether banning guns is a good idea!

 

Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

 

And what is the probability that at least some were? High, I'd think.

Well, y'know, as much as you seem like a decent fellow, I'm not inclined to take your guesswork as fact. "Some" could mean three to seven-hundred-and-three. We need the number to find the truth. If the number is extremely low, then they are abberations and should be given less weight. If the number is extremely high, more weight. Etcetera.

 

I'm not saying that these numbers support MY argument, or yours. I'm saying without this extra data, the numbers are an unknown quantity. Meaningless. But I would LIKE to know the truth of these particular numbers. I'm still doing research.

 

It is SO IMPORTANT to find the real facts associated with an issue before you formulate and espouse an opinion. This issue is one of the more obtuse of the major issues today, because campaigners on both sides are well known for skewing statistics, conveniently forgetting important details, and doing similar sneaky things. It's our responsibility to cut through the bollcrap associated with the pro-gun-control and anti-gun-control lobbies, and make an informed choice.

 

Here are some interesting numbers from the DOJ, justifiable homicides by citizens average out to (very very roughly) 250 a year for the past thirty years. Of these, most occurred when the citizen was defending themselves or a fellow citizen, or had disturbed a felon in the progress of committing a crime.

 

The FBI uniform crime reports state that the vast majority of justifiable homicides that are committed by civilians, are committed using a firearm:

 

In 2000, 138 out of 164 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 84%.

In 2001, 183 out of 222 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 82%.

In 2002, 189 out of 233 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 81%.

In 2003, 203 out of 247 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 82%.

In 2004, 170 out of 229 justifiable homicides were with a gun, about 74%.

 

Eight out of ten self-defence kills are with a gun, and this doesn't even count all the self-defence excusable homicides, nor those justifiable homicides that were only determined as being self-defence after a lengthy trial, nor does it include non-lethal self defence shootings. Or just drawing the gun and scaring the scum away.

 

Add to this the fact that many violent criminals will offend time and time again, harming many many people, and the positive impact on society of killing them in self-defence can no longer be calculated.

 

To my mind this is a strong indicator that guns are indeed an effective method of self-defence, if users train themselves properly. But that's their responsibility. Any debate concerning gun control must include the fact that guns can be used effectively to defend oneself and others, guns HAVE been used effectively in this manner, and guns will continue to be used effectively to defend law abiding members of society, in the future.

 

And no, I'm not saying that these lifesaving incidents outweigh all the shooting accidents. How can one weigh one life against another? But once again, the numbers associated with shooting accidents must be examined for context. Was the accident victim a drugged up felon cleaning his illegal uzi? Or was it a child who found a loaded gun which should have been locked away? Without these important details, all context is lost and no judgement can be made using the data.

 

Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

 

And it's not as dangerous a weapon as a gun.

I'm afraid that this oversimplified statement betrays a certain lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject of the effectiveness of knives. No offence, but a lot of people don't realise that knives can be, depending on the circumstances, just as dangerous as firearms. Sometimes MORE dangerous.

 

Law enforcement officers are taught that a knife-man can close a distance of twenty feet or more and fatally stab or slash a policeman before he or she has a chance to draw and fire their weapon in self-defence.

 

The range factor is an important one. In close, a knife is deadly. At long distance, it ain't. And no, knives cannot reliably be thrown. Even professional knife throwers only have a one-in-two chance of hitting a closing or retreating target with the point of a specialist throwing knife. At long range, guns rule the day. But in urban environments, attackers routinely get in close WHATEVER weapon they're using.

 

Some special forces men and police instructors claim that they'd rather face a gunman than a knife man, on principle. Because while one can grab any part of a gun safely except the tip of the barrel, one cannot grab a knife without getting cut, probably losing some dexterity in your hand in the process. And then you get cut to ribbons. But you can often safely grab a gun while striking the gunman with your free hand. It's not much of a chance frankly, but it's MORE of a chance.

 

Knives are more likely to be used by experienced assassins, as they are silent and so do not attract immediate attention, are more easily concealed, more easily disposed of, and easier to come by. There are no ballistic tests one can run on a knife. There is no gunshot residue imbedded in the hand of someone who used a knife. A knife has "infinite ammunition", and takes little or no skill to deploy effectively. Give a ten year old child a gun, and they'll have to figure out how to cock it/unsafety it/load it/aim it or all of the above before it can be used. Give a ten year old child a knife, and they're instantly dangerous.

 

In areas where guns are more prevalent, guns are the killing tool of choice. In areas where guns are less common, knives are the killing tool of choice. But knives make a great killing tool, mistake ye not.

 

Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

 

You're saying that every person who owns a gun legally can be trusted with it?

Don't start with the straw men, I did not say nor did I imply anything of the sort.

 

What I DID say was that people who go through the trouble of registering a legal firearm and spending quite a bit of cash on it are less likely to use it for illegal things than someone who buys an illegal cheap firearm is. You can't argue with that, it's simple logic.

 

Secondly, I said that I believe people have the right to arm themselves so that they may effectively defend themselves. That's an ideological stance that really can't be debated. Some people genuinely believe that we as law abiding citizens should be totally defenceless. I have no time for them.

 

--

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

But it was also rising before they brought in tighter gun controls.

Irrelevant, Toms. The idea was to institute even tighter controls over handguns, and far from reversing the trend in handgun crime, it didn't even stop the rise. BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONNECTION. Legal ownership of weapons is unconnected with the bulk of weapons-related crime. People who collect expensive knives as a rule don't go out stabbing people with their collection. People who want to stab other people use cheap kitchen knives and slash people with cheap, untraceable box-cutters.

 

People who buy expensive handguns and register their ownership of these guns won't as a rule use said guns in a planned crime. Instead, those who want to commit a crime and need a gun to do so will acquire an illegal one. It's axiomatic.

 

There is no correlation between tighter and tigher controls and bans on weapons that are legally acquired and registered, and the rise or fall of general weapons-crime.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

and knife crime has risen by a much higher amount (with no coresponding ban to blame that upon).

Guh! I didn't "blame" the rise in handgun crime on the ban, I proved that the ban had no positive effect. Two different things.

 

Secondly, there IS a ban on the carrying of bladed tools in the UK. Or do you wander round England with a machete stuck down your trousers?

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

I did a short study of violent crime rates VS levels of gun ownership in the various states of the USA. In general the states with the highest gun ownership also had the highest violent crime. But one or two had very LOW violent crime, and one or two of the one with low gun ownership had high violent crime.

QED.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

(isn't there a statistic that a gun in a home is as likely to be used against its owners (in an accident or arguement) as it is to be used in defence?)

You're referring to the oft-cited, eternally discussed and much maligned study by Kellerman. Look here for critique and links to more critique of this study: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

 

The conclusions drawn by Kellerman are, in my opinion, not correct.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

So i don't see that banning guns would do much harm..

By doing so you are effectively penalising the law abiding, and giving armed criminals an advantage over them. Make no mistake Toms, in THIS country, the UK, we are effectively UNABLE to defend ourselves against criminals. We cannot have the weapons they have. We cannot carry knives. We cannot own guns. They will have weapons we will not have.

 

Don't believe the Bruce Lee crap. If you're outnumbered and outgunned, chances are you'll lose. They're not standing still so that you can run away, they're not standing still so that you can punch them. They're stabbing, they're slashing. They're beating, they're firing.

 

If you DO manage to win against a better-armed foe...

 

It's luck. End of story, sadly.

 

Originally posted by Toms:

 

I think that everyone in schools and planes should be allowed to carry guns, as that would give them the chance to defend themselves if needed.

 

Its just a natural extension of the same argument that is used for gun ownership in the USA.

No Toms, it's you being ludicrous. Having the right to arm yourself if you're a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean "Ummm, everyone should get teh gunz0rz."

[Emperor Devon]

What I DID say was that people who go through the trouble of registering a legal firearm and spending quite a bit of cash on it are less likely to use it for illegal things than someone who buys an illegal cheap firearm is. You can't argue with that, it's simple logic.

 

But not unlikely. There are rotten apples in every barrel. And just because they technically own the gun doesn't stop it from being misused. What about family members, or simple poor care of the weapon?

 

All of this aside, you can't deny that stopping guns from being sold to the public would result in fewer deaths, however small a percentage. It's simple logic.

[Spider AL]

But not unlikely.

Yes, unlikely. Unlikely, in that the majority of people who legally own firearms are fine, law abiding citizens. Unlikely in that of those few people who bother to register guns and then decide to commit a crime requiring a gun, even FEWER will be stupid enough to use the gun they've registered to commit the crime, instead of buying a cheap new illegal gun. And if you instituted a ban on legal firearms, a portion of the very stupid ones would aquire an illegal weapon. It's simple logic.

 

Of the few people that remain, those idiots who DO elect to commit a crime of passion with their easily traceable legally acquired firearm... They'll be few. And the right to hold the means of defending oneself is, in my view, sufficiently vital that such abberant occurrances- while regrettable- would not be numerous enough to warrant an outright ban on legally obtainable firearms.

 

You'll find my answers to your second paragraph back in my first post in this thread. This is ground we've trodden before, Devon. I went into the possible reduction in suicides and the definite reduction in accidental deaths.

 

But I'll take the fact that you've ignored all the rest of the points I made in my last post, as meaning that you agree with all of them.

[Emperor Devon]

To reuse our simple logic statement again, it's simple logic that giving another source for guns to purchased from will inevitably result in more accidents or deaths. To reuse an overused example, look at Cheny's little accident.

 

But I'll take the fact that you've ignored all the rest of the points I made in my last post, as meaning that you agree with all of them.

 

No, I was just too lazy to reply. It's Sunday and I've had nothing to do all day.

 

On the subject of knives: lethal weapons too. But it's much harder to live without them than it is to live without guns.

 

On the subject of sources: blame it on my laziness. Wikipedia's easy to get info from.