Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mika on July 26, 2011, 11:55:57 am
-
I recall that this topic has been popping up here several times before, each time after some school shooting.
What I first want to hear from UK people is that has the removal of firearms reduced violence levels, or has the change been upwards? If violence has increased, is it with firearms or knives?
-
Misleading implied connection between firearms availability and violence is misleading.
-
In many cases, anything can be a weapon, be it a knife, a gun or a garden-hose, it really seems to be down to the mentality of the people themselves.
I seem to recall that a recent survey found that a knife-wound is every bit as dangerous, if not more so, than a bullet wound. I've always personally felt that the existence of firearms is not so much the problem as the availability of them. You'll always get tragic incidents where an argument leads to a utensil being used as a weapon, but the difference with guns is that they are designed with one specific purpose in mind, and that is to kill things (there is shooting for sport, but it doesn't really change the idea that a gun is to kill stuff).
When I was younger I used to be a keen archer, another device with a single purpose, and I literally just had to walk into a shop, sign a form, and I could buy a bow and a set of arrows that could conceivably lead to someone's death.
My own feeling is that someone who wants to kill will find a way to do so, damage limitation would be better achieved by far more investigation into why someone would want a firearm and the safety of allowing that person to obtain it than by prohibition as a blanket solution.
-
If I'm not mistaken isn't Canada guns akimbo but with less violent crime then most other places?
-
Indeed it is.
-
Misleading implied connection between firearms availability and violence is misleading.
I specifically asked of people from UK and get a first response from a German? That's the internet then I guess. I wanted to see the UK violent crime statistics after the ban was instated and nothing else. Logic dictates that someone must have been doing this since that is the only way to see if the ban had any effect on anything.
I'm personally of the opinion that the easy availability of guns leads to violent crime much easier in some countries and doesn't make any iota of difference in some at the moment we are living now. This all depends on the culture, and the current societal level. I do have a theory of this, but let's see what others have to say about this first.
-
Logic dictates...
(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/5/28/128880282262767719.jpg)
-
I suppose part of the issue here is that the Dunblane shooting which was the incident that propelled gun control into the mass media and into politics as a matter of wide spread public interest was in 1996, I was 11/12 at the time so have little knowledge of the politics of the time, just outrage at what had happened. Since then it has only been the last what 7 years? where gun crime has become an issue, but this is a problem with illegally held weapons so a problem with preventing the movement of weapon and prior detection of carriers rather than with gun controls themselves. Another problem is the lack of news coverage and often when there is news coverage of a shooting it is done in a routine way so the public outcry is muted.
I certainly believe that the problem would be worse with looser gun controls because more people would be willing to own/carry a gun so when heated arguments or gang violence erupt the chances of fire-arms being involved will likewise rise. If the gun isn't there it cant be used.
-
Gun control laws are in place to prevent normal people from doing stupid stuff towards each other. This hasn't stopped criminality in UK, so would a better measure be then armed assault or armed robberies? Does anyone have a link to that statistic?
-
(http://www.imfdb.org/w/images/thumb/b/b8/Snatch.JPG/500px-Snatch.JPG)
After much statistical analysis based entirely on using Guy Ritchie Films for data points, it's safe to say armed assault is bloody well common in the UK.
-
The lack of availability of guns does make enforcement of gun controls easier. If no one has guns legally anyone with a gun has it illegally. :p
-
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
This might be of use if you can open it from outside the UK.
-
and the current societal level.
Dangerous generalizations and/or bad science incoming.
-
A fair number of publications show that violence levels have more to do with culture than availability of weapons. You cannot discuss firearms policy in correlation with violence beyond national borders; each country is a fairly unique case (and by way of citation, I point at the violent crime and gun ownership rates of the United States and Canada). Was going to leave it at this, but...
The lack of availability of guns does make enforcement of gun controls easier. If no one has guns legally anyone with a gun has it illegally. :p
You'd THINK that would be the case, but whenever you outlaw something completely, you inevitably create a large, vibrant black market for it if there is demand. And there simply aren't the policing resources to perform adequate enforcement (aside from this is the fact that in many places there are several very legitimate reasons to own a firearm). Though it's interesting you bring this up, because I've heard similar sentiments expressed by my wife's family (who are English) and who were astounded to discover that all police in Canada are armed... which led to a very lively discussion where I attempted to explain to them how NOT arming the police here in Canada would be insane, but I can see it working in the UK.
Which just adds to my point - comparing firearms/anti-violence policy across national borders is like comparing apples to mushrooms (you're not even in the same kingdom).
-
A fair number of publications show that violence levels have more to do with culture than availability of weapons. You cannot discuss firearms policy in correlation with violence beyond national borders; each country is a fairly unique case (and by way of citation, I point at the violent crime and gun ownership rates of the United States and Canada). Was going to leave it at this, but...
The lack of availability of guns does make enforcement of gun controls easier. If no one has guns legally anyone with a gun has it illegally. :p
You'd THINK that would be the case, but whenever you outlaw something completely, you inevitably create a large, vibrant black market for it if there is demand. And there simply aren't the policing resources to perform adequate enforcement (aside from this is the fact that in many places there are several very legitimate reasons to own a firearm). Though it's interesting you bring this up, because I've heard similar sentiments expressed by my wife's family (who are English) and who were astounded to discover that all police in Canada are armed... which led to a very lively discussion where I attempted to explain to them how NOT arming the police here in Canada would be insane, but I can see it working in the UK.
Which just adds to my point - comparing firearms/anti-violence policy across national borders is like comparing apples to mushrooms (you're not even in the same kingdom).
The point of culture/society is a good one (and one I am often guilty of overlooking) because like you point out black market supply does and indeed have formed in the UK due to some cultural/social groups believing in the ownership and carrying of weapons being a powerful status symbol which creates demand. The problem of course is that using the law on it's own wont fix this problem as in some groups the very fact that it is illegal is what gives firearms the power as a status and is a aspect that the government needs to deal with, problem is I think the solution is too subtle for the politicians to grasp because it lacks the big obvious impact they crave to gain votes.
-
Humans have been killing each other for all time. We have killed our fellow humans with big sticks and stones and when we got smarter we made bows and arrows, swords and all sorts of weapons to make killing our fellow humans easier. Guns are just that, a more efficient way of killing people. Blaming the gun for the actions of the person behind it and saying that if we ban all guns violence will decrease drastically is just trying to find something to blame for the violence. Humans have always killed, they are killing and they will always kill. No way around it. It is what it is. GET OVER IT.
-
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Thus,
Ban people.
Problem solved.
-
Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Thus,
Ban people.
Problem solved.
This will solve global warming too! Can anybody else think of any other problems with the world that would be solved with the eradication of all humans?
-
The lack of availability of guns does make enforcement of gun controls easier. If no one has guns legally anyone with a gun has it illegally. :p
Well, if you outlaw guns completely, you'd scare away civilian security companies, sport shooters, hunters, gunsmiths and other people who, for one reason or another, need to have weapons. Criminals have their own ways to get guns (in order to buy a gun in most places, you need a background check anyway). In fact, I think that the exact opposite should be done: increase gun availability and teach people how to handle them safely and properly. After all, some criminals would think twice before robbing a place full of armed people, those who won't would get their (well deserved) Darwin Award. Also, sport shooting is a great way to spread patriotism among people, considering that it's a "paramilitary" sport (I ended up on that paramilitary camp this way, I first heard of it on the range where I'm training). In case of war, some sporting marksmen and especially hunters would make good snipers, and even people not training reguralry won't be clueless when handed a gun. Considering how many people were on that island in Norway when shooting happened, it's possible that if 10% of them had guns (even pistols) and some basic training with them, the shooting would be over very quickly, with far less victims.
-
I'm for gun control. I want to keep guns out of the hands of bureaucrats.
-
The lack of availability of guns does make enforcement of gun controls easier. If no one has guns legally anyone with a gun has it illegally. :p
Well, if you outlaw guns completely, you'd scare away civilian security companies, sport shooters, hunters, gunsmiths and other people who, for one reason or another, need to have weapons. Criminals have their own ways to get guns (in order to buy a gun in most places, you need a background check anyway). In fact, I think that the exact opposite should be done: increase gun availability and teach people how to handle them safely and properly. After all, some criminals would think twice before robbing a place full of armed people, those who won't would get their (well deserved) Darwin Award. Also, sport shooting is a great way to spread patriotism among people, considering that it's a "paramilitary" sport (I ended up on that paramilitary camp this way, I first heard of it on the range where I'm training). In case of war, some sporting marksmen and especially hunters would make good snipers, and even people not training reguralry won't be clueless when handed a gun. Considering how many people were on that island in Norway when shooting happened, it's possible that if 10% of them had guns (even pistols) and some basic training with them, the shooting would be over very quickly, with far less victims.
But no one would ever think about bringing their gun to a party, trained or not... And nobody is expecting anything. If the Twin Towers had a full blown AAA battery it would not have helped much either I suspect...
You are right in thinking that criminals will find their guns somehow, (in the netherlands you only get a permit after you've been shooting with one for a while on a range, and off course with al those evaluations), however, making guns illegal does do weird stuff with the prices: A Glock pistol here costs €600 in the legal circuit. In the illegal circuit, it costs atleast €2500 (source: NRC Weekblad).
-
I've always loved the "Criminals will find a way" argument. Of course they will try. But the fact that there is a gun ban in the UK means that they do have to try a lot harder than they do in countries without one.
Not to mention the fact that the UK police in general don't carry guns instead leaving it to special response squads seems to show that most criminals are NOT getting guns.
Yes, people kill people not guns. But until we figure out how to stop people killing people why not make it harder for them to do it? That seems to be the dominant thinking here in the UK and I for one am very glad that it is. If someone here can point out a simple way to allow Brits to all carry guns which wouldn't increase the murder rate (or suicide rate for that matter), I'd love to hear it.
-
Another name for 'gun control' is 'victim disarmament'. It only works to disarm the public, and make them unable to defend themselves, thus having to ask their government for assistance. The government always loves to come riding in as the savior during a crisis when it does them most credit or favor.
It's not like criminals will go turn in their guns, they'll probably cheer gun control and start looting. Their method of acquiring guns is always underground, gun control or not, so they will suffer the least, if at all, from gun control policies.
EDIT: Even more, making guns illegal creates a MARKET for illegal guns, as, just like with drugs, there's much more money to be made then.
Interestingly in Norway, that island with the mass shooting was one of the few places where gun control was enacted in Norway.
Furthermore, while the Swiss policy is more militarily, you notice there's practically no shootings there and it's actually a somewhat friendlier culture.
Thus in my opinion we should look at the causes of people going mad and shooting stuff - such as the Prozac connection combined with unstable personalities found almost every time, that causes lowered inhibitions and blurred sense of reality.
-
Yes, people kill people not guns. But until we figure out how to stop people killing people why not make it harder for them to do it?
Belief in personal responsibility is not the same thing as depraved indifference.
-
Karajorma posted the only sane viewpoint, really.
-
Belief in personal responsibility is not the same thing as depraved indifference.
Feel free to explain why guns should be legal but bazookas shouldn't be? It's perfectly possible to be a responsible bazooka owner after all.
-
Pocket Nukes Karajorma.
-
I think it's unfair to blanket either viewpoint while forgetting how important a role population-density/area plays on this issue, let alone the difficulties of policing smuggling in different venues. What works for one place won't necessarily work for another.
-
Of course it won't. I'm not saying that it would work in the US for instance. But I am saying that it works in the UK.
-
I think it's unfair to blanket either viewpoint while forgetting how important a role population-density/area plays on this issue, let alone the difficulties of policing smuggling in different venues. What works for one place won't necessarily work for another.
Bingo!
One of the most eye-opening experiences for me is the fact that the first outside country I have ever lived in for a prolonged period of time (1.5 months) is China. Coming from Finland, it was a huge difference in terms of cultural values and even in how the complete system functions. Most of the things important here are not there and vice versa, it's like a polar opposite of this country. I believe the Chinese exchange researchers feel the same when they come here. One happened to be here when the latest school shooting took place, and was wondering how did they guy get a gun in the first place. I had to explain anyone can buy a firearm here nowadays and it's completely legal to own them. He was flabbergasted that there isn't more of these incidents, and said that if the weapons were as available in China, chaos would be ensured.
It made me think about the reasons why he said that. This place has a long culture of using firearms as tools, understanding this is very important as it paves the way for further discussion. They were indeed very much needed earlier when the food production levels weren't even close to what they are nowadays, and hunting some of the food you eat was almost mandatory. The same applies to the Finnish knife, puukko, which is also seen as a tool even more so, since everybody takes one with them when they go to forest. What I notice is that older people have an attitude that they don't want to use their tools to hurt anyone unless absolutely necessary. But my personal feeling is that this is not true with younger generations, and I started to wonder why.
The difference is probably that the younger generations have not hunted as much as the older ones. Why is this significant? If you have hunted, you cannot avoid knowing how easy it is to kill an animal with a firearm, and you are also subjected to see what the animal does after having been shot. Not all of them die immediately. Hunting is also team work, and the trust between the team is important which is one of the important factors; this all means they get to know each other well, and will notice somebody having strange thoughts about firearms quite quickly. One more additional important thing is that there is plenty of gutting that needs to be done after all to get the meat. I know several persons who were keen on hunting until they had to gut their prey, an experience after which they stopped hunting. I don't wonder any more why hunters are appalled by sports shooting, and I personally wouldn't recommend that to any one. Either hunt, or do not shoot at all.
Why did I bring the link to China in the first place? Because China has never had a large cultural basis of firearms being used for hunting, but as a tool of population control. Plenty of the people there after attaining the weapon would go to revenge something, or that's what I'm being told by Chinese, and after being there, I can believe so. You can now probably see what I meant with societal level in the earlier post, but why did I also emphasize time?
Because societies change in times, and hunting is becoming more irrelevant as a means to get something to eat. In Europe, it isn't necessary any more, and in Finland it is a hobby. I go on and generalize that the more urbanization happens, the less hunters there are, and this is a significant contributing factor to increase in gun related crime here. Yes, the firearms related crime is in a slow but steady increase here, even though we have one of the most strictest gun control laws in place. The effect I'm talking about has gone a lot further in UK and Germany, for example, so far that in UK it was possible to instate a law where firearms were completely forbidden. That's the case in China too.
What are your thoughts about this?
Dangerous generalizations and/or bad science incoming.
Congratulations! You just won a top place in my ignore list by posting that BEFORE I said anything! Enjoy your stay!
-
It made me think about the reasons why he said that. This place has a long culture of using firearms as tools, understanding this is very important as it paves the way for further discussion. They were indeed very much needed earlier when the food production levels weren't even close to what they are nowadays, and hunting some of the food you eat was almost mandatory. The same applies to the Finnish knife, puukko, which is also seen as a tool even more so, since everybody takes one with them when they go to forest. What I notice is that older people have an attitude that they don't want to use their tools to hurt anyone unless absolutely necessary. But my personal feeling is that this is not true with younger generations, and I started to wonder why.
Agreed. It seems people today associate guns more with fun and games, rather than with what these tools actually do.
Another thing is that it starts to be a long time from WW2. The war surviving generations probably valued their lives/lives of others a bit more. Simply because they knew better.
-
Mika's actually coming at the point I was making from a different angle but yeah, different cultures are different. The UK is a safer place to live cause guns are banned. China is too. I've spent a fair while living in both and I don't believe that access to guns for the general population would lead to less crime or even the same amount of crime.
America might be different, but who gives a ****. The original question was about the UK, not America.
-
Mika's actually coming at the point I was making from a different angle but yeah, different cultures are different. The UK is a safer place to live cause guns are banned. China is too. I've spent a fair while living in both and I don't believe that access to guns for the general population would lead to less crime or even the same amount of crime.
America might be different, but who gives a ****. The original question was about the UK, not America.
I'd suspect the gov't of having ulterior motives for withholding weapons from the Chinese populace though.
-
Maybe, I still wouldn't want to live in China if the gen. pop had access to guns. Even if tomorrow the country magically became a shinning beacon of democracy.
While there might be certain cultures like the Swiss and Canadians who can be trusted with guns there are others who can't. The UK is sadly on that list but at least we're smart enough to realise that. :p
-
Of course it won't. I'm not saying that it would work in the US for instance. But I am saying that it works in the UK.
That was absent from your earlier post, but I'm glad you clarified it. While a gun ban may work in the UK, try doing that in Canada - with the US and their 2nd Amendment right next door.
-
i think the problem with america's gun violence is not so much readily available access to guns, but the fact that we go out of our way to glorify violence and criminal activity. our movies our music and our tv is loaded with it. gun control also does not eliminate guns. guns can still be bought and sold on the black market (criminals just dont buy guns from your corner gun shop). we manufacture guns so we dont need to import anything, criminals just need to hijack a few shipments to provide guns for criminal enterprise.
what gun control might do is curb accidental gun deaths and reduce the number of crimes of passion. but it wont stop gangsters, armed robbers, drug dealers and hitmen.
-
Feel free to explain why guns should be legal but bazookas shouldn't be? It's perfectly possible to be a responsible bazooka owner after all.
I know you've been talking about the UK, and I don't usually end up on this side of the debate on firearms laws, but I feel the need to point something out:
Firearms are a tool. They have legitimate civilian applications [from a Canadian perspective] in law enforcement, wildlife defense, hunting for sustenance, and recreational shooting [unlike the US, we don't have a strong movement on personal/home defense]. While this may not apply in the UK specifically, it shows that a firearm is not an inherently evil or unnecessary tool. A bazooka, on the other hand, has it's sole application in military use.
-
i think the problem with america's gun violence is not so much readily available access to guns, but the fact that we go out of our way to glorify violence and criminal activity. our movies our music and our tv is loaded with it. gun control also does not eliminate guns. guns can still be bought and sold on the black market (criminals just dont buy guns from your corner gun shop). we manufacture guns so we dont need to import anything, criminals just need to hijack a few shipments to provide guns for criminal enterprise.
what gun control might do is curb accidental gun deaths and reduce the number of crimes of passion. but it wont stop gangsters, armed robbers, drug dealers and hitmen.
The US needs to realize that implementing safety controls on firearms ownership and use [NATIONALLY] is not an attempt to disarm its populace and negate the 2nd Amendment, which seems to be the hang-up. There is nothing wrong with licensing for firearms owners (a particularly successful initiative under our own Firearms Act). Similarly, there is nothing wrong with making mandatory safety training a part of obtaining that license (as we do), nor making education about proper storage and implementing laws to that effect (which we also do) a priority too. Right there you can significantly reduce the risks of accidental deaths (which account for a large number of firearms-related deaths in the US). It doesn't deal with the criminal element who will obtain a gun no matter what you try, but it prevents your five-year old from killing his brother because he played with daddy's gun because daddy couldn't take the 30 seconds to unload it and store it safely.
THAT'S what infuriates me about the US gun culture - the crazy refusal to see how a few minor restrictions can save the lives of your loved ones.
-
Firearms are a tool. They have legitimate civilian applications [from a Canadian perspective] in law enforcement, wildlife defense, hunting for sustenance, and recreational shooting [unlike the US, we don't have a strong movement on personal/home defense]. While this may not apply in the UK specifically, it shows that a firearm is not an inherently evil or unnecessary tool. A bazooka, on the other hand, has it's sole application in military use.
The UK ban applies to handguns, not rifles IIRC. That robs you of most of your argument. You can do recreational bazooka shooting. You could even keep score and make it an Olympic sport if you wanted to. Well you could if they were legal. And the only reason it isn't legal is because no sane person wants non-armed forces personal having access to bazookas.
I could make the same argument for explosives having legitimate civilian uses but I doubt you want anyone to be able to wonder into a shop and buy a stick of dynamite.
So it's the same argument as with handguns but with a different line drawn in the sand.
-
Firearms are a tool. They have legitimate civilian applications [from a Canadian perspective] in law enforcement, wildlife defense, hunting for sustenance, and recreational shooting [unlike the US, we don't have a strong movement on personal/home defense]. While this may not apply in the UK specifically, it shows that a firearm is not an inherently evil or unnecessary tool. A bazooka, on the other hand, has it's sole application in military use.
The UK ban applies to handguns, not rifles IIRC. That robs you of most of your argument. You can do recreational bazooka shooting. You could even keep score and make it an Olympic sport if you wanted to. Well you could if they were legal. And the only reason it isn't legal is because no sane person wants non-armed forces personal having access to bazookas.
I could make the same argument for explosives having legitimate civilian uses but I doubt you want anyone to be able to wonder into a shop and buy a stick of dynamite.
So it's the same argument as with handguns but with a different line drawn in the sand.
not to mention the small piece of legislation regarding "conspiracy to cause explosions"
-
i think the problem with america's gun violence is not so much readily available access to guns, but the fact that we go out of our way to glorify violence and criminal activity. our movies our music and our tv is loaded with it. gun control also does not eliminate guns. guns can still be bought and sold on the black market (criminals just dont buy guns from your corner gun shop). we manufacture guns so we dont need to import anything, criminals just need to hijack a few shipments to provide guns for criminal enterprise.
what gun control might do is curb accidental gun deaths and reduce the number of crimes of passion. but it wont stop gangsters, armed robbers, drug dealers and hitmen.
The US needs to realize that implementing safety controls on firearms ownership and use [NATIONALLY] is not an attempt to disarm its populace and negate the 2nd Amendment, which seems to be the hang-up. There is nothing wrong with licensing for firearms owners (a particularly successful initiative under our own Firearms Act). Similarly, there is nothing wrong with making mandatory safety training a part of obtaining that license (as we do), nor making education about proper storage and implementing laws to that effect (which we also do) a priority too. Right there you can significantly reduce the risks of accidental deaths (which account for a large number of firearms-related deaths in the US). It doesn't deal with the criminal element who will obtain a gun no matter what you try, but it prevents your five-year old from killing his brother because he played with daddy's gun because daddy couldn't take the 30 seconds to unload it and store it safely.
THAT'S what infuriates me about the US gun culture - the crazy refusal to see how a few minor restrictions can save the lives of your loved ones.
i should also point out that various gun control laws are not at the federal but at the state and local levels. here in alaska (at least some parts of it) guns are essential. if you live anywhere north of anchorage you need guns just to avoid getting eaten by a large bear. we also have a lot of people who hunt. so our gun regulations are more lax than say new york or california. i would push for more safety oriented gun control, like mandatory trigger locks or safes, laws on obtaining ammunition, and mandatory safety training. but banning guns is something im strongly against.
i also lived in arizona which is another gun happy state. having worked in a pawn shop where half the people who worked there either wore a gun or had one in near reach during the work day. did get to see the federal gun control in action, where make, model, serial number, store information and the personal information of the applicant are all needed, as well as a phone call to the fbi who ultimately have the last word on whether or not a sale can be made. assuming things havent changed much since then that is all the control there is at the federal level.
-
Another name for 'gun control' is 'victim disarmament'. It only works to disarm the public, and make them unable to defend themselves, thus having to ask their government for assistance. The government always loves to come riding in as the savior during a crisis when it does them most credit or favor.
It's not like criminals will go turn in their guns, they'll probably cheer gun control and start looting.
Has not happened here so far...
-
Nor in the UK.
-
I could make the same argument for explosives having legitimate civilian uses but I doubt you want anyone to be able to wonder into a shop and buy a stick of dynamite.
But I haven't been arguing for uncontrolled access. The explosives analogy is a good one; much like firearms, there are legitimate occupational, technical, and recreational [yes, fireworks are explosives] uses for explosives. Not just anyone can buy them - but a total ban on their purchase and use is not in effect, and those who can demonstrate a use for them can still legitimately obtain them.
The argument for banning handguns but not long arms is a weak one; although less-easily concealed, a sawn-off shotgun is considerably easier to obtain and much more deadly than your average handgun. Illegal too, but it takes nothing more than a hacksaw and a common shotgun to make one.
Like I said, perhaps a policy may work in one jurisdiction but not another. That's fine. The argument that firearms themselves (or even just handguns) have no legitimate use other than against people and cannot be controlled in their use is just an exceedingly weak one. I say this as someone who has gone through to process to obtain a license for possession/acquisition of both non-restricted (long guns) and restricted (some long guns, all handguns) firearms, but who does not actively own any of either type because I do not have a need to.
-
Who is more cynical, the people that want guns because they're afraid they'll be attacked or the people that think the general populace is too stupid to learn to properly handle guns? I can't tell.
-
civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder.
-
civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder.
You mean murderers in civilized areas don't need to be trained or equipped for murder? Or did that statement just apply to literally YOU? Or are there by definition no murders (and hence no murderers) in civilized areas?
-
civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder.
You mean murderers in civilized areas don't need to be trained or equipped for murder? Or did that statement just apply to literally YOU? Or are there by definition no murders (and hence no murderers) in civilized areas?
Forgive me if my sarcasm generator didn't properly register on your response but I assume he meant civilization should prevent murder from being visited on his person. While a noble goal isn't a realistically attainable one, least with out some rewiring of the brain.
-
It's done a good job protecting me from murder so far
-
It's done a good job protecting me from murder so far
You personally maybe, but even optimally I doubt civilization could completely prevent killing from occurring without changing some fundamental parts of human nature.
-
I figured he could've meant that, but responded what he said. :p
If you assume he meant what he said, he implies that having guns and knowing how to use them is training and equipment for murder. The latter is potentially true, but is also potentially true of an absurd amount of things that aren't firearms. All of which have potential uses outside of murder. The former is simply untrue. On no occasion does training on the safe use of guns train you to murder people, and anyone with any experience with firearms knows that.
If you assume "civilization is here so that I don't need to be trained and equipped for murder" means "people shouldn't fear being murdered in civilized places", mind you two statements that mean entirely different things, both normal enough to be read literally, then he has a point. But, as you pointed out, StarSlayer, a weak one.
And if Turambar was talking about himself alone, there's really no reasonable point anywhere.
-
Nor in the UK.
Your initial flagwaving over the enlightened nature of UK gun policy could be considered the ultimate success story for someone following JCDN's theory. You are convinced that the government has, in fact, protected you.
I think he sells it too high, but there's truth in his assessment. Given that in living memory the ability of the police to successfully regulate crime for certain communities has lapsed or simply collapsed, a personal defense argument is difficult to oppose. Not that you'll ever hear the NRA phrase it that way or mean it in the way I do, i.e. Compton in the '90s.
-
Your initial flagwaving over the enlightened nature of UK gun policy could be considered the ultimate success story for someone following JCDN's theory. You are convinced that the government has, in fact, protected you.
You've completely failed to prove it hasn't.
-
You've completely failed to prove it hasn't.
You've completely failed to prove it hasn't either! How shocking.
-
Onus is on you, since you're claiming the majority of the general British population hold the wrong opinion as well as hinting that there is a government conspiracy behind it all. :p
-
Quite, I completely agree with karajorma, and I'm pretty ****ing anti-establishment.
-
Apples to mushrooms, fellas, apples to mushrooms... (goes for everyone, not just JCDN/NGTM)
-
i should also point out that various gun control laws are not at the federal but at the state and local levels. here in alaska (at least some parts of it) guns are essential. if you live anywhere north of anchorage you need guns just to avoid getting eaten by a large bear. we also have a lot of people who hunt. so our gun regulations are more lax than say new york or california. i would push for more safety oriented gun control, like mandatory trigger locks or safes, laws on obtaining ammunition, and mandatory safety training. but banning guns is something im strongly against.
i also lived in arizona which is another gun happy state. having worked in a pawn shop where half the people who worked there either wore a gun or had one in near reach during the work day. did get to see the federal gun control in action, where make, model, serial number, store information and the personal information of the applicant are all needed, as well as a phone call to the fbi who ultimately have the last word on whether or not a sale can be made. assuming things havent changed much since then that is all the control there is at the federal level.
The interesting thing here is that I was completely unaware of the fact that trigger locks or safes are not required by legalization there. This sounds almost unbelievable to me - I can't even imagine walking with a firearm without a safe! Also new was that the bears are generally aggressive in Alaska, here they prefer to avoid human at all cost - the only notable difference is when somebody gets between the mother and the cub. What I heard too was that this is not the case any more in Siberia, as the bears have became more aggressive over the time again. It would be interesting to know the levels of bears and wolves here before the firearms arrived, I'm willing to bet it was considerably higher. The side effect of this is that nowadays the large predators avoid humans, only wolves have gained some courage in the recent years. But the old saying goes, wolf does not belong in the list of native predators of this region.
What do you think of sports shooting?
-
Onus is on you, since you're claiming the majority of the general British population hold the wrong opinion as well as hinting that there is a government conspiracy behind it all. :p
I don't have to prove intent, since I honestly doubt it was a thing of intent when it was implemented, just a side-effect of the Troubles. The British government was handed it but that doesn't mean they won't exploit it, and that is a proposition the data will support. Your rather supercilious attitude on the subject and that of other Brits provides enough evidence for that.
This sounds almost unbelievable to me - I can't even imagine walking with a firearm without a safe!
You appear to be confusing the concept of a safe and the concept of a safety. One is a large metal box with a complex lock. The other is a mechanism to prevent firing.
-
Onus is on you, since you're claiming the majority of the general British population hold the wrong opinion as well as hinting that there is a government conspiracy behind it all. :p
I don't have to prove intent, since I honestly doubt it was a thing of intent when it was implemented, just a side-effect of the Troubles. The British government was handed it but that doesn't mean they won't exploit it, and that is a proposition the data will support. Your rather supercilious attitude on the subject and that of other Brits provides enough evidence for that.
The banning of hand guns was as a result of the Dunblane school shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre) not the troubles, the Irish factions had access to already illegal weapons, partly thanks to sponsorship from the Irish American community
-
Exactly, neither gun ban had anything to do with the troubles. In fact they don't actually cover Northern Ireland at all.
-
So I wanted to get involved in this debate, because I definitely oppose any legislation that attempts to remove firearms from legal markets,but then I remembered that everyone is seated firmly in their ideologies. Although, haven't there been several well-known studies that show that open-carry and to some extent, concealed-carry laws resulted in lower crime rates? I may look for these after I get back from work, not much time to go looking now.
Although I'm a (proud?) gun owner myself, I would feel silly walking around with my Colt Combat Commander strapped to my belt. I guess I'm a fan of concealed-carry, even though I don't have my license yet.
-
i should also point out that various gun control laws are not at the federal but at the state and local levels. here in alaska (at least some parts of it) guns are essential. if you live anywhere north of anchorage you need guns just to avoid getting eaten by a large bear. we also have a lot of people who hunt. so our gun regulations are more lax than say new york or california. i would push for more safety oriented gun control, like mandatory trigger locks or safes, laws on obtaining ammunition, and mandatory safety training. but banning guns is something im strongly against.
i also lived in arizona which is another gun happy state. having worked in a pawn shop where half the people who worked there either wore a gun or had one in near reach during the work day. did get to see the federal gun control in action, where make, model, serial number, store information and the personal information of the applicant are all needed, as well as a phone call to the fbi who ultimately have the last word on whether or not a sale can be made. assuming things havent changed much since then that is all the control there is at the federal level.
The interesting thing here is that I was completely unaware of the fact that trigger locks or safes are not required by legalization there. This sounds almost unbelievable to me - I can't even imagine walking with a firearm without a safe! Also new was that the bears are generally aggressive in Alaska, here they prefer to avoid human at all cost - the only notable difference is when somebody gets between the mother and the cub. What I heard too was that this is not the case any more in Siberia, as the bears have became more aggressive over the time again. It would be interesting to know the levels of bears and wolves here before the firearms arrived, I'm willing to bet it was considerably higher. The side effect of this is that nowadays the large predators avoid humans, only wolves have gained some courage in the recent years. But the old saying goes, wolf does not belong in the list of native predators of this region.
What do you think of sports shooting?
yea, the gun safe thing is pretty absurd, this mostly comes from the home defense mentality some people in the us have on guns. what good is a gun in this respect if its locked up. a home intruder sees you trying to unlock a gunsafe or trigger lock, hes probably gonna shoot you. my brother is one of those with a home defense mentality, but he tends to lock up his guns. my sisters family on the other hand has guns in every conceivable place in their house, usually hunting rifles but the occasional pistol, they usually have their safeties on with rounds unchambered but loaded none the less. they follow the gun as a tool mentality, and use them for hunting, and in some cases defence from bears. they do have kids, but they will likely get an early indoctrination into gun culture and will be able to handle them safely. my brother in law has had at least one run in with a bear where having a gun saved his life. alaska has 2 of the worlds largest bear species. and these bears will hunt a human given the opportunity. we have a few populated areas near polar bear territory and many more in reach of grizzlies. in the south east here we mostly just have blackbears, which can also be dangerous. we also have wolves and moose (these are ****ing killing machines, just ask the canadians) and other critters that can pose problems for the unarmed.
im also about to go off to the bush for a few weeks here. deer season starts on the first of the month, and i plan to bag me a buck.
-
Although, haven't there been several well-known studies that show that open-carry and to some extent, concealed-carry laws resulted in lower crime rates?
Carried out in exactly which countries?
The exact point I've been making along with several others is that what works in the US won't necessarily work in the UK. Britain doesn't have the same kind of gun culture the US does. Allowing open carry or concealed-carry laws in the UK wouldn't result in less gun crime at all because most of the civilised responsible people still wouldn't go out and buy a gun on the day that law passed, but I think we can all guess at exactly the kind of person who would flock to the stores in droves!
-
Although, haven't there been several well-known studies that show that open-carry and to some extent, concealed-carry laws resulted in lower crime rates?
Carried out in exactly which countries?
The exact point I've been making along with several others is that what works in the US won't necessarily work in the UK. Britain doesn't have the same kind of gun culture the US does. Allowing open carry or concealed-carry laws in the UK wouldn't result in less gun crime at all because most of the civilised responsible people still wouldn't go out and buy a gun on the day that law passed, but I think we can all guess at exactly the kind of person who would flock to the stores in droves!
(http://champagnebucket.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ali_g_indahouse.jpg)
-
Although I'm a (proud?) gun owner myself, I would feel silly walking around with my Colt Combat Commander strapped to my belt. I guess I'm a fan of concealed-carry, even though I don't have my license yet.
I hate cleaning guns, that's my sole reason for not owning one. Too many chemicals, oils, and combustible stuff for my liking. It's like bonafide oil painting with all the poisons, lead, and arsenic :D
-
Although, haven't there been several well-known studies that show that open-carry and to some extent, concealed-carry laws resulted in lower crime rates?
Carried out in exactly which countries?
The exact point I've been making along with several others is that what works in the US won't necessarily work in the UK. Britain doesn't have the same kind of gun culture the US does. Allowing open carry or concealed-carry laws in the UK wouldn't result in less gun crime at all because most of the civilised responsible people still wouldn't go out and buy a gun on the day that law passed, but I think we can all guess at exactly the kind of person who would flock to the stores in droves!
concealed carry permits do require an extra class with some safety instruction as part of it. not sure if there was a need for an open carry permit, in phoenix it certainly seemed like if you owned a gun you were allowed to wear it in a holster without any extra certification. given the fact that you need to take a gun class to get said permits, id rather trust people that hold the permit with guns than those that do not, because it is likely that they have had no formal gun training.
-
Yes but you're missing the point of exactly who would be going to get the permits in the first place. Either we make the rules so stringent that next to nobody gets one or you end up with exactly the wrong kind of person having them.
-
yea, the gun safe thing is pretty absurd, this mostly comes from the home defense mentality some people in the us have on guns. what good is a gun in this respect if its locked up. a home intruder sees you trying to unlock a gunsafe or trigger lock, hes probably gonna shoot you. my brother is one of those with a home defense mentality, but he tends to lock up his guns. my sisters family on the other hand has guns in every conceivable place in their house, usually hunting rifles but the occasional pistol, they usually have their safeties on with rounds unchambered but loaded none the less. they follow the gun as a tool mentality, and use them for hunting, and in some cases defence from bears. they do have kids, but they will likely get an early indoctrination into gun culture and will be able to handle them safely. my brother in law has had at least one run in with a bear where having a gun saved his life. alaska has 2 of the worlds largest bear species. and these bears will hunt a human given the opportunity. we have a few populated areas near polar bear territory and many more in reach of grizzlies. in the south east here we mostly just have blackbears, which can also be dangerous. we also have wolves and moose (these are ****ing killing machines, just ask the canadians) and other critters that can pose problems for the unarmed.
im also about to go off to the bush for a few weeks here. deer season starts on the first of the month, and i plan to bag me a buck.
For me that sounds more like being in war, we used to carry assault rifles loaded but unchambered in the army. Here home intrusions are usually not that fast, or that the thieves break in when they know you are not home. Putting so many loaded weapons in the house sounds more like being afraid of somebody coming to murder you, instead of just home defense. One of the examples was somebody trying to break in to someone's house some time ago in this region, the owner woke up and said that if they break the door he will shoot. In the end he lost his nerve and shot the assailants through the door, resulting in I don't recall what. In the end court did not accept his shooting as home defense, the reason being that the assailants did not actually break into his house. Scandinavian legalization regarding to this is occasionally rather interesting... I recall the guy who pulled the trigger got heavier penalties than the injured assailants.
A trigger lock is legally accepted as a storage measure there? The only legal way to do it here is a safe.
-
Yes but you're missing the point of exactly who would be going to get the permits in the first place. Either we make the rules so stringent that next to nobody gets one or you end up with exactly the wrong kind of person having them.
Statistics on the subject don't actually bear this out. Having a concealed-carry permit doesn't make you any more likely to do something criminal than simply owning a firearm.
-
Statistics from the US! Are you not listening or something? :rolleyes:
Why are you assuming your culture is the same as the UK's? Why are you continually assuming that the exact same demographic even exists in the UK?
And that's before we get to the point that I'm not even talking about carry-conceal except in answer to Swantz's comments on how it reduces crime. My argument referred to anyone in the UK who would rush out to get a handgun if they were legalised again and how they would be a disproportionately higher percentage of people who shouldn't own handguns than you'd get in the US. So even if your point does apply to the UK, since as far as my point was concerned carry-concealed = gun owner your point is pretty much moot anyway.
-
Statistics from the US! Are you not listening or something? :rolleyes:
Faulty premise isn't going to help you. I bothered to check statistics for a number of other countries too. There's really no correlation, except perhaps a negative one if you count what it takes to get a carry concealed permit in Japan. (Which, I was surprised to discover, is actually possible. If you're a saint with the connections of a devil.)
My argument referred to anyone in the UK who would rush out to get a handgun if they were legalised again and how they would be a disproportionately higher percentage of people who shouldn't own handguns than you'd get in the US. So even if your point does apply to the UK, since as far as my point was concerned carry-concealed = gun owner your point is pretty much moot anyway.
Your argument is so utterly hypothetical and specious it doesn't deserve serious consideration in that context. You have literally nothing to back up that statement at all except your own negativity about the nature of humanity. Cite a source and we'll talk.
-
You haven't cited any source from the UK nor can you. So your entire argument is specious.