[Grizzly]

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.

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).

[karajorma]

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.

[JCDNWarrior]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[QuantumDelta]

Karajorma posted the only sane viewpoint, really.

[karajorma]

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.

[QuantumDelta]

Pocket Nukes Karajorma.

[BloodEagle]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Mika]

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!

[castor]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[headdie]

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"