5 Hurt in School Shooting [Archive]

caravel

10-12-2007, 15:51

But Can you kill someone with a Axe? Yes

Or Kill Someone with a Sword.............

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253029/
Or a kitchen knife or a spade, or a screwdriver for that matter. You could even kill them with your bare hands, that's not the point. The point is that a gun, unlike the aformentioned implements, is actually a lethal, often concealable, ranged, rapid firing high velocity projectile weapon, that is actually fundamentally designed to kill people or animals.

A person that goes on the rampage with a knife can be pinned down and disarmed and is only a threat to the people in his/her immediate vicinity, a gunman is quite obviously something else altogether. The issue is not simply the risk of "madmen" getting their hands on a gun either. Any individual that is otherwise sound of mind can simply lose control in certain circumstances, having a gun handy at such a time could prove fatal to both the individual concerned and others. If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.

IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.

Whacker

10-12-2007, 16:30

Or a kitchen knife or a spade, or a screwdriver for that matter. You could even kill them with your bare hands, that's not the point. The point is that a gun, unlike the aformentioned implements, is actually a lethal, often concealable, ranged, rapid firing high velocity projectile weapon, that is actually fundamentally designed to kill people or animals.

So are bows/crossbows and arrows. I mean, those were fundamentally designed to kill animals and people, right? Look what those horrid Mongols did with them hundreds of years ago, I'm surprised we haven't all banned those yet.

A person that goes on the rampage with a knife can be pinned down and disarmed and is only a threat to the people in his/her immediate vicinity, a gunman is quite obviously something else altogether.

I call bull and strawman. Someone who knows how to use a knife is going to be just as dangerous if not moreso deadly than someone with a gun. A gun has a finite number of bullets, and one can only carry so many clips. A person with a knife and a reasonable amount of skill has a weapon just as deadly that doesn't require reloading. And the part about "blocking" or "disarming" is utter bunk. I don't care if you get 4 football linemen to charge someone wielding a razor sharp axe, but at least one of them is going to get seriously maimed/injured/outright killed. The same goes for a proficient martial artist with a knife or other stabbing/slashing weapon, in fact it'd probably just about impossible to disarm him physically without several people getting outright killed/wounded. People are shot all the time and live to tell about, some even with head wounds and other vital places. Saying a gun is by definition more deadly or "easy" to use is tripe. I'm going to make a guess by your statements that you've both never handled a gun before, nor have you taken any kind of martial art.

The issue is not simply the risk of "madmen" getting their hands on a gun either. Any individual that is otherwise sound of mind can simply lose control in certain circumstances, having a gun handy at such a time could prove fatal to both the individual concerned and others.

So would having a pocketknife. Guess we should ban those too. You'd have to be trying REAL hard to kill someone with a .22 or a lower calibre gun, whereas if I had a 1" bladed knife, unless one know some serious martial arts, I and a few others on this forum could kill a normal individual quite easily. On second thought let's ban martial arts to, because the only purpose of those is to kill, amirite?

If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.

Strawman again. Hundreds of accidents like this happen all the time, compared to millions of people who own firearms and never have this kind of problem. Common sense is in order here, and it's more common than people think it to be. The people who've killed family members in this manner are perfect examples of people who've not exercised this.

IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.

VIOLENT CRIME has no place in civilized society, you're purposefully singling out firearms for this as a scapegoat, which in terms of human history are a new invention. Mankind has been violent all throughout it's past, and will continue to be so for all time. People have slaughtered eachother constantly using whatever means they could get their hands on, bladed weapons, bows, fire, whatever, they use it. Singling out firearms as "enablement" is again pure tripe, it's no easier, harder, more or less deadly than any other personal weapon we've been using for the past millenia.

Ronin

10-12-2007, 16:52

I call bull and strawman. Someone who knows how to use a knife is going to be just as dangerous if not moreso deadly than someone with a gun. A gun has a finite number of bullets, and one can only carry so many clips. A person with a knife and a reasonable amount of skill has a weapon just as deadly that doesn't require reloading. And the part about "blocking" or "disarming" is utter bunk. I don't care if you get 4 football linemen to charge someone wielding a razor sharp axe, but at least one of them is going to get seriously maimed/injured/outright killed. The same goes for a proficient martial artist with a knife or other stabbing/slashing weapon, in fact it'd probably just about impossible to disarm him physically without several people getting outright killed/wounded. People are shot all the time and live to tell about, some even with head wounds and other vital places. Saying a gun is by definition more deadly or "easy" to use is tripe. I'm going to make a guess by your statements that you've both never handled a gun before, nor have you taken any kind of martial art.

are you telling me that an average person with a gun is no more dangerous than an average person with a knife? (and I mean average in like not a special forces commando that was trained to kill an entire batallion with a knife....you know most people don´t have those skills).

then it´s me who´s calling bull.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-12-2007, 16:57

Whacker

10-12-2007, 17:14

are you telling me that an average person with a gun is no more dangerous than an average person with a knife? (and I mean average in like not a special forces commando that was trained to kill an entire batallion with a knife....you know most people don´t have those skills).

then it´s me who´s calling bull.

Read my last sentence in what you quoted, obviously you've never handled a gun either or taken any martial art. First off, try shooting a handgun sometime for accuracy, even a little one. Try a target maybe 5, 10 feet away. It's not easy at all. Care of a gun, loading it, transporting it (I can't imagine carrying a loaded weapon around), proper respect of it. People who don't know how to use a weapon are more dangerous to themselves than to others around them. Even someone with some experience and training isn't going to be a sniper like people are seeming to claim, but they will in theory be more deadly with the weapon. Second, even a NORMAL person with a knife is going to be dangerous, you don't need your "special forces" training to be able to seriously injure someone. And if you've ever seen or tried to train under even moderately skilled individuals with close action weapons, you'll rapidly learn to appreciate how scary and deadly it can be if it were real life, and again this is with little to moderate skill.

Ironside

10-12-2007, 17:19

Only because I saw this while reading this thread.
Report: School Shootings Help Prepare Students For Being Shot In Real World (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_school_shootings_help)

So are bows/crossbows and arrows. I mean, those were fundamentally designed to kill animals and people, right? Look what those horrid Mongols did with them hundreds of years ago, I'm surprised we haven't all banned those yet

I would recomment you to check your local laws about that, because they're usually quite restricted nowadays.

I call bull and strawman. Someone who knows how to use a knife is going to be just as dangerous if not moreso deadly than someone with a gun. A gun has a finite number of bullets, and one can only carry so many clips. A person with a knife and a reasonable amount of skill has a weapon just as deadly that doesn't require reloading.

Stabbing only works well in close combat vs one or a few targets (and preferbly with the element of surprice), if someone is planning to go down in a blaze of murder, guns will work better. The bullets will run out eventually, but I'm quite certain that you won't volounteer to be the bullet wasting target.
The modern gun is better than a musket, yet the musket replaced the knife (well not reallly, but that ranged warfare did mostly replace the melee by some odd reason).

And the part about "blocking" or "disarming" is utter bunk. I don't care if you get 4 football linemen to charge someone wielding a razor sharp axe, but at least one of them is going to get seriously maimed/injured/outright killed. The same goes for a proficient martial artist with a knife or other stabbing/slashing weapon, in fact it'd probably just about impossible to disarm him physically without several people getting outright killed/wounded.

Well if you have to disarm someone with a knife, you're supposed to make him stab you were it matters less (like your left arm if righthanded). And you can often get something in the environment to even the odds a bit. Convincing the dude with a gun to only shot you in the arm can be slightly trickier and they are often such poor sportman, that they fire upon you when you flee.

People are shot all the time and live to tell about, some even with head wounds and other vital places.

And getting touched by a knife causes instant death right? ~:rolleyes: Anybody got statistics on wounding vs killing for knives and guns btw?

Saying a gun is by definition more deadly or "easy" to use is tripe. I'm going to make a guess by your statements that you've both never handled a gun before, nor have you taken any kind of martial art.

To get an easy kill after that people have noticed your intensions are a bit easier with a gun than using a nice martial art killing move (or a knife for that matter).

Sure, guns doesn't cause mass killings, but they make them a lot easier. If you wanna refute that, I'll content with some nice camparations of mass stabbings vs mass shootings, especially at more open environments like schools.

Ronin

10-12-2007, 17:20

edit: Ronin, Yes they are. Go ahead and fight someone with a long Knife. unless you trained to disarm him, it's going to be hard.

I never said it would be easy.....I said that disarming a normal person with a knife is a lot harder than disarming a normal person with a gun.......with a knife it´s dangerous but you have a chance......with a gun you´re just screwed...

and to the point were you said "if you take away guns kids will find some other way"....if you look at countries that don´t have legalized gun ownership I don´t see news about kids walking into schools and killing 10-20 of their classmates with knifes....so why doesn´t it happen?....are foreign kids just not commited enough to kill? "damn modern slacker kids! when I was your age I had to walk across the snow to get to school and kill someone! think that stopped me???"

the truth is that a gun present a ready made, easy solution if you want to produce a lot of damage.....sure you could do lots of damage in other ways....but not with any other tool that presents the same advantages in ease of use, portability, being easily concealed, etc.

Ronin

10-12-2007, 17:26

Read my last sentence in what you quoted, obviously you've never handled a gun either or taken any martial art. First off, try shooting a handgun sometime for accuracy, even a little one. Try a target maybe 5, 10 feet away. It's not easy at all. Care of a gun, loading it, transporting it (I can't imagine carrying a loaded weapon around), proper respect of it. People who don't know how to use a weapon are more dangerous to themselves than to others around them. Even someone with some experience and training isn't going to be a sniper like people are seeming to claim, but they will in theory be more deadly with the weapon. Second, even a NORMAL person with a knife is going to be dangerous, you don't need your "special forces" training to be able to seriously injure someone. And if you've ever seen or tried to train under even moderately skilled individuals with close action weapons, you'll rapidly learn to appreciate how scary and deadly it can be if it were real life, and again this is with little to moderate skill.

I have taken marcial arts classes and I have shoot a gun yes...I still call bull..

If I had the choice between having to fight a guy armed with a knife or one armed with a gun (considering he has the same level of skill with both of them) I would have to pick the knife guy every day of the week and twice on sunday.

once again I never claimed that the normal guy with the knife isn´t dangerous...he still is.....but much less than the same moron with a gun....like I said before I don´t see the news crazy knife-rampages going on in non-gun countries so something tells me your theory is full of holes.

Ironside

10-12-2007, 17:27

Read my last sentence in what you quoted, obviously you've never handled a gun either or taken any martial art. First off, try shooting a handgun sometime for accuracy, even a little one. Try a target maybe 5, 10 feet away. It's not easy at all.

Well you don't need a perfect shot to wound someone, human targets are a bit larger than that. And due to the semi-automatic nature, it will usually come more than one shot in your direction.

Goofball

10-12-2007, 18:02

Read my last sentence in what you quoted, obviously you've never handled a gun either or taken any martial art. First off, try shooting a handgun sometime for accuracy, even a little one. Try a target maybe 5, 10 feet away. It's not easy at all. Care of a gun, loading it, transporting it (I can't imagine carrying a loaded weapon around), proper respect of it. People who don't know how to use a weapon are more dangerous to themselves than to others around them. Even someone with some experience and training isn't going to be a sniper like people are seeming to claim, but they will in theory be more deadly with the weapon. Second, even a NORMAL person with a knife is going to be dangerous, you don't need your "special forces" training to be able to seriously injure someone. And if you've ever seen or tried to train under even moderately skilled individuals with close action weapons, you'll rapidly learn to appreciate how scary and deadly it can be if it were real life, and again this is with little to moderate skill.

Two questions:

1) If you were being attacked by 10 people, what would you rather have in your hand: a knife, or a Glock?

2) If knives are, as you said earlier, more deadly and advantageous to have than guns, then why is one of the pillars of the pro-gun argument that guns are absolutely necessary for home defence? As you say, every home in America already has an entire kitchen full of much more efficient killing tools than guns.

Add me on to the list of people calling "bull" on you.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-12-2007, 18:10

I never said it would be easy.....I said that disarming a normal person with a knife is a lot harder than disarming a normal person with a gun.......with a knife it´s dangerous but you have a chance......with a gun you´re just screwed...

and to the point were you said "if you take away guns kids will find some other way"....if you look at countries that don´t have legalized gun ownership I don´t see news about kids walking into schools and killing 10-20 of their classmates with knifes....so why doesn´t it happen?....are foreign kids just not commited enough to kill? "damn modern slacker kids! when I was your age I had to walk across the snow to get to school and kill someone! think that stopped me???"

the truth is that a gun present a ready made, easy solution if you want to produce a lot of damage.....sure you could do lots of damage in other ways....but not with any other tool that presents the same advantages in ease of use, portability, being easily concealed, etc.

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

England

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

Beirut

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

Germany

Others:

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

Most of them are US yes, but it failed to list that, In Japan, a ADULT Killed EIGHT Small Children in a School with a....

Knife

Heard it on 20/20. if I find the source, you will get it. 20/20 also said most school violence in Europe/Asia is done by adults, with guns or knives, and in US mostly kids with Guns.

Viking

10-12-2007, 18:19

Most of them are US yes, but it failed to list that, In Japan, a ADULT Killed EIGHT Small Children in a School with a....

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

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

I think "most" is not the right word to compare the differences, LOL!

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2007, 20:07

IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.

Oh, so police in your country have no guns available to them?

I've heard this tripe about 'something fundamentally wrong' before and it always seems so smug. Do you live in a utopia where no crime is committed? Or are you ruled by angels who would never oppress you?
Oh, you don't? So maybe it isn't crazy to want to defend yourself? And just maybe there's not anything fundamentally wrong with us, but with a refusal to face reality.

If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.

Bah. Arguments that aren't made up out of thin air, please.

CR

Ronin

10-12-2007, 22:36

Most of them are US yes, but it failed to list that, In Japan, a ADULT Killed EIGHT Small Children in a School with a....

Knife

wow....so you know of one such attack with a knife compared with the dozens of cases involving guns?..

wow..just wow...

what more can I say other than...

thanks for proving my point!:yes:

Meneldil

10-12-2007, 23:48

Or are you ruled by angels who would never oppress you?

This must be the lamest pro-gun argument ever.
And given that the pro-gun crowd is more often than not also the pro-Bush crowd, I find this kind of comment especially hilarious.

It's not as if Gitmo did not exist I guess, heh ? Oh, and there's the NSA thingy aswell. And the whole "You're either with us or against us" theory. While we're at it, let's not forget the whole anti-gays, anti-abortion, pro-creationism and overall anti-"anythingthatdoesntfitwithouropinion" crew that is trying to impose its values upon the american society.

What about currently using your guns to overthrow your current governement ? Cause AFAIK, I doubt we could find anything worse in the whole western world.

Oh, so police in your country have no guns available to them?

Nice try, but cops aren't residents of a society, nor do they are a specific community. They're just people paid by the state to enforce the law, with guns, staffs, tazzers or whatever else. When the leave their job, they leave their weapons aswell and become another average Joe. And the average Joe shouldn't have to bear arms, because :

IMHO guns have no place in any civilised society. If a particular community gets to the stage where it's residents feel compelled to bear any kind of arms for their own protection then there's obviously something else fundamentally wrong with it.

Nothing else to add. If you feel that guns are needed to protect yourself, then you're already doomed. Basically, it means that your civilizing process got screwed up at some point.
It might happen that at some point, everyone will have to bear a gun to protect his life. But it is by no means a solution. It's just a way to hidde the issue.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-12-2007, 23:59

wow....so you know of one such attack with a knife compared with the dozens of cases involving guns?..

wow..just wow...

what more can I say other than...

thanks for proving my point!:yes:

And thanks for proving my point of, that you must be Anti-Gun. :yes:

Ronin

10-13-2007, 00:06

And thanks for proving my point of, that you must be Anti-Gun. :yes:

yes I am...and proud of it...

I live in a civilized society with a functioning police force...no need for guns....so why should I be pro-gun?

nice attempt to step around the fact that your own research proved my point about guns being more dangerous than knifes tough.

caravel

10-13-2007, 01:18

Crazed Rabbit

10-13-2007, 01:52

This must be the lamest pro-gun argument ever.

Really? Our country was forged in such a manner. You bring up the alleged evils of the Bush administration; what if he actually was a tyrant, and the US populace as docile as certain others?

Nice try, but cops aren't residents of a society, nor do they are a specific community.
Cops aren't part of society? What madness is this? They are how society enforces its laws. A civilization is not part of a people or a fraction of a nation; it is the whole. And since all countries have police, and you say that civilized people don't use guns, then your countries are obviously uncivilized by your own admission.
If they have no place, then police should not have them, or you are uncivilized.

Nothing else to add. If you feel that guns are needed to protect yourself, then you're already doomed.

Funny, since I already addressed that. Crime happens in all nations - that reasoning therefore, holds that even your socialist European countries are fundamentally flawed.

Basically, it means that your civilizing process got screwed up at some point.

No, it means that concept of civilization is wrong, an ugly product of modern liberal thought rejects the foundation of modern government, more akin to feudalism than liberty.

It might happen that at some point, everyone will have to bear a gun to protect his life. But it is by no means a solution. It's just a way to hidde the issue.
What issue? Crime? How then is allowing people to defend themselves 'hiding' an issue? It is the very absolute opposite - it is gun control that hides the real issues of crime behind mindless demands for more controls and regulations on guns, ignoring the operator of the tool for what he uses. Take a glance at Britain and it is obvious.

CR

Boyar Son

10-13-2007, 01:54

Its not like there's been anyothers. I have to agree with the again, 2 in a year seems like to many

You do relize that most emo kids arn't sucidal manics right? Its more the loners that you need to watch out for.

lol no no destroyer....

they're most definitly like that :sweatdrop:

naut

10-13-2007, 05:03

{BHC}KingWarman888, in response to your "evidence", I thought I'd post it here so people can decide for themselves. (Note: Israeli "shootings" removed as they are actually terrorist attacks).

United States

* University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
* Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968
* Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio, United States; May 4, 1970
* Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi, United States; May 14-15, 1970
* California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California, United States; July 12, 1976
* Brenda Ann Spencer, Cleveland Elementary School - January 29, 1979
* Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri, United States; January 20, 1983
* Stockton massacre - Stockton, California, United States; January 17, 1989
* University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; November 1, 1991
* Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
* East Carter High School shooting - Grayson, Kentucky, United States; January 18, 1993
* Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
* Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
* Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
* Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
* Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
* Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
* Columbine High School massacre - near Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
* Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
* Santana High School - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
* Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
* Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
* Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
* Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
* Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
* Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
* Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
* Henry Foss High School - Tacoma, Washington, United States January 3, 2007
* Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
* SuccessTech Academy shooting - Cleveland, Ohio, United States; October 10, 2007

Canada

* Brampton Centennial Secondary School, Ontario, Canada - May, 1975
* École Polytechnique Massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; December 6, 1989
* Concordia University massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; August 24, 1992
* W. R. Myers High School shooting - Taber, Alberta, Canada; April 28, 1999
* Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; September 13, 2006
* C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting - Toronto, Ontario, Canada; May 23, 2007

Other countries

* Raumanmeri's High School Shooting - Rauma, Finland, January 24, 1989
* Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996
* Sanaa massacre - Sanaa, Yemen; March 30, 1997
* Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; April 26, 2002
* Monash University shooting - Melbourne, Australia; October 21, 2002
* Beirut Arab University shooting - Beirut, Lebanon; January 25, 2007

I don't know if my eyes are deceiving me, but it looks like there are a lot more in the USA.

Tribesman

10-13-2007, 09:08

Really? Our country was forged in such a manner.
Really ? I thought your country was forged by having the advantage of being far away from the government and having major world powers fighting against that government .

Ironside

10-13-2007, 11:29

This is clearly a cultural phenomenon and nothing more. Most US citizens have obviously been brought up with moderate exposure to firearms and many are probably convinced of their necessity as a security measure. Europeans, for the most part, have not and apart from a small minority, some of which inevitably criminal, have no desire to either possess or use a firearm for any purpose be it legal or otherwise.

I would say that it's the idea of a gun as security, as hunters isn't that uncommon and that most of the male population have been shooting quite a bit with assult rifles (that draft thingy). Admittably it's local conditions.

Funny, since I already addressed that. Crime happens in all nations - that reasoning therefore, holds that even your socialist European countries are fundamentally flawed.
It's rather the issue of crimes were you carrying a gun would've made a difference. But sure, theft, muggings, beatings, murder etc doesn't have place in civilization. That's why the laws against it appeared in the first place.

No, it means that concept of civilization is wrong, an ugly product of modern liberal thought rejects the foundation of modern government, more akin to feudalism than liberty.
:laugh4: Feudalism :laugh4: ? You're aware that it's a non-centralized system where powers are granted on the idea of decentralized defense, right?

I do grant you that in a fully liberal (as in free) system whatever you carry a gun or not shouldn't be an issue... but the idea of a civilization also gives that you shouldn't really need to use the gun for defense in the first place.

What issue? Crime? How then is allowing people to defend themselves 'hiding' an issue? It is the very absolute opposite - it is gun control that hides the real issues of crime behind mindless demands for more controls and regulations on guns, ignoring the operator of the tool for what he uses. Take a glance at Britain and it is obvious.

CR

Hiding the issue is to get yourself a shotgun/gun to protect yourself against home invasions or school shootings and not ask yourself why they occur often enough to be something to worry about at your place, but not in other places (if you're unlucky enough to live in that spot, best thing is probably to do both though).

Boyar Son

10-13-2007, 18:55

Really ? I thought your country was forged by having the advantage of being far away from the government and having major world powers fighting against that government .

It was forged in the name of freedom!!

Crazed Rabbit

10-13-2007, 19:39

It's rather the issue of crimes were you carrying a gun would've made a difference. But sure, theft, muggings, beatings, murder etc doesn't have place in civilization. That's why the laws against it appeared in the first place.

And yet they still exist; being 'civilized' doesn't make crime go away.

:laugh4: Feudalism :laugh4: ? You're aware that it's a non-centralized system where powers are granted on the idea of decentralized defense, right?

And based on giving up your freedom for protection.

I do grant you that in a fully liberal (as in free) system whatever you carry a gun or not shouldn't be an issue... but the idea of a civilization also gives that you shouldn't really need to use the gun for defense in the first place.
Yes, the idea of a civilization. But it's like the 2nd law of thermodynamics; ideas never fully become reality (as heat never fully converts to work). There is no perfect civilization, after all.

Hiding the issue is to get yourself a shotgun/gun to protect yourself against home invasions or school shootings and not ask yourself why they occur often enough to be something to worry about at your place, but not in other places (if you're unlucky enough to live in that spot, best thing is probably to do both though).
Oh, I think we should do what we can to combat crime before it begins. But we can never stop it all, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared. And like I said; look at Britain, and that boy who was killed riding his bike. Instead of soul searching in society, we hear the familiar refrain 'more gun control!'

CR

Byzantine Mercenary

10-13-2007, 20:59

I have yet to see a persuasive argument for the gun laws in the US.

Heres how i see it, in Britain, you can buy a rifle or shotgun, you can shoot a rifle or shotgun, but first you must have insurance or certification or a qualified instructor thats all i can concieve a person reasonably wanting.

Handguns are banned because their purpose is only to kill people. Now you say they are nessisary for self defence? well in England you are not likely to be faced with a gun due to gun control, so training in martial arts or even simple commeon sense can allow you to avoid a lot of dangerous situations.

Here is my indepth analysis of the effectiveness of handguns as self defence in a society where they are obviously freely available.

Now if you were to be allowed handguns then so would the attacker and as they have likely chosen such an avenue in life they would no doubt insure they were proficient in a guns use.

Now as some here have said, a gun in the hands of an untrained person is as much a danger to them as others. Therefore without a nationwide training program in the use of guns the victim would still carry a dissadvantage i.e surprise and not being as skilled in the weapons use. Now you could argue that this would be negated by regular training? well the same amount of training in self defence in a relatively gun free society would afford a similar level of protection surely?

So if we compare like with like:

Trained gunman : Untrained Gun owner
Trained attacker with a knife : Untrained knife owner

Which is better?

Trained Gunman : Trained gunman (surely = large gunfight possibley in public place)
Trained attacker with a knife : Victim who is proficient in self defence

Even with a program in education...

And more realisticly in most instances seeing as surely most americans dont carry guns:

Trained Gunman : Unarmed person
Trained attacker with knife : Unarmed person

Because of this i find handguns to have very little value in self defence as long as guns are controlled.

The simple fact is that a gun is another level above a knife in terms of power, take the following instance:

Gunman : Knifeman

Who would most often win? unless the knifeman has superior training or an advantage it would be the gunman surely.

But then seeing as england has knife controls too what about
Gunman : Unarmed man
with equal training surely the gunman has an advantage? :laugh4:

To be honest i think that most of the desire for handguns or semiautomatics comes from wanting a feeling of power which whilst i understand, i think is the wrong reason to want to have a gun.

Tribesman

10-13-2007, 21:29

It was forged in the name of freedom!!

So its a forgery then.

we hear the familiar refrain 'more gun control!'

How about hearing "more effective gun control" , after all the guns that end up with criminals all start off as legally manufactured and sold guns .
For examle how does a Dutch drug dealer end up buying a batch of Belgian assault rifles in Switzerland that were sold to the crown prince of Jordan ?
Or how does a wanted American murderer kill a british policeman with a Croatian pistol that was sold to a non-existant company in the Virgin Islands ?

Husar

10-13-2007, 22:52

So its a forgery then.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

That was great!

Boyar Son

10-13-2007, 23:19

So its a forgery then.

only if it was a signature:sweatdrop:

Crazed Rabbit

10-13-2007, 23:26

I have yet to see a persuasive argument for the gun laws in the US.

How's about this:
Roughly 2 million plus people in the USA use a gun each year to defend themselves from criminals. Gun control laws show no decrease in crime, and criminals get around such laws just as they did prohibition laws. The main effect is to disarm the law abiding.

While it's nice to strive for the perfect society, we shouldn't forget we've always been in an imperfect one, where self defense is sometimes necessary. In the USA at least, the right to bear arms is the last resort against a tyrannical government, a way to prevent a government from ruling through oppressive force.

Regarding handguns, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people permitted to carry concealed handguns in states across this nation. Every time a state passes a law allowing this, anti-rights people scream about 'wild west bloodbaths'. But in the many states that passed laws allowing concealed carry, not once has this happened. Why? Simple - good people will handle guns in a responsible manner.

Now if you were to be allowed handguns then so would the attacker and as they have likely chosen such an avenue in life they would no doubt insure they were proficient in a guns use.
Now as some here have said, a gun in the hands of an untrained person is as much a danger to them as others.
That is completely wrong.

Therefore without a nationwide training program in the use of guns the victim would still carry a dissadvantage i.e surprise and not being as skilled in the weapons use.
In the US, we have no such training program, but the most effective way to resist a mugging (ie you are less injured and don't get robbed) is with a weapon. Once again, facts beat assumptions.

Heck, the rest of your analysis is based on false assumptions. For a cure, I recommend a 1000cc injection of reality (http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html).

So its a forgery then.

If by that you mean made in a forge you'd be right.

CR

Tribesman

10-13-2007, 23:38

How's about this:
Roughly 2 million plus people in the USA use a gun each year to defend themselves from criminals.
Same crap again :dizzy2:

In the USA at least, the right to bear arms is the last resort against a tyrannical government, a way to prevent a government from ruling through oppressive force.

Bollox , since it was drawn up be people who were opposed to standing armies and wanted a militia , since there is a standing army it is now irrelevant .

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-13-2007, 23:49

yes I am...and proud of it...

I live in a civilized society with a functioning police force...no need for guns....so why should I be pro-gun?

nice attempt to step around the fact that your own research proved my point about guns being more dangerous than knifes tough.

And I disargee with everything you are Saying. But We all have our own opnions....

First off, if you want to Bann All guns, How you going to get them off the Street. So Then, when that Gangbanger breaks into your house, with a gun the government failed to get, and you have nothing, What you going to do? Cry and Beg for you life and call 911 :inquisitive: ? Yeah, if you don't get killed....

Plus, how will you take care of Hunting? Population control for Animals is important you know. So if you Anti-Gun, you must be a Animal Right Activisit also? Because No Guns = No Hunting = Animal numbers go up and destroy crops,etc....

Plus No One Likes a Deer running into their car.....

And to Comment you.....

If you hear noises in your house at night you may think you've been broken into and shoot the intruder dead in a panic. When the intruder turns out to be your husband/wife/son/daughter/father/mother that had got up during the night for whatever reason, it would probably change your ideas about gun ownership and availability somewhat.

Please Answer this Question:

Why would they be out early in the morning when the Home Invasions proably take place at most of the time? Plus Why would you Shoot the Second you see someone in your house?

Byzantine Mercenary

10-14-2007, 01:48

How's about this:
Roughly 2 million plus people in the USA use a gun each year to defend themselves from criminals. Gun control laws show no decrease in crime, and criminals get around such laws just as they did prohibition laws. The main effect is to disarm the law abiding.CR
This must make america one of the lowest crime countries in the world then?

USA 1998 1999
02.01 Grand total of recorded crimes 8,922.76 8,517.19
02.02 Total recorded intentional homicide, completed 5.19 4.55
02.04 Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm 3.37 2.97
02.06 Total recorded major assaults 355.12 329.63
02.07 Total recorded assaults 841.96 805.21
02.08 Total recorded rapes 33.87 32.05
02.09 Total recorded robberies 162.61 147.36
02.11 Total recorded thefts 2,682.29 2,502.66
02.12 Total recorded automobile theft 451.93 412.70
02.13 Total recorded burglaries 848.25 755.29
02.14 Total recorded frauds 43.49 133.74
02.15 Total recorded embezzlements 6.22 6.22
02.16 Total recorded drug offenses 566.95 560.11

England and Wales 1998 1999 2000
02.01 Grand total of recorded crimes 9,744.98 10,061.11 9,766.73
02.02 Total recorded intentional homicide, completed 1.43 1.45 1.61
02.03 Total recorded intentional homicide, attempted 1.29 1.42 1.34
02.04 Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm 0.09 0.12
02.06 Total recorded major assaults 26.71 28.72 29.58
02.07 Total recorded assaults 731.90 833.72 851.60
02.08 Total recorded rapes 14.56 15.96 16.23
02.09 Total recorded robberies 127.48 159.95 179.73
02.11 Total recorded thefts 3,288.09 3,357.60 3,257.52
02.12 Total recorded automobile theft 747.33 711.12 639.92
02.13 Total recorded burglaries 1,818.09 1,721.33 1,579.10
02.14 Total recorded frauds 533.12 635.36 603.14
02.16 Total recorded drug offenses 259.30 231.29 214.30

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

Well in two countries with similar levels of criminality, the US has more Homicide, major assaults, and rape...

I also notice that England and wales has a higher if anything number of thefts, and more fraud (but less drugs) now maybe this is because criminals in America are more scared of a gun owning public?

So at the cost of increased Homicide, major assaults, and rape you can have less thefts and fraud and more drugs?...

So you may have a point if crimes are clearly prevented, i would apreciate the source of your 2 million statistic...

While it's nice to strive for the perfect society, we shouldn't forget we've always been in an imperfect one, where self defense is sometimes necessary. In the USA at least, the right to bear arms is the last resort against a tyrannical government, a way to prevent a government from ruling through oppressive force.CR
Anyone who has been in the army would tell you, a handgun is well outranged by a standard issue soldiers gun, never mind the armoured vehicles and air support they can call upon...

Regarding handguns, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people permitted to carry concealed handguns in states across this nation. Every time a state passes a law allowing this, anti-rights people scream about 'wild west bloodbaths'. But in the many states that passed laws allowing concealed carry, not once has this happened. Why? Simple - good people will handle guns in a responsible manner.CR
Have i not just shown in my source in this post that more open access to guns increases homicides? i mean yeah they dont wear cowboy hats so its not a wild west bloodbath...

Yes good people can handel guns ok (which is why my country lets people have rifles or shotguns for which there are legitimate purposes) but bad people wont, can you tell the difference :inquisitive:

That is completely wrong.

In the US, we have no such training program, but the most effective way to resist a mugging (ie you are less injured and don't get robbed) is with a weapon. Once again, facts beat assumptions.CR
where are these ''facts'' then?

Heck, the rest of your analysis is based on false assumptions. For a cure, I recommend a 1000cc injection of reality (http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html).CR
oh a few news stories? indicative of a trend that leaves america with less homicides?

no...

First off, if you want to Bann All guns, How you going to get them off the Street. So Then, when that Gangbanger breaks into your house, with a gun the government failed to get, and you have nothing, What you going to do? Cry and Beg for you life and call 911 :inquisitive: ? Yeah, if you don't get killed....
In England they would be less likely to have acess to a gun so this would be less likely to happen...

yeah that situation would be bad, the same as if a crafty crim attacked your house with a tank, heck thats why we should all have tanks... cus if that happened and i had a tank id be fine...

Plus, how will you take care of Hunting? Population control for Animals is important you know. So if you Anti-Gun, you must be a Animal Right Activisit also? Because No Guns = No Hunting = Animal numbers go up and destroy crops,etc....

Plus No One Likes a Deer running into their car.....

Well there are two different stances, no guns and no handguns and even those who say no guns (i don't) would probably allow farmers or at least rangers them...

Crazed Rabbit

10-14-2007, 02:37

Bollox , since it was drawn up be people who were opposed to standing armies and wanted a militia , since there is a standing army it is now irrelevant .

So, since they viewed standing armies as a threat to freedom, and we have a standing army now, thus making the government more dangerous, we should give up this safeguard of freedom?

:dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

This must make america one of the lowest crime countries in the world then?

Did I say that? Nope. But the state that allows people to buy a pistol, and conceal it on themselves without any permits has some of the lowest crime in the nation. Indeed, most of the crime comes from places where guns are very regulated or banned (Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, LA)

Anyone who has been in the army would tell you, a handgun is well outranged by a standard issue soldiers gun, never mind the armoured vehicles and air support they can call upon...

And that's why we don't just have handguns.

Have i not just shown in my source in this post that more open access to guns increases homicides? i mean yeah they dont wear cowboy hats so its not a wild west bloodbath...

You've shown nothing of the sort. Britain has always had lower crime, even when gun laws in the US and Britain were similar. In fact, you've completely missed the point; states that allowed concealed carry of guns did not show increases in crime.

Yes good people can handel guns ok (which is why my country lets people have rifles or shotguns for which there are legitimate purposes) but bad people wont, can you tell the difference

Do you really think criminals will stop using guns because the law says so?

oh a few news stories? indicative of a trend that leaves america with less homicides?

Again, missing the point. It shows that the nonsensical scenarios you were talking of earlier are, well, nonsensical.

In England they would be less likely to have acess to a gun so this would be less likely to happen...

Against an unarmed family, you don't need guns.

Sources: 2 million defensive gun uses a year:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Resisting with weapons helps keep you safe from muggings:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

That is all.

CR

Boyar Son

10-14-2007, 02:38

omg CR got his hands full, why such looong posts, cant we all just get to a certain piont so it is easier for you and me to read??:dizzy2:

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-14-2007, 03:07

Well there are two different stances, no guns and no handguns and even those who say no guns (i don't) would probably allow farmers or at least rangers them...

Yea, might need more then a few farmers and rangers in one state to control the animal popluation.....

naut

10-14-2007, 07:32

Yea, might need more then a few farmers and rangers in one state to control the animal popluation.....
I doubt it, if your going to cull animals to save money you'd do one big cull just before they start getting really over-populated. In which case you bring in Rangers from numerous places to do the culling.

doc_bean

10-14-2007, 09:11

School shooters just aren't creative enough these days. They become more pathetic each time. I wonder when someone will finally show some originality and use some explosives. Or perhaps poison the lunch meat.

Of course, they wouldn't be shooters then...

In the USA at least, the right to bear arms is the last resort against a tyrannical government, a way to prevent a government from ruling through oppressive force.

Meh, this old argument is simply dumb. The government can fear the people, but not just the guns. The French government is probably a lot more scared of the people than the US government, them being armed or not. If cops in pretty much any European country did half the stuff the US cops do 'legally' there would probably be rioting in the streets.

The only way to 'oppose' a tyrannical government would be en masse, as long as that doesn't happen all those 'excercising their right to overthrow a tyrannical government' will just be considered terrorists. And since there is no clear point that tells everyone the government has turned tyrannical you'll never find the support you need to overthrow them (in time anyway).

EDIT: and just for the record, I'm not really pro or against gun control. I just don't care all that much.

Tribesman

10-14-2007, 09:49

where are these ''facts'' then?

Byznatine If you look at the "facts" Rabbit supplied in the links from the next post you will find that the first is a fundamentaly flawed survey which took a small numberand multiplied it by a big number without ensuring that the small number was in any way correct , in fact in their ranting reply to challenges about their figures they unwittingly highlight the flaws in the survey regarding their approach to false positves .
The second link you will note Rabbit correctly identifies "weapons" not "guns" (he does learn from his mistakes sometimes) .

So, since they viewed standing armies as a threat to freedom, and we have a standing army now, thus making the government more dangerous, we should give up this safeguard of freedom?

So from the time of the formation of the United States to the present how many years has there not been a standing army ? ...we have a standing army now .:inquisitive: For the government to be more dangerous you should be able to show a time when it was less dangerous eh ?

How many times since the formation of the United States have citizens or States rebelled against the tyranny of the government ?
How many times have they got rid of that government through armed rebellion ?
Face it Rabbit it is not a safeguard of freedom , it is an illusion of a safeguard of freedom .
Clinging to an illusion is rather irrational isn't it ? :yes:

Ironside

10-14-2007, 10:35

As the Org decided to die on me when I was supposed to post this one, it's a bit late.

And yet they still exist; being 'civilized' doesn't make crime go away.

Yes, the idea of a civilization. But it's like the 2nd law of thermodynamics; ideas never fully become reality (as heat never fully converts to work). There is no perfect civilization, after all.

No, but crime shouldn't be needed to be higher than what it is in the least crime infested areas.

And based on giving up your freedom for protection.

Huh? :inquisitive: Feudalism are a top down system were the highest power don't feel that it can control the entire owned territory properly and thus delegating power to the nobility. The peasant's situation (when their taxes are extorted by mafia methods), or possibly city-states relinquishing power to a larger nation for protection aren't directly related to feudalism.

Oh, I think we should do what we can to combat crime before it begins. But we can never stop it all, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared.

There's prepared and over prepared (=half-paranoid). Here, guns end mostly up in the second category. And as the world has a tendency to go towards what you perceive the world to look like...
To put it simple, to reach the point were getting a gun for protection is a valid defence and not some one in a million happening for your average citizen, is a sign of a society being dysfunctional due to violent crimes here.

Redleg

10-14-2007, 13:33

How many times since the formation of the United States have citizens or States rebelled against the tyranny of the government ? (pick a number between 3 and 5, one even has in its title in history rebellion, besides the Civil War)
How many times have they got rid of that government through armed rebellion ?( 0)
Face it Rabbit it is not a safeguard of freedom , it is an illusion of a safeguard of freedom? (Laws were changed because of the rebellion against the tyranny of the government - 3 times, two were actually to the better of the citizens, once was to safeguard the republic)

Now I know what your point is - but the illusion is more of a reality then your arguement is attempting to point out. Is it as strong as Crazed Rabbit's arguement - no, but does the reality between his arguement exist, yes.

Byzantine Mercenary

10-14-2007, 14:29

So, since they viewed standing armies as a threat to freedom, and we have a standing army now, thus making the government more dangerous, we should give up this safeguard of freedom?

:dizzy2: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
CR
it wont work as a safeguard of freedom though, the army has more then guns...

Did I say that? Nope. But the state that allows people to buy a pistol, and conceal it on themselves without any permits has some of the lowest crime in the nation. Indeed, most of the crime comes from places where guns are very regulated or banned (Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, LA)

oh heck i would expect that if guns are freely available in other parts of the country then the criminals will have a better supply.
So if guns are commonly available to them and not potential victims then it probably would be worse then both having guns, it just shows the states with less gun controls are not only ruining it for the rest but also get to brag at how much better they are...

And that's why we don't just have handguns.

what they have aircraft, hellicopters, battleships, APCs, tanks, Cruise missiles, and hundreds of thousands of trained fighters? if so then i would say that these guys would be a bigger threat then any army as they have no restrictions on them. And if they arnt that strong then they would have no chance against the US armed forces...

You've shown nothing of the sort. Britain has always had lower crime, even when gun laws in the US and Britain were similar. In fact, you've completely missed the point; states that allowed concealed carry of guns did not show increases in crime.

...did i not just show you that England and Wales have similar crime levels to the US? now while i think its real lovely that in EDWARDIAN times gun crime was NOT RECORDED as a problem in almost a hundred years Britain has changed Britain is not some archaic haven with scones where everything stops for tea...

i also didn't miss the point, i accepted some of it (shock horror)

I also notice that England and wales has a higher if anything number of thefts, and more fraud (but less drugs) now maybe this is because criminals in America are more scared of a gun owning public?

So at the cost of increased Homicide, major assaults, and rape you can have less thefts and fraud and more drugs?...

So you may have a point if crimes are clearly prevented, i would apreciate the source of your 2 million statistic...

and challenged the rest

Do you really think criminals will stop using guns because the law says so?

no but if supply decreases with decent border control most will not be able to get hold of one

Again, missing the point. It shows that the nonsensical scenarios you were talking of earlier are, well, nonsensical.

this is realy your level of refutation? come on give me somthing to respond to apart from ''your wrong''...
what i said was that a few lucky or unlucky senarios dont mean much

Against an unarmed family, you don't need guns.

Sources: 2 million defensive gun uses a year:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Resisting with weapons helps keep you safe from muggings:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

That is all.

CR
Sources, from a anti guncontrol website, both by the same scholor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
whose ideas do not seem to have found a consensus
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/announcements/kleck.html
''I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]''
and even he does not agree with you...

''Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.). ''
then why does the US have a higher rate of homicide then the UK? our police don't even all have guns?
we are just culturally less violent? i don't think so...

How many times since the formation of the United States have citizens or States rebelled against the tyranny of the government ?
How many times have they got rid of that government through armed rebellion ?
Face it Rabbit it is not a safeguard of freedom , it is an illusion of a safeguard of freedom .
Clinging to an illusion is rather irrational isn't it ? :yes:
hmm well there was a civil war, proof that people that wanted to break away from the rest of the US were able to due to widespread gun availability?
lol

Crazed Rabbit

10-14-2007, 20:01

it wont work as a safeguard of freedom though, the army has more then guns...

Really? There are some hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in the states. What people arguing against this don't seem to realize is that you wouldn't have or need a bunch of citizens beating the US army in open battle - you need enough to form a serious deterrent to trying to start a dictatorship.

oh heck i would expect that if guns are freely available in other parts of the country then the criminals will have a better supply.
So if guns are commonly available to them and not potential victims then it probably would be worse then both having guns, it just shows the states with less gun controls are not only ruining it for the rest
Oh? Can you prove the criminals in NYC are getting guns from outside that state (which is illegal, btw)?

no but if supply decreases with decent border control most will not be able to get hold of one

Ha! Britain is an island and can't keep guns out of the country. The US can't keep drugs out of its country. What makes you think guns will be different?

''I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]''
and even he does not agree with you...

Ha! You miss the point; gun availability does not affect crime.

then why does the US have a higher rate of homicide then the UK? our police don't even all have guns?
we are just culturally less violent? i don't think so...

The US has always had a higher rate. Don't worry though, if trends continue Britain will overtake us in that too.

CR

Byzantine Mercenary

10-14-2007, 21:05

Really? There are some hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in the states. What people arguing against this don't seem to realize is that you wouldn't have or need a bunch of citizens beating the US army in open battle - you need enough to form a serious deterrent to trying to start a dictatorship.
So plenty of guns = no dictators? what about all the dictators in countries flooded with guns then?

Oh? Can you prove the criminals in NYC are getting guns from outside that state (which is illegal, btw)?
Well apparently criminals can magic guns from anywhere to anywhere im just assuming that they currently take what would seem to be the easiest route.

Ha! Britain is an island and can't keep guns out of the country. The US can't keep drugs out of its country. What makes you think guns will be different?
do we have as many handguns as the US?
indeed any increase recently is partly due to increased smuggling, all we need to do is crack down on it a bit more

Ha! You miss the point; gun availability does not affect crime.
CR
Er i think you are missing the point he is saying that gun availability has no benefit too...

But anyway...

If a criminal can't get a gun they can't use it, if its hard for them to get a gun they have to realy want one and likely go to a lot of trouble, if its easy well they will probably get one on the offchance

The US has always had a higher rate. Don't worry though, if trends continue Britain will overtake us in that too.CR

49 people were killed by guns in 1999, 58 in 2007 (estimated) an 18% increase.

I did a rough calculation, if that increase holds our number of deaths due to gun crime per 100 000 will be the same as yours was in 1999, by the year 2287... im not worried :beam:

my sources:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/282.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf

Myrddraal

10-14-2007, 23:19

History makes a nonsense of the idea of a gun owning population being a deterrent to anyone wanting to 'start a dictatorship'.

Show me a significant number of dictatorships that haven't been backed up by armed civilian militias. The Brownshirts, Zimbabwe's National Youth Service to name a couple.

Dictatorships are not formed by (as many conspiracy theorists like to theorise) a small group of ultra-powerful politicians who one day decide to oppress thousands. That's generally how they end up, but they are usually crowned by armed civilians.

I live in the UK. I shoot rifles as a sport. I don't own a gun, and any rifle I do use never leaves the range. If I wanted to own a gun, I'd need a Firearms certificate.

What would I need to obtain such a certificate? Would a government official question me on wether or not I support their policies? What a nonsense!

I would however need my criminal record checked, two referees, a note from my doctor and an inspection of where I'll be keeping my gun.

I'd be more than willing to undergo that inspection, in the knowledge that people with criminal records, or who are mentally unstable, or who aren't prepared to be careful with the storage of their gun, will be turned down.

So what's the big deal CR? You enjoy firing you gun, so do I. You're allowed to, so am I. But Mr Postal living down my street can't walk into the local gun shop and blow his boss' head off.

I can't see any substance to the argument that gun restrictions are an oppression of freedom, nor can I see any substance to the argument of guns as a means of a barrier to dictatorships.

Whacker

10-15-2007, 00:59

I would however need my criminal record checked, two referees, a note from my doctor and an inspection of where I'll be keeping my gun.
Gawd, is this really what Brits need to own a gun? OK, I gotta pick this one apart.

Criminal record check I agree should be mandatory before a gun can be purchased, BUT there needs to be limits on what would preclude an individual from ownership. I've had more than a few speeding tickets, but that's it. Should a certain number or threshold prevent me from owning a gun? Hell no I say. What about other types of crimes? There are quite often more than a few people who make honest mistakes in life, so what type of crimes would preclude ownership? Some types like murder/rape I'd say should be a permanant deal, but some types, say for example a theft in childhood, should not come back to bite someone in the long term, hence there should be expirations or maximum limits.

Second, two referals. So what? I understand that in Britain the laws are different, but what does this accomplish actually? Get two buddies (I'm assuming from the gun club, if not then in general makes it even more worthless) to vouch for them, regardless of one's ability to handle a weapon or not, and problem solved.

Third, doctor's note? Again, so what? A family doctor is in no way shape or form to make a qualified psychological opinion, which is what I'm guessing is the gist of this. Physical fitness has nothing to do with proper gun care and ownership, I've known wheelchair occupants who are excellent marksmen. As for my doc making a psych eval, no way. I've visited our current doc whom I've had for 6+ years a grand total of 3 times. Think he knows me well enough to 'send a note'? Either way, there's no way someone is going to know one's mental health except a trained psychologist after multiple interviews, and even then odds are one could lie their way through it.

Fourth, inspection? None of the government's damn business, period. What I do with my property in my house is my own business. "But it's for the children!" I can hear people screaming already. Awesome, great point. Let's make it mandatory before one can reproduce that the goverment inspects the house for any unprotected outlets, un-childproofed cubbards and doors, kitchen cutlery not locked away tight, and other sharp pointy and stabby things and poisons that they will obviously kill themselves with immediately. :rolleyes:

I'd be more than willing to undergo that inspection, in the knowledge that people with criminal records, or who are mentally unstable, or who aren't prepared to be careful with the storage of their gun, will be turned down.
No way in hell I would, for the above reasons.

So what's the big deal CR? You enjoy firing you gun, so do I. You're allowed to, so am I. But Mr Postal living down my street can't walk into the local gun shop and blow his boss' head off.
Far too many assumptions made here, I can see dozens of holes in the British gun control policy. And if someone wants to go out and get a gun illegally, they're going to be able to do it quite easily. Even if it's a normal person who has a gun, makes no difference, as under extreme amounts of stress, pressure, or anger, even normally rational and calm individuals can be driven to violence. A gun is no more going to enable them than going downstairs and getting the huge 5 star Henkels butcher knife, or the axe in the garage.

I can't see any substance to the argument that gun restrictions are an oppression of freedom,
While I don't want to speak for CR, but I don't think that what's being suggested is that "all gun control is bad". Some gun control is good, like criminal background checks. But most of what the Brit requirements are, are utter tripe. Something like passing a written gun safety test would also be a good thing to be mandatory, just like driving a car. In the US we don't have to until we hit a certain age, but I think it should be mandatory that one must re-take the written driving test every renewal, and that seniors above 65 should have to take the practical examination with a reviewer as well.

IMO, etc

/shrug

Tribesman

10-15-2007, 03:09

OK, I gotta pick this one apart.

well if you want to try and pick it apart you have a bloody hell of a long way to go ...perhaps you would be best to turn round and start again since a large part of your post definately falls into the bollox category .
However you do raise some valid points , if you could build on them and drop the tripe it would be a advancement .
Now I didhave a rather lengthyrespopnse toe parts of your post thatI considered tripe , but in my inebreated stayte I pressed the wong button , so in the interest ofme not being arsed to rewrite it at the momentcould you yourself reflct on yourpost n see the flaws ?

Myrddraal

10-15-2007, 10:44

It's an argument I see used all over the place, and it runs along the lines of:

"Your way of doing X isn't perfect, hence we're not going to bother doing X"

Of course the set of rules that define British gun control aren't perfect, no set of rules that would attempt to control gun ownership could be.

By focusing entirely on the minor flaws with British policy, you've completely sidestepped the issue I was trying to raise:

Do these gun controls help achieve the purpose [of restricting guns to those who can safely handle them]?
Do they have consequences that are damaging to society or to an individuals 'right' to participate in firearms related sports?
Is the trade-off worth it?

So forget about wether a doctor is a perfect judge of my sanity, how pointless two referee's is, and tell me: Does it help prevent the wrong people getting hold of guns: It might, and in some cases it definitely will. Does it have consequences that are damaging to society or to my rights: No, not at all. Is the trade off worth it: Clearly yes.

So if you want to pick apart my post, pick it into every statement I made, and apply those three points to them.

The only one I can possibly foresee you taking issue with is the inspection of the storage. This, you might say (and correctly) could be seen as an infringement on my privacy, but is the trade off worth it? In my mind it is, I don't want people owning guns who leave them on the doorstep, they are a hazard to themselves and their community. In your mind this might be a step too far, but that doesn't matter because...By saying 'that doesn't matter' I don't mean that this specific rule isn't important or controversial, I'm just saying don't reply focussing only on this point, consider what I say below

If we go back to the original argument which (I think) is; should the US have tighter gun control?

The ideal of guns not getting in the wrong hands is one thing (possibly the only thing :wink:) that we can all agree is right in this thread. That said, another way of asking the same question might be: Could the US have tighter gun controls without negative consequences which outweigh the benefits?

Well the answer is yes. Even if you don't like all the controls I have to pass in the UK, I can't possibly see you arguing against each and every one of them in turn.

Essentially the gun lobby are suffering from an excessive knee jerk reaction. Any mention of gun controls, and they fall back to the same arguments: The right to bear arms, the need of armed militia's should the government try to kill us all!, and home security.

You don't stop and think about wether gun controls would actually affect any of this at all.

Have some kind of firearms certificate in the US, and do you think suddenly no one would have guns? Not at all.

Just set up a system whereby you can't walk into a shop and buy a gun without a firearms certificate. Set up a system whereby to own automatic weapons and weapons only designed to kill you need a more thorough test and you can't but help the situation. Surely?

There is a whole other debate we could have along the lines of gun culture as opposed to gun restrictions. Is a culture in which a large proportion of the populace own such high powered weapons a good society? It's a different kettle of fish, and one which (although very linked) shouldn't be confused with this argument on gun controls.

Crazed Rabbit

10-15-2007, 15:07

Just set up a system whereby you can't walk into a shop and buy a gun without a firearms certificate. Set up a system whereby to own automatic weapons and weapons only designed to kill you need a more thorough test and you can't but help the situation. Surely?

Surely not. A firearms certificate is a way of making it harder for people to purchase guns. The only thing I support is an instant background check of any possible criminal record on any and all types of guns.

The British system is a disgusting, in that you must beg for the kindly generosity of the government when you've done nothing wrong - like you're guilty until proven innocent.

You don't stop and think about wether gun controls would actually affect any of this at all.

I have, and guess what? I did more than think about it, I looked at various government research that showed:

bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

No evidence such controls reduce crime. When you see that, what then is the motivation for passing all these laws? It's simply to discourage and prevent people from getting a gun by piling up obstacles in their path.

Also, seeing as there are no empirical benefits to gun laws, the negative effects must obviously outweigh the (nonexistent) positive effects.

So plenty of guns = no dictators? what about all the dictators in countries flooded with guns then?

You mean the countries who's armies loyal to said dictators are flooded with guns?

Well apparently criminals can magic guns from anywhere to anywhere im just assuming that they currently take what would seem to be the easiest route.
Perhaps you should keep in mind 'common sense' ideas about gun control are often wrong (see above), and not come to assumptions without evidence.

Show me a significant number of dictatorships that haven't been backed up by armed civilian militias. The Brownshirts, Zimbabwe's National Youth Service to name a couple.

And what did the Nazis due after coming to power? They banned private possession of firearms as [the public]"having arms did not serve the state".

Heck, let's take a look at what Hitler said about it:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
-Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426).
http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/quotations-of-adolf-hitler.php

CR

Myrddraal

10-15-2007, 15:22

Like I said, that's how they end up, but the Nazi's like so many were supported by armed civilians when they came to power. You're not contradicting anything I said there.

Before I have a good read of that research link, these are three thoughts I have:

You seem persuaded that gun restrictions in the UK mean I have to beg and be accused of doing something wrong. That's definitely wrong. Take my word for it, I live in that situation.

This bit struck me "Also, seeing as there are no empirical benefits to gun laws, the negative effects must obviously outweigh the (nonexistent) positive effects."

You're focussed now on how small the benefits of gun restrictions are. I don't know much about that (reading to come :smile:), but earlier you were concentrating on the negative effects of gun restrictions, which to my mind are the part that's nonexistent.

My attitude in my first post was along the lines of; seeing as there are no downsides to gun laws, the positive effects must obviously outweigh the (nonexistent) negative effects.

So my last thought is that; assuming your info about the effects of gun restrictions is correct, I'm tending to think the issue is not so much about the mechanics of the laws enforced.

As I alluded too in my first post in this thread, there are two dimensions to this issue; gun regulations and 'gun culture'. I think the gun culture in the US is perhaps a more critical issue than the restrictions applied.

Myrddraal

10-15-2007, 16:10

Hmm Hmm Hmm

CR, please don't misrepresent quotes by only giving half the sentence. I hope that this debate is about working out a decent solution to a problem (at least amongst ourselves) and not to 'beat' each other at debate. :no: Here is 'that quote' in full:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Looks like both you and I will have to look elsewhere for any definitive expert opinion...

EDIT: I just read through that report. Essentially it said - the existing research is not adequate or appropriate for making a judgment. We need more money. What did you do? Google it?

pfff I'm very dissapointed

Innocentius

10-15-2007, 17:07

It's a little bit too late to join the debate for me, but after reading much of the thread, I'd like to say this to the pro-gun side: Would you please stop using master suppression techniques?

All your arguments seem to be based on these, at least to a degree, where you ridicule the anti-gun side and claim that you have the greater knowledge. Also, just because a person hasn't fired a gun does not mean that disqualifies him, or his opinion on the lethality of guns, in a discussion. And, for heaven's sake, don't refer to the nazis. That has to be the oldest and worst excuse for a lack of a proper argument: "Look, this is what the nazis did. Do you want to do the same? Are you a nazi? Are you, huh?".

I'm still a child by legal standards, and most of you are probably (and sadly) 30 or above, so stop acting like children.

Crazed Rabbit

10-15-2007, 19:52

Hmm Hmm Hmm

CR, please don't misrepresent quotes by only giving half the sentence. I hope that this debate is about working out a decent solution to a problem (at least amongst ourselves) and not to 'beat' each other at debate.

I misrepresented nothing. I said there is "No evidence such controls reduce crime." So if you're arguing for more gun control, you can't say 'it will reduce crime' honestly. You could, I suppose, say we should do it because some watery tart told you too.

And, for heaven's sake, don't refer to the nazis. That has to be the oldest and worst excuse for a lack of a proper argument: "Look, this is what the nazis did. Do you want to do the same? Are you a nazi? Are you, huh?".

Twasn't I who brought up the Nazis, or the pro-gun side.

All your arguments seem to be based on these, at least to a degree, where you ridicule the anti-gun side and claim that you have the greater knowledge.

Gee, maybe because I get a wee bit tired of endless assumptions from people who have hardly, if ever, handled a gun, yet making sweeping declarations about guns ands situations involving them. And also because I do have the facts on my side - why should I not bring them to bear?

Like I said, that's how they end up, but the Nazi's like so many were supported by armed civilians when they came to power

And what significant armed group opposed them? And who could after they implemented laws to disarm potential dissidents?

but earlier you were concentrating on the negative effects of gun restrictions, which to my mind are the part that's nonexistent.

Nonexistent? I would say self defense is a very big benefit. Of course, you guys in Britain wouldn't see much of that with the extreme regulation you have.

CR

Myrddraal

10-15-2007, 23:56

Don't bandy words with me. You used the quote so that you could say "you can't say 'it will reduce crime' honestly". The quote itself however says that it shouldn't be used in this context: "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness"

Gee, maybe because I get a wee bit tired of endless assumptions from people who have hardly, if ever, handled a gun, yet making sweeping declarations about guns ands situations involving them. And also because I do have the facts on my side - why should I not bring them to bear?

And you ignore the arguments of those who have, not that it matters.

I said in my post before last: it seems to me we are approaching this issue from opposite ends (which is fair enough I guess :smile:)

You say the benefits of gun regulations are non existent => the costs must outweigh these non existent benefits.

I say the costs of some gun control (something closer to the UK's laws) are non-existent. Both you and I CR can own guns. Both you and I can shoot them. (I do, and I guess you do to) => the potential benefits must outweigh these non existent costs.

Since the factual link you gave me to back up the non-existence of the benefits turned out to not support that view (or any view for that matter), why don't you provide me with evidence that the costs of gun regulations have any social downside. Anything you say can instantly be refuted by my personal experience. This is something you cannot argue with, even if you take issue with some of the restrictions on guns in the UK, you can't argue against all of them in turn. I shoot guns for sport, I live in the UK, the UK has gun restrictions.

I know not everyone in the backroom is here to learn off each other (rather to put forward their opinion and stop up their ears). I guess I'm a little like that too :wink:. For example, it'll take some dramatic new argument to persuade me that a gun carrying population is any guarantee against government oppression, or that the social costs of certain gun restrictions are significant.

If nothing else, take my word for it, I have no problems firing guns or owning one in the UK. Though I don't own my own gun, I know several who do, and I shoot for sport with them.

What I don't know so much about are the benefits of gun restrictions. If you provide me with some research which actually supports the idea that gun restrictions don't have any positive effects, I'd be more than happy to read it through (but read it through yourself, I wasted a happy 20 minutes reading the last link you gave me :grin:)

I think (if I dare to presume that we are heading anywhere :P) that the only conclusion this thread will lead to is that gun restrictions have no benefits OR costs. At the moment though, I've seen no 'facts' that show that gun controls have no benefits. Persuade me :bow:

I think an interesting analogy that someone mentioned earlier is that a tank could be used instead of a gun. If we legalise tank ownership, then both the criminals and the home owners will have heavy weaponry. Maybe it wouldn't affect the crime rate, but the crimes would be a lot messier.

Crazed Rabbit

10-16-2007, 01:24

You used the quote so that you could say "you can't say 'it will reduce crime' honestly".

And how is that incorrect?

And sorry, but I do not consider the UK laws to be 'some' gun control. It has some of the more extreme regulatory structure in the world.

Both you and I CR can own guns. Both you and I can shoot them. (I do, and I guess you do to) => the potential benefits must outweigh these non existent costs.

I think you're missing some of the costs. Having to belong to a gun club is a cost, having to provide testimony from a doctor is a cost, having to prove good character with witnesses is a cost, having to provide a reason for owning a gun is a cost, having to store your gun in a safe or at the range is a cost. All of those are designed to discourage newcomers from getting into the sport. Finally, the biggest cost is that the police have control over whether or not you can get a gun.

Owning a gun, to me, and most Americans I'd think, isn't about being able to solely go to a range and plink some targets.

Finally, being, shall we say, 'discouraged' from using any gun for self defense is a very high cost.

Since the factual link you gave me to back up the non-existence of the benefits turned out to not support that view (or any view for that matter), why don't you provide me with evidence that the costs of gun regulations have any social downside.

When you deprive a population of firearms, you take from them the most effect means of self defense. And in so doing you give the advantage to the criminal. For the criminal is the one who is stronger and will make use of some weapon no matter what law. Disarming their prey will only embolden them.

Even if a lack of a gun ban results in the criminal having a gun as well as the citizen, the citizen is still the better for it. The odds are much better even if both have guns than if the citizen does not have a gun, because then the criminal has the advantage, either with a knife or club or simple wrestling.

Statistically;
About 2 million people a year defend themselves with guns. Every one of those incidents is a practical benefit of not having the severe laws the UK does*.

Guns simply offer huge benefits to self defense. Take them away, and you take away all that and leave citizens at the mercy of criminals. I recognize that those in the UK might not be familiar with this.

Crazed Rabbit
*Maybe not every single last one.

Husar

10-16-2007, 10:17

When you deprive a population of firearms, you take from them the most effect means of self defense.
Weird, I thought knives were a lot more effective at killing people. :dizzy2:

I don't know about gun laws here but our system is similar to the one in Britain I think, you have to give a good reason for owning a gun and there may be other requirements.

And IMO the best means of home defense are still proximity mines in doorways.:clown:

Watchman

10-16-2007, 12:57

Around here something like 2/3 of attempted murders are done with knives - but only about a quarter of the succesful ones are carried out with that weapon.

Fact is, most folks don't have a clue of how to use the things effectively past "sharp end goes into the other guy", and most of the time the cutlery they can get their hands on is rather too small to be a very effective weapon and in any case designed as a tool.

Finally, being, shall we say, 'discouraged' from using any gun for self defense is a very high cost.Only if you actually live in a society where the issue of needing a gun for self-defense is relevant in the first place...

Myrddraal

10-18-2007, 13:15

Problem is, I don't know much about the effectiveness of guns as a method of self defence. Let me rephrase that, I'm sure they're very effective, but I'm not sure that a state of easy access to guns makes for better defence in the home.

In the UK, nobody has a gun to defend themselves with, and the majority of people don't live in fear of break in's by gun wielding crimials. If you think you're being broken into, you wouldn't assume that the burglar had a gun, that would be quite exceptional I think.

I think the real problem in the US isn't so much that the gun restrictions would be an affront to human rights or society, but rather that there are so many guns in society allready that a blanket ban on guns would lead to armed break in's being met by unarmed civilians.

I don't see that the same would happen with increased gun restrictions. Personally, I think that a culture where the majority of the population carry guns, and almost half keep those guns loaded is not a healthy society. Keeping a loaded handgun in your glove compartment or in your bedside table is not about going down the range to pop some targets. It's a physical manifestation of a fear of firearm related crime in your society. I think increased gun control would, over time, reduce easy access to guns for those who really shouldn't have them, wouldn't affect those who do want to shoot guns for sport, and hopefully, would lead to a culture where gun ownership is not necessary for self defence.

I can't back that up with statistics, but I can say that it works well here in the UK. Those who shoot for sport or hunt can have access to firearms. Offensive firearms are very hard / bordering on impossible to aquire legally. People don't live in a society where they feel they need a high powered weapon for security.

Overall in my opinion, that's a better state of affairs, but again it depends on the culture more than the specific laws. I'd like to think that gun restrictions would lead towards that kind of culture, because as you rightly say, idle gun ownership would become harder, without stopping those who genuinely want to own a gun for sport.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-19-2007, 14:01

Increasing Gun Control and Such SOunds good but... How do you expect to take unresigtered guns off the streets from gangbangers if you don't catch them?

Watchman

10-19-2007, 14:08

Isn't that what you have police for ?

Crazed Rabbit

10-19-2007, 19:37

Problem is, I don't know much about the effectiveness of guns as a method of self defence. Let me rephrase that, I'm sure they're very effective, but I'm not sure that a state of easy access to guns makes for better defence in the home.

Like I said before, it's better if both homeowner and criminal have guns than if the criminal just has a knife/pipe/etc. and the homeowner nothing.

In the UK, nobody has a gun to defend themselves with, and the majority of people don't live in fear of break in's by gun wielding crimials. If you think you're being broken into, you wouldn't assume that the burglar had a gun, that would be quite exceptional I think.
And what of knife and other weapon wielding criminals?

I think the real problem in the US isn't so much that the gun restrictions would be an affront to human rights or society,
I'm afraid you're wrong on that count.

but rather that there are so many guns in society allready that a blanket ban on guns would lead to armed break in's being met by unarmed civilians.
I know you're right on that.

I don't see that the same would happen with increased gun restrictions. Personally, I think that a culture where the majority of the population carry guns, and almost half keep those guns loaded is not a healthy society.

Feelings about healthy societies are irrelevant.

Keeping a loaded handgun in your glove compartment or in your bedside table is not about going down the range to pop some targets.
True.

It's a physical manifestation of a fear of firearm related crime in your society.
No, it's being prepared for all possible crime, not just when the crook has a gun.

I think increased gun control would, over time, reduce easy access to guns for those who really shouldn't have them, wouldn't affect those who do want to shoot guns for sport, and hopefully, would lead to a culture where gun ownership is not necessary for self defence.

I don't see where you're getting that gun control does not affect non-criminals. It certainly has in Britain.
If you think that, can you explain why crime involving guns has increased in Britain as gun control has increased?

Also, if there is crime in a society, guns are nearly essential for defending yourself, even if crooks can not obtain weapons.

People don't live in a society where they feel they need a high powered weapon for security.

I think in Britain it's more a culture of not being encouraged to defend yourself. You're just supposed to let the crook take your stuff instead of using 'unreasonable force'.

What I think is happening is confusing a need for 'high powered weapons' with the straightforward desire to use what works best. Why have a side by side shotgun if you can get a pump shotgun that holds more shells?

If you accept the need for self defense, then one would naturally think about how best to defend yourself. Firearms are usually the most effective. Given that, would not one want to obtain the best firearm for the job?

Think of it in terms of motorcycle helmets; would you choose the one that was just barely adequate, and might well fail in a crash, or a high strength reinforced helmet, especially if the high strength one was barely more expensive?

CR

Tribesman

10-19-2007, 20:31

If you think that, can you explain why crime involving guns has increased in Britain as gun control has increased?

Errrrr...well it has increased because there are more things involving guns that are now crimes . Strange that isn't it ...but hey we've been there before Rabbit so I suppose you mean gun enabled crimes ...which according to them statistic thingies has decreased .

Crazed Rabbit

10-19-2007, 21:44

I'm not talking of simply since the handgun ban*.

CR
*If you need a footnote on this...

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-19-2007, 22:26

Isn't that what you have police for ?

Doesn't Answer my Question Watchman.

Increasing Gun Control and Such SOunds good but... How do you expect to take unresigtered guns off the streets from gangbangers if you don't catch them?

If they rob a homeowner at gunpoint, and escape, then, Police won't do anything good,would they? :inquisitive:

Husar

10-19-2007, 22:31

If they rob a homeowner at gunpoint, and escape, then, Police won't do anything good,would they? :inquisitive:
They can bring in the CSI and profilers and find him, you should watch more TV. ~D

woad&fangs

10-19-2007, 22:45

Couple of things I thought that I should bring up.

1. In the Martial Arts thread in the frontroom Vuk talks about how it is easier to disarm a person with a gun than a person with a knife.

2. the requirements for gun ownership that Myrrdral described truthfully don't sound much more restrictive than the laws here.

3. There are a lot more guns total in the US then in Britain. This makes enforcing gun control laws much more difficult. Unless of course the person with the gun is a nice law abiding citizen, but in that case why would you want to take their gun in the first place.

Sasaki Kojiro

10-19-2007, 23:05

Why is no one focusing on the real culprit, Marylin Manson?

After all, he isn't popular in Iceland, which has a very low murder rate. While he is popular in America, which has a high murder rate. Since Iceland is just like America I can conclude that Marylin Manson is responsible for the violence in America.

Tribesman

10-19-2007, 23:44

I'm not talking of simply since the handgun ban*.

Oh so which increases in firearm regulation are you linking to which increases in gun crimes ?
Or is it that facts which you claim prove your point are actually "facts"*

* as in not factual:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

10-20-2007, 00:29

Watchman

10-20-2007, 01:43

If they rob a homeowner at gunpoint, and escape, then, Police won't do anything good,would they? :inquisitive::inquisitive: They may do things differently where you live, but around here they're sort of supposed to find and apprehend the criminal for due legal procedures.

Then again for some reason people don't rob a jack at gunpoint here, least of all homes. Jewelry stores sometimes, and as the staff of such establishements have standing instructions to let armed robbers take the junk and let cops deal with them later casualties of such incidents stay at a practical zero.

If gun controls are so great, why is crime in England not below 1914 levels?:strawman3:
...like the United Kingdom ver. 2007 was even remotely the same thing as the United Kingdom v. 1914. Don't be silly.

Tribesman

10-20-2007, 02:24

like the United Kingdom ver. 2007 was even remotely the same thing as the United Kingdom v. 1914. Don't be silly.

Come off it Watchman don't just call strawman , give him a chance to hang himself .
So Rabbit Englands totalitarian gunlaws caused murder rates to rocket from 0.96 /100,000 to 1.62 in 100 years while Americas more relaxed gunlaws turned a murder rate of 1.2/100,000 into 5.9 .Hmmmmm......you were trying to say something ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

10-20-2007, 03:34

like the United Kingdom ver. 2007 was even remotely the same thing as the United Kingdom v. 1914. Don't be silly.

Almost like the USA and the UK, huh? Besides, Myrddraal was claiming that long term, gun control will reduce crime. That is not evident.

tribesy - why don't you look up and post how many homicides in the US happened in cities or states with gun control - like NYC, California, Washington DC, New Jersey?

CR

Watchman

10-20-2007, 07:41

Almost like the USA and the UK, huh? Besides, Myrddraal was claiming that long term, gun control will reduce crime. That is not evident.Strawman again. I'm pretty sure nobody's claiming gun controls reduce crime in general - because the things are a nonissue to much petty crime - but firearms related crime, which tends to have an effect of limiting serious violent crime due to lack of access to a convenient and even in unskilled hands quite easily lethal weapon.

Crazed Rabbit

10-20-2007, 10:22

So has violent crime, not just including firearms, declined in Britain as more laws and restrictions were put in place?

CR

Tribesman

10-20-2007, 11:47

why don't you look up and post how many homicides in the US happened in cities or states with gun control - like NYC, California, Washington DC, New Jersey?

Because we have been there before and your claim has been shown to be absolute bollox .:yes:
Would you like to debate it in a newspaper or something ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

So now Rabbit for your claim to hold any merit there should be no difference in murder rates within different disricts of a city that has the same citywide gun laws ...is there a difference ?
For your claim to be true there would be no difference in murder rates throughout a State that has Statewide gun laws......is there a difference ?
For your claim to be true there would certainly be no city or area of a State which has lax gun laws that has anything like a similar level of murders as areas with tighter gun laws ....are there areas that have similar levels ?

Now I could go further and do some "semantics" and ask in relation to ...in cities or states with gun control ....can you name any US city or State that has no gun control ?:eyebrows:

HoreTore

10-20-2007, 15:42

1. In the Martial Arts thread in the frontroom Vuk talks about how it is easier to disarm a person with a gun than a person with a knife.

Yeah.... I've heard people say such idiotic things before... He must be talking about situations where you're already standing close to the guy with the gun. With a distance of around 5m, there's no way I wouldn't be able to shoot Bruce Lee before he got close.

Crazed Rabbit

10-20-2007, 18:44

So now Rabbit for your claim to hold any merit there should be no difference in murder rates within different disricts of a city that has the same citywide gun laws ...is there a difference ?
For your claim to be true there would be no difference in murder rates throughout a State that has Statewide gun laws......is there a difference ?
For your claim to be true there would certainly be no city or area of a State which has lax gun laws that has anything like a similar level of murders as areas with tighter gun laws ....are there areas that have similar levels ?

So is it your position that if there is any variation at all of crime rates within a city, then one can't compare overall crime rates for the city? And the same for states? And then the claim that cities and states with stricter gun control must always have worse crime in every little area than any other city or state with less gun control?

Wow, that's stupid.

CR

Tribesman

10-20-2007, 19:18

So is it your position that if there is any variation at all of crime rates within a city, then one can't compare overall crime rates for the city?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Errrrr ....It is you Rabbit who tries to link the strictness of gun laws to crime rates , it is you who claims to have facts to back up your claims , it is your claims that turn out to be "facts" instead of facts .

Wow, that's stupid.
The stupidity rabbit is trying to make crazy claims about the benefits of lax gun controls in relation to crime when the examples you try to use are so full of holes .

Since one of your favourite examples to use is D.C. , an example you claim has more gun crime because it has stricter gun laws :dizzy2: why is there varying levels of gun crime (or other crime) within that area ?
The fault lies with your gun fetish , and your seeming theories that guns and the laws relating to them are the major issue when it comes to crime .

Hey Banquo whats wrong with Flanagan and Allen ? Why the deletion ? there were no warnings issued for the link before .

Crazed Rabbit

10-20-2007, 20:25

"full of holes"? So to meet your criteria for facts that go against your position, there can be absolutely no minor exceptions or variations, even though the the overall point is intact?

It's like you're on a hike and a guide says 'this is a deciduous forest' while surrounded by evergreens and you spot a conifer or two and starting innanely yelling that he's wrong.

Not to mention you've missed the point of my argument. Anti-gunners in here have been saying that gun control reduces crime. Of course, you haven't questioned that, though it links gun laws and crime. My examples prove them incorrect. The examples don't have to show that more citizens carrying guns reduces crime, only that gun control laws are ineffective at reducing crime.

Indeed, let's look at DC, who's crime and murder rates shot up 30 years ago when they banned handguns, while the crime rate in the rest of the nation declined. The contention here is about whether gun control reduces crime. This example, and many more, along with statistical research, would seem to indicate not.

You implied that gun control laws don't affect crime levels. Perhaps you should be arguing with the anti-gunners here who insist gun control reduces crime then. The rest of the blathering is really irrelevant to the discussion.

CR

Watchman

10-20-2007, 21:59

Anti-gunners in here have been saying that gun control reduces crime.Er... we haven't. It's kind of a bad form, as well as constructing strawmen, to put words in others' mouths.

Or at least one of the central points I've been arguing for is that gun ownership has jack all effect on the issue compared to properly functional law enforcement system and what might be termed "a healthy society".

Tribesman

10-20-2007, 22:00

You implied that gun control laws don't affect crime levels. Perhaps you should be arguing with the anti-gunners here who insist gun control reduces crime then. The rest of the blathering is really irrelevant to the discussion.

Wow , that really has me stumped . ~;) So I imply that gun control laws don't affect crime levels , and anti- gunners here seem to imply that they do hmmmmmm.......

But the state that allows people to buy a pistol, and conceal it on themselves without any permits has some of the lowest crime in the nation. Indeed, most of the crime comes from places where guns are very regulated or banned (Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, LA)
...isn't that someone insisting that gun laws do affect crime levels:idea2: are they an anti gunner:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Make your mind up rabbit if you insist that lax gun laws reduce crime and those anti gunners insist that tight gun laws reduce crime you are both wrong .

So perhaps you could re-read post #54 , then you could take what that implies and then maybe apply it to somewhere like D.C. which you are so fond of mentioning ...though of course that does mean more and stricter gun laws , which you would be opposed to eh ?
Now you have in the past said that you are in favour of stricter enforcement of existing regulations (which is often at odds with your rants about some existing regulations) .

Crazed Rabbit

10-20-2007, 22:43

Er... we haven't. It's kind of a bad form, as well as constructing strawmen, to put words in others' mouths.

Or at least one of the central points I've been arguing for is that gun ownership has jack all effect on the issue compared to properly functional law enforcement system and what might be termed "a healthy society".

So, keeping that in mind, would you mind US gun laws (that is, generally less restrictive, allowing non-criminals to own semi-auto assault rifles, etc.)?

As for 'strawmen':

Have i not just shown in my source in this post that more open access to guns increases homicides?

Does it help prevent the wrong people getting hold of guns: It might, and in some cases it definitely will. Does it have consequences that are damaging to society or to my rights: No, not at all. Is the trade off worth it: Clearly yes.

Any individual that is otherwise sound of mind can simply lose control in certain circumstances, having a gun handy at such a time could prove fatal to both the individual concerned and others.

Sure, guns doesn't cause mass killings, but they make them a lot easier.

and to the point were you said "if you take away guns kids will find some other way"....if you look at countries that don´t have legalized gun ownership I don´t see news about kids walking into schools and killing 10-20 of their classmates with knifes....so why doesn´t it happen?

isn't that someone insisting that gun laws do affect crime levels are they an anti gunner

Or someone showing that gun control doesn't reduce crime. You shouldn't leap to insult someone based on only one possible reading of a sentence. Like one was ...without knowledge... of different possibilities in the English language. ~;p

CR

Tribesman

10-21-2007, 00:17

Or someone showing that gun control doesn't reduce crime. You shouldn't leap to insult someone based on only one possible reading of a sentence. Like one was ...without knowledge... of different possibilities in the English language
Errrrr...ineffective gun control doesn't reduce gun crime . decent legislation with proper enforcement does .
If I wanted to insult your posts on the subject I would go for something more along the lines of how it is absolute bollox that you attempt to link DCs rise in crime to gun laws when that areas rise and spike (like that corresponding to other cities with different gun laws) is entirely unrelated to gun legislation ..but hey DCs handgun ban and its "link" to a rise in crime is a popular fallacy with the pro-gun crowd even though like most of their arguements it has no basis in reality .

Banquo's Ghost

10-21-2007, 10:11

Hey Banquo whats wrong with Flanagan and Allen ? Why the deletion ? there were no warnings issued for the link before .

Context, my dear Tribesman.

Your choice of song for this thread reminded me of that video posted by SFTS some while ago, showing a fellow setting light to a barrel of petrol in an attempt to fry a swarm of bees.

:bow:

Tribesman

10-21-2007, 10:43

Context, my dear Tribesman.

Context ?
This is a debate about gun laws isn't it ?
Is it not the same context ?~;)

So on to debate firearm legislation with someone who doesn't want to debate firearm legislation ...
Effective legislation Rabbit ....forget trying to link certain neighbourhoods steep rise in crime with firearm legislation when the cause of the spike is a crack epidemic in those neighbourhoods....since the topic is about a school shooting , how did ineffecive legislation and loopholes lobbied for by the pro-gun no matter what crowd allow someone like the two fruitcakes at Columbine purchase guns ?
How does ineffective legislation allow people in DC purchase guns in States neighbouring the district ?
Now you could go back to post #54 and think about those cases too .:yes:
then you could think of some proposed legislation that is attempting to address this issue ...then you could try and repeat your objections to that proposed legislation when you raised it as a topic because it was "firearm legislation" and the NRA were campaigning against it .
Then perhaps you could try and make a case for why guns should not be registered or that if they are registered why the government must delete the registration .

Husar

10-21-2007, 11:58

So on to debate firearm legislation with someone who doesn't want to debate firearm legislation ...
That's just...awesome! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You're like a dental drill, you don't stop before you're done, you hurt a lot but you only try to improve things. ~;)

Tribesman

10-21-2007, 14:43

You're like a dental drill, you don't stop before you're done, you hurt a lot but you only try to improve things.
Hmmmm.....not like this I hope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQ7KMCrPLE&mode=related&search=

Sir Moody

10-21-2007, 15:13

I'm speaking of the totality of English gun control in the last century, it's increasing strictness after WWII, and the corresponding increasing crime. If gun controls are so great, why is crime in England not below 1914 levels?

CR

sorry but the challengeable nature made me want to dig it back out

ladies and gentlemen can you name one thing that started in 1914 that took about 60% of the nations males off the streets (heres a hint they wernt all going to france on holiday you know) - not to mention we can only quote figres on REPORTED crime which is a bad point since Britian at the time was a class driven socicety, most of the crime would have been between the workers and would never have been reported (and even if it was the police wernt renowned for being particulary useful at that point).

Husar

10-21-2007, 17:33

Hmmmm.....not like this I hope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQ7KMCrPLE&mode=related&search=
:laugh4:
He isn't really trying to improve the patient, is he? :sweatdrop:

Crazed Rabbit

10-21-2007, 20:38

Errrrr...ineffective gun control doesn't reduce gun crime . decent legislation with proper enforcement does .

So what is decent legislation? It would seem that a bare minimum is decent enough, provided it is actually enforced.

If I wanted to insult your posts on the subject I would go for something more along the lines of how it is absolute bollox that you attempt to link DCs rise in crime to gun laws when that areas rise and spike (like that corresponding to other cities with different gun laws) is entirely unrelated to gun legislation ..but hey DCs handgun ban and its "link" to a rise in crime is a popular fallacy with the pro-gun crowd even though like most of their arguements it has no basis in reality .

You keep making the same mistake, tribesy. DC's mayor has said that ban has 'saved thousands of lives'. Considering DC was the murder capital per capita of the US for many years, that would appear to be incorrect, as whatever other circumstances aside, the ban was accompanied by significantly increased murders.

You talk about a 'crack epidemic' or similar problem as the cause of the rise. But the higher violence in DC has not been going on for a year or five or even a decade; it's been three decades. Gee, almost like claiming it's some epidemic is just so people can ignore that gun control didn't do squat.

how did ineffecive legislation and loopholes lobbied for by the pro-gun no matter what crowd allow someone like the two fruitcakes at Columbine purchase guns ?

LOL, a lame argument straight from the mouths of US anti-gun groups.
And makes even less sense than when the anti-gun groups roll it out. The two Columbine killers broke the law in acquiring every weapon they had. There were no loopholes they slipped through, they committed numerous felonies before the day of the massacre.

How does ineffective legislation allow people in DC purchase guns in States neighbouring the district ?

They can't purchase handguns in other states and have to keep long guns locked up at their homes. And long guns are hardly used in crimes. Gee, that must mean practically every pistol in the district is there illegally.

And as to 'effective' legislation - I still haven't seen why if it's so effective violent crime in England has been going up.

CR

Watchman

10-21-2007, 20:54

LOL, a lame argument straight from the mouths of US anti-gun groups.
And makes even less sense than when the anti-gun groups roll it out. The two Columbine killers broke the law in acquiring every weapon they had. There were no loopholes they slipped through, they committed numerous felonies before the day of the massacre. So since the law and/or its enforcement there doesn't even manage to keep people from getting their mitts on suitable firearms illegally, wouldn't it be better to get rid of guns once and for all so the things simply aren't available on the market, legal or illegal, in the first place...? Sure, gangsters can still get them, but they'll be paying premium for whatever crap the smugglers can get in so it's only the "pro" criminals who're getting them... it works more or less that way in Japan AFAIK.

And as to 'effective' legislation - I still haven't seen why if it's so effective violent crime in England has been going up.:strawman2: :dozey:
...because crimes stem from causes and effects quite different from the legislation developed to contain and limit them, for example ? The laws we're talking about here have no direct effect on the social conditions and pressures that produce crime, violent or no; they just affect the availability of different tools that can be utilized for the purpose, and AFAIK tight controls (caveat: that are actually also enforced) on firearms ownership tend to have an effect of reducing actual deaths by the simple virtue of depriving would-be killers of easily lethal weapons.

As has been already observed, it'd be kind of challenging to carry out a massacre at a school or some other public place with a knife or axe. But it's quite easy enough to make a remarkably spirited attempt at killing lots of people in a rather short time with a few guns...

Tribesman

10-21-2007, 21:01

So what is decent legislation? It would seem that a bare minimum is decent enough, provided it is actually enforced.

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

You keep making the same mistake, tribesy. DC's mayor has said that ban has 'saved thousands of lives'.
Errrrr...he is a politician rabbit , they are not noted for their honesty , this mayor fellow , he wouldn't be the one with the drug habit and preference for prostitutes would he ?
So are you saying that there is some relevnce to his words or that showing that a politician talks crap somehow improves your case ?

as whatever other circumstances aside, the ban was accompanied by significantly increased murders.

Errrrr...no the ban was accompanied by varying increases and decreases of murders just like other areas , it showed a significant increase in areas with a drug problem during the peak of that problem just like other areas with he same drug problem showed significant inceases at that time .

LOL, a lame argument straight from the mouths of US anti-gun groups.
And makes even less sense than when the anti-gun groups roll it out. The two Columbine killers broke the law in acquiring every weapon they had. There were no loopholes they slipped through, they committed numerous felonies before the day of the massacre.

Ah you mean that being able to obtain weapons by using loopholes in the legislation is wrong so the criminals are wrong and nothing should be done to close those loopholes as they would interfere with law abiding citizens wanting to trade guns without licencing , registration and backround checks from source to user .

They can't purchase handguns in other states
Errrrr...yes they can since there are loopholes that allow them to do it .

And as to 'effective' legislation - I still haven't seen why if it's so effective violent crime in England has been going up.

Hmmmm since when ? is this the past 100 years thing again ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And long guns are hardly used in crimes.
Ah so that would be a call for a handgun ban then :oops:

Watchman

10-21-2007, 21:13

As I often point out in these discussions, as far as long guns go this country's about on par with the US per capita. But they're all away at hunting lodges and summer cottages and shooting ranges and wherever the Hell people now are required to store them (under, as it were, lock and key), and for pretty obvious reasons feature crap all in crime...

Crazed Rabbit

10-21-2007, 21:33

So since the law and/or its enforcement there doesn't even manage to keep people from getting their mitts on suitable firearms illegally, wouldn't it be better to get rid of guns once and for all so the things simply aren't available on the market, legal or illegal, in the first place...? Sure, gangsters can still get them, but they'll be paying premium for whatever crap the smugglers can get in so it's only the "pro" criminals who're getting them... it works more or less that way in Japan AFAIK.

As long as we're talking about different societies, you think maybe Japan is different from America and the UK?

And hasn't England gone to the 'getting rid of handguns* once and for all' method? Or does your definition of professional criminals include yob teens shooting kids riding bikes?

Besides, even if by some magic you could take out all the guns in American society, citizens would still be rendered defenseless to criminals. That would be a net loss and embolden criminals - no more worrying about whether someone your robbing has a gun.

:strawman2: :dozey:
...because crimes stem from causes and effects quite different from the legislation developed to contain and limit them, for example ? The laws we're talking about here have no direct effect on the social conditions and pressures that produce crime, violent or no; they just affect the availability of different tools that can be utilized for the purpose, and AFAIK tight controls (caveat: that are actually also enforced) on firearms ownership tend to have an effect of reducing actual deaths by the simple virtue of depriving would-be killers of easily lethal weapons.

As has been already observed, it'd be kind of challenging to carry out a massacre at a school or some other public place with a knife or axe. But it's quite easy enough to make a remarkably spirited attempt at killing lots of people in a rather short time with a few guns...

And what of people defending themselves with firearms? They are the ones who are physically disadvantaged to criminals with guns, and benefit more from having firearms. Nutcases trying to kill as many as possible are statistically irrelevant. Most crime is nothing like that, and a knife or club in a criminal's hand is almost as good as a firearm, except now you've made their prey defenseless.

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Reality tends to disagree. Some states and areas with lax gun control have little crime. Perhaps other circumstances are favorable, but either way it shows you don't need oppressive gun control to have little crime. Heck, maybe something to do with that whole -criminals-aren't-too-excited-to rob-armed-people thing.

this mayor fellow , he wouldn't be the one with the drug habit and preference for prostitutes would he

No, that'd be the city councilman.

Errrrr...no the ban was accompanied by varying increases and decreases of murders just like other areas , it showed a significant increase in areas with a drug problem during the peak of that problem just like other areas with he same drug problem showed significant inceases at that time .

Lol - 'at the time' - you mean for the last thirty odd years? And to be specific, what 'other areas' are you speaking of?

Ah you mean that being able to obtain weapons by using loopholes in the legislation is wrong so the criminals are wrong and nothing should be done to close those loopholes as they would interfere with law abiding citizens wanting to trade guns without licencing , registration and backround checks from source to user .

There were no loopholes, just plain illegality. Is that so hard to accept?

Hmmmm since when ? is this the past 100 years thing again ?

Lol, still no explanation. They closed all the loopholes, didn't they? Yet they still have violent crime.

Ah so that would be a call for a handgun ban then

Handguns are banned* in DC. :inquisitive:

CR

Redleg

10-21-2007, 21:45

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Define comprehensive legislation in the United States Congress, where one has to insure that the laws being legislated do not violate the current constitution and its amendments. This is the fallacy of the gun control lobby and yes even the pro-gun lobby.

Legislative law does not trump the United States Constitution. To trump the constitution one must amend same through the constitutional process.

Watchman

10-21-2007, 21:48

Besides, even if by some magic you could take out all the guns in American society, citizens would still be rendered defenseless to criminals. That would be a net loss and embolden criminals - no more worrying about whether someone your robbing has a gun.I'll pretty much quarantee no robber here has to worry about that either, but the funny thing is we seem to have awful few of them per capita... and they tend to display a marked shortage of the sort of gratuitious viciousness that's apparently pretty common in US violent crime.

Might of have something to do with a law enforcement system that actually does its job and isn't clogged up by stupid "sue for million dollars" scams.

Reality tends to disagree. Some states and areas with lax gun control have little crime. Perhaps other circumstances are favorable, but either way it shows you don't need oppressive gun control to have little crime. Heck, maybe something to do with that whole -criminals-aren't-too-excited-to rob-armed-people thing.See above. You can have little crime - and little *serious* crime at that - also with pretty draconian gun laws.

I suspect the victim packing is a bit of a moot point if the criminal's already holding him at a gunpoint too...

Lol, still no explanation. They closed all the loopholes, didn't they? Yet they still have violent crime.You're claiming the closure of "all loopholes"... in the context of US law, and firearm regulations at that ? That sort of sounds like claiming they set fire to granite with matches... :inquisitive:

Tribesman

10-22-2007, 00:50

There were no loopholes, just plain illegality. Is that so hard to accept?

Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second handgun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?

Lol - 'at the time' - you mean for the last thirty odd years? And to be specific, what 'other areas' are you speaking of?

Nope I mean the steep rise during one period of those last 30 odd years it covers roughly a third of the period you are on about and acount for a temporary doubling in certain violent crimes...as for other areas ....well you have the statistics don't you ? Or would you like the 14 main cities affected or the 2 worst states ?

Reality tends to disagree. Some states and areas with lax gun control have little crime.
Reality suggests that the lax gun laws in those areas have absolutely nothing to do with the crime levels .

Define comprehensive legislation in the United States Congress, where one has to insure that the laws being legislated do not violate the current constitution and its amendments. This is the fallacy of the gun control lobby and yes even the pro-gun lobby.

Legislative law does not trump the United States Constitution. To trump the constitution one must amend same through the constitutional process.
Yesterday 21:33

Theres the thing Red , the second is a badly formed , badly worded , outdated piece of crap .

Redleg

10-22-2007, 02:48

Theres the thing Red , the second is a badly formed , badly worded , outdated piece of crap .

Regardless of your personal opinion on the 2nd Amendment - it is still part of the constitution. Until the people of the United States agree to amend the constitution to remove the current 2nd Amendment or to chang it - it has the full force of the constitution.

Hince the laws that are being legislated have to be concise and limited in scope in order not to remove a right granted to the people by the people. As the current legislation shows the majority of the people still support the 2nd Amendment to some degree.

Now argue that our current laws need to be enforced - and I would probably agree whole heartly with you. Attacking the second amendment - is a none issue, and has always been a none issue in a gun control arguement as far as I am concerned.

Attack the root cause - the predation of violence that fosters the desire to use a handgun. Attack the failure of the current laws and the proper enforcement of such laws. Hell I might even agree with you on some of it, however attacking the 2nd Amendment is a false arguement.

Crazed Rabbit

10-22-2007, 03:56

I'll pretty much quarantee no robber here has to worry about that either, but the funny thing is we seem to have awful few of them per capita... and they tend to display a marked shortage of the sort of gratuitious viciousness that's apparently pretty common in US violent crime.

Good for you, but that doesn't help us.

Might of have something to do with a law enforcement system that actually does its job and isn't clogged up by stupid "sue for million dollars" scams.
See above. You can have little crime - and little *serious* crime at that - also with pretty draconian gun laws.

I suspect the victim packing is a bit of a moot point if the criminal's already holding him at a gunpoint too...

Not really. There are many instances where a victim at gunpoint was able to draw their own gun and defend themselves.

You're claiming the closure of "all loopholes"... in the context of US law, and firearm regulations at that ? That sort of sounds like claiming they set fire to granite with matches... :inquisitive:

No, I was talking of UK law.

Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second handgun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?

Are you saying the method the Columbine killers used to get their guns was not illegal?:inquisitive:

Nope I mean the steep rise during one period of those last 30 odd years it covers roughly a third of the period you are on about
And what of the other 20 years?

and acount for a temporary doubling in certain violent crimes...as for other areas ....well you have the statistics don't you ?
Seeing as you haven't mentioned what 'areas' you're talking about, no.

Why don't you provide some objective proof of what you're talking about?

Reality suggests that the lax gun laws in those areas have absolutely nothing to do with the crime levels .

And yet you said:

what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Gee, it would seem like 'comprehensive' legislation is not needed for low crime.

CR

Xiahou

10-22-2007, 06:10

Watchman

10-22-2007, 08:16

Because it keeps jumpy idiots from gunning down lost strangers who've come to the wrong house for example ? Because it helps reduce the numbers of firearms in commercial circulation and hence also accessible to criminals ?

Good for you, but that doesn't help us.Brilliant job missing the point. Ever wonder why that would happen to be the case ?
You might want to try looking to issues quite different from gun ownership if you want to be safe from crime and violence is what I'm saying.

Not really. There are many instances where a victim at gunpoint was able to draw their own gun and defend themselves....and is this supposed to hold compared to the cases where they weren't, or got ventilated for their trouble ? Individual anecdotes are of no interest here; how does that claim stand statistically and relative to the number of incidents ?

Tribesman

10-22-2007, 08:21

Are you saying the method the Columbine killers used to get their guns was not illegal?
Was Anderson prosecuted or is there a loophole in the law
?

And what of the other 20 years?
Indeed what of the other 20 years ?
It appears you are talking bollox Rabbit .
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Xiahou

10-22-2007, 08:51

Because it keeps jumpy idiots from gunning down lost strangers who've come to the wrong house for example ? Because it helps reduce the numbers of firearms in commercial circulation and hence also accessible to criminals ?Huh? Again, show me a western country where banning guns had any significant positive impact on violent crime.

...and is this supposed to hold compared to the cases where they weren't, or got ventilated for their trouble ? Individual anecdotes are of no interest here; how does that claim stand statistically and relative to the number of incidents ?The statement he replied to of yours was pure supposition. You made a blanket statement that guns are no good if the criminal already has his pointed at you. Anecdotal evidence is sufficient to prove that false. He doesn't need to claim that they're always useful in such a circumstance, just showing that they can still be useful even in such a situation defeats your claim.

Crazed Rabbit

10-22-2007, 20:59

Was Anderson prosecuted or is there a loophole in the law
?

Lack of prosecution does not mean it wasn't illegal. Indeed, it appears it would have been legally correct to prosecute her for the straw purchase (illegally buying a gun as proxy for someone who can't legally buy a gun). I can't speak for why they chose not to prosecute. In any case, your wording betrays you. You ask if she was prosecuted, not if she did anything illegal, and your question is therefore based on false pretenses.

Indeed what of the other 20 years ?
It appears you are talking bollox Rabbit .

Gee, maybe how since the ban, DC has been ranked first in the nation for per capita murders, with a few exceptions where it was second or third.

Brilliant job missing the point. Ever wonder why that would happen to be the case ?
You might want to try looking to issues quite different from gun ownership if you want to be safe from crime and violence is what I'm saying.

Somewhat immaterial; the causes are not exactly relevant to the discussion were having, further than saying that gun control doesn't decrease crime.

CR

Tribesman

10-22-2007, 23:11

Gee, maybe how since the ban, DC has been ranked first in the nation for per capita murders, with a few exceptions where it was second or third.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: So it had more murders than other places except when it had less murders :dizzy2:
Now then rabbit , did it have more murders than other places except when it had less murders before the ban or only after the ban ?

Did the murder rate increase or decrease when the ban was introduced ?
After it decreased (oops answered the question for ya) did the following steep increase mirror that of other cities with similar problems but different gun laws ?
After the peak went are the murder rates now higher or lower than they were before the ban ?

So I repeat....
Indeed what of the other 20 years ?
It appears you are talking bollox Rabbit . :yes:

Lack of prosecution does not mean it wasn't illegal. Indeed, it appears it would have been legally correct to prosecute her for the straw purchase (illegally buying a gun as proxy for someone who can't legally buy a gun). I can't speak for why they chose not to prosecute. In any case, your wording betrays you. You ask if she was prosecuted, not if she did anything illegal, and your question is therefore based on false pretenses.

My wording betrays me ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you crack me up , you really do :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Rabbit I was specific about what I asked , there is a reason for asking it , are you avoiding it because you don't like the answer ?
I shall repeat....Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second hand gun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?
hmmmmm....wording :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now there were prosecutions for some of the firearms used , their purchase was clearly illegal , there was not prosecutions for some of the firearms used because due to loopholes it is cloudily legal/illegal...that is an example of ineffective gun laws in case you don't get it . :idea2:

Crazed Rabbit

10-23-2007, 01:45

Tribes, you know the ban went into effect in 1976 right?

And that before the ban the murder rate had seemingly peaked and started dropping? Yet after the ban the rate started rising again, and only once since that time has the murder rate been below what it was in 1976.

So the murder rate...increased.

Now there were prosecutions for some of the firearms used , their purchase was clearly illegal , there was not prosecutions for some of the firearms used because due to loopholes it is cloudily legal/illegal

Lol, tribes, you okay there?

CR

Tribesman

10-23-2007, 08:51

Tribes, you know the ban went into effect in 1976 right?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yes , so what does that say about that years figures :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: .....It means they cannot be used as a years figures before the ban or after the ban .
errrrrr........you do know when the ban went into effect in 1976 don't you ?:dizzy2:

So the murder rate...increased.

nope .

Lol, tribes, you okay there?

Awwwww... too hard for you to understend is it , or is it that you don't like the answer ?
Look ....Indeed, it appears it would have been legally correct to prosecute her for the straw purchase would it ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: a legal loophole Rabbit means a prosecution would not be legally correct even though it appears that it should be legally correct to prosecute .
As for the actual prosecutions that did happen , is one of those convictions slightly dodgy ?
hmmmm...a person who is not a registered arms dealer selling second hand ammunition to a person who is over the age of 18 ...legal or illegal ?:inquisitive:

Crazed Rabbit

10-23-2007, 16:59

Year:_____________Murder Rate, per 100k
1976 ____________26.8 (the Year the ban took effect)
1977 ____________27.8 (Note to tribesy, this number is bigger than 26.8)
1978 ____________28 (As is this one)
1979 ____________27.4 (And this one)
1980 ____________31.5 (And this one)
1981 ____________35.1 (And this one)
1982 ____________30.7 (And this one)
1983 ____________29.4 (Gee, almost like the rate actually increased, huh?)
1984 ____________28.1
1985 ____________23.5
1986 ____________31
1987 ____________36.2
1988 ____________59.5
1989 ____________71.9
1990 ____________77.8
1991 ____________80.6
1992 ____________75.2
1993 ____________78.5
1994 ____________70
1995 ____________65
1996 ____________73.1
1997 ____________56.9
1998 ____________49.7
1999 ____________46.4
2000 ____________41.8
2001 ____________40.3
2002 ____________46.4
2003 ____________44.7
2004 ____________35.7
2005 ____________33.5
2005 ____________29.1

Now the only way I can think of you stubbornly insisting that the numbers decrease is that you think the rate before 1976, in the 30s, means the rate decreased from that. That doesn't make sense, since the rate had already decreased to what it was in 1976 before the ban was passed. To clarify, the rate was going down. It stopped going down with the ban.

Even when you look at the higher rate several years before the ban, the rate was higher than that from 1987 to 2004 and has only just recently decreased to slightly below it.

As for the straw purchase - it was illegal, but they didn't prosecute because they couldn't track down who had sold her the guns. No loophole. Would requiring all individual gun owners to keep files and do background checks on have helped prosecute her? Perhaps, but screw that. Owning firearms does not make you obliged to act as an accountant and information gatherer for the government. As has been shown, gun control doesn't decrease crime.

CR

Myrddraal

10-23-2007, 18:13

Could you give the stats for the years running up to the ban?

As has been shown, gun control doesn't decrease crime.

One example isn't 'showing' imo, it's evidence, but not proof.

Tribesman

10-23-2007, 21:20

1976 ____________26.8 (the Year the ban took effect)
1977 ____________27.8 (Note to tribesy, this number is bigger than 26.8)
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: errrrrr........you do know when the ban went into effect in 1976 don't you ?:dizzy2:
Now then rabbit what is unique about the figures for the year 1976 that make them entirely absolutely completely ......hmmmm ...whats the word ....ah ......irrelevant ?:idea2:

As for the straw purchase - it was illegal, but they didn't prosecute because they couldn't track down who had sold her the guns. No loophole.

Errrrrr....
I shall repeat....Really ? So tell me what are the various regulations concerning second hand gun sales by individuals ? what are the regulations concerning registered gun dealers selling weapons at temporary events ?

Would requiring all individual gun owners to keep files and do background checks on have helped prosecute her? Perhaps, but screw that. Owning firearms does not make you obliged to act as an accountant and information gatherer for the government.
Does owning or selling an automobile make you obliged to act as an "accountant" or "information gatherer" for the government ? does owning or selling a house ?

As has been shown, gun control doesn't decrease crime.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

10-23-2007, 22:13

Could you give the stats for the years running up to the ban?

From tribe's link:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Like I've been saying, it was decreasing after a spike in the 1970s until the gun ban, when it increased.

One example isn't 'showing' imo, it's evidence, but not proof.

Research has been done showing the availability of firearms doesn't affect crime rates, the state with one of the lowest crime rates (vermont) allows people to carry around concealed pistols with no license or permit; areas with gun bans often have higher crime rates than nearby cities without said gun control; government studies have found no evidence to support the idea that gun control lowers crime; the UK.

CR

TevashSzat

10-24-2007, 00:12

While I personally am an advocate of gun control and would love to come post with statistics and stuff, I don't have that much time and am putting this up for discussion:

Xiahou and Crazed Rabbit say that gun control laws have not reduced crime, which I believe may be true, but a question to ask is how heavily are these gun control laws enforced? If they aren't enforced very well, then there is no doubt that criminals can get them easily and just with some minor inconveniences, but is there any statistics on areas with gun control that are enforced very strictly?

Tribesman

10-24-2007, 00:47

Like I've been saying, it was decreasing after a spike in the 1970s until the gun ban, when it increased.

No it didn't rabbit it varied , going year on year either side of the irrelevant year it goes .
down up up up down up down up up down .
down down down down up up down down down up .
So were there more increaes or decreases either side of the ban ?

The problem you have is that the year you want to try and use to "prove" your point cannot be used . Now you can continue using a false benchmark if you wish , but that just makes your claims false doesn't it .:yes:

BTW any luck with posting the second hand sales loopholes that make the gun legislation ineffective ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

How about a new crusade for you to go on ?...stop the oppresive government making people register cars :inquisitive: Its criminal I tell ya , it turns the people into informants:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

10-24-2007, 01:07

Another point; DC had the highest murder rate in the entire nation for the vast majority of the past 30 years, except when it had only the second or third highest a few years.

If outside trends affected that rate, then they would have similarly affected other cities. But the gun ban did nothing to improve DC's rate against other cities (and DC was the only major city to pass a significant ban in that period). Was there rate before 1976 high? Yes, but it could not be any higher than first in the nation per capita. DC and other major cities were all affected by various trends over the years, but the introduction into DC equation of a handgun ban did nothing to lower their rate compared to other cities.

down up up up down up down up up down .
down down down down up up down down down up .
So were there more increaes or decreases either side of the ban ?

So, in other words, gun control doesn't stop crime...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Or maybe we should take the average of the rates years before and after the ban. :laugh4: :laugh4:

Xiahou and Crazed Rabbit say that gun control laws have not reduced crime, which I believe may be true, but a question to ask is how heavily are these gun control laws enforced?

A very good question. Given that there are areas, states and cities with both little gun control and low crime, it would seem that with proper enforcement, guns can be kept of of criminal use with unobtrusive laws.

New York City experienced a big drop in crime with better enforcement of all laws, which would lead one to believe that improved enforcement is much better than simply tacking on more and more laws. After all, it's illegal for criminals with past convictions to possess firearms, no need to make it doubly illegal.

CR

Tribesman

10-24-2007, 11:38

If outside trends affected that rate, then they would have similarly affected other cities. But the gun ban did nothing to improve DC's rate against other cities (and DC was the only major city to pass a significant ban in that period). Was there rate before 1976 high? Yes, but it could not be any higher than first in the nation per capita. DC and other major cities were all affected by various trends over the years, but the introduction into DC equation of a handgun ban did nothing to lower their rate compared to other cities
So there wouldn't be an example of somewhere where the pattern mirrors that of DC before the ban then has two proportionally smaller reductions than DC then has steady increases while DC still reduces then , and there certainly wouldn't be an example where while DCs rates decline after the ban its rates continue to increase .
Now of course if these two examples existed that would mean that your assertion is of the testicular variety wouldn't it:2thumbsup:

Now I suppose that two random examples might not be convincing for you rabbit , perhaps I should randomly choose another two or more to further illustrate the falseness of your claims , but then again someone who thinks that owning a firearm should have less restrictions and paperwork than owning a car is not going to be convinced by anything unless it is delivered at the point of a gun .

Crazed Rabbit

10-24-2007, 20:24

And what rule, tribesy, has no exceptions? Once again, you're on some 'any exception disproves the rule' fallacy.

The thing is, for all your talk of other examples, DC had the number one in the entire nation murder rate for almost every one of the past 30 years. All examples and trends, etc. aside, gun control simply didn't lower crime by absolute measures in DC or even relative to other cities which did not institute gun control at that time.

Or just take a look at the rise in violent crime in England.

CR

Tribesman

10-24-2007, 23:30

And what rule, tribesy, has no exceptions? Once again, you're on some 'any exception disproves the rule' fallacy.

Examples that disprove the rule disprove the rule Rabbit , that is no fallacy .

The thing is, for all your talk of other examples, DC had the number one in the entire nation murder rate for almost every one of the past 30 years.
You see Rabbit the problem is that you are basing your theory on that premise , it is a false premise which means that your theory is also false:yes:

Or just take a look at the rise in violent crime in England.

OK why not...
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp
errrrr.....its falling isn't it

Crazed Rabbit

10-24-2007, 23:48

And where did I say the rule was 'no other city can have increases in crime while DC has decreases in crime'? I said only that gun control has not lowered crime in DC, regardless of national trends.

it is a false premise which means that your theory is also false

Oh? Do tell where another city had a higher rate than DC for a significant time.

ts falling isn't it

Or (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page38.asp) not (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page66.asp).

CR

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 00:06

Oh? Do tell where another city had a higher rate than DC for a significant time.

Oh really Rabbit , you want me to show you how your claims that Washington had the #1 rate apart from when in was #2 or #3 is bollox:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hmmmm...thats a hard one how about it being #10 ? Would that be an exception to your rule ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

10-25-2007, 06:34

Do explain how that makes DC's gun control effective.

CR

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 09:28

Do explain how that makes DC's gun control effective.

It explains that once again what you present as facts to make your case are not facts .
You claimed that the fall following the ban (which you strangely claimed was a rise )in washingtons would be matched by other areas that didn't have the handgun ban ,that isn't true is it.
You claimed that Washington was #1 if it was not #2 or #3 , that isn't true is it .
You claimed that the weapons sales in the school shooting were illegal and there was no legal loophole , that isn't true is it .
You claimed that the peak in murders at the time of the crack epidemic was not mirrored in other cities with a crack problem , that isn't true is it .

So to summarise .
Your claim is that firearm legislation doesn't have any effect on levels of gun crime .
My claim is that in the absence of effective firearm legislation examples from ineffective legislation cannot be used to measure effects .
Your claim is that paperwork concerning and registartion of ownership of firearms makes you a government accountant and informant .
My claim is that calling for less regulations on purchase of firearms than you have for buying a car or a house is somewhat crazy .

BTW rabbit , would you like to debate firearm legislation ?

Crazed Rabbit

10-25-2007, 20:51

You claimed that Washington was #1 if it was not #2 or #3 , that isn't true is it .

Proof?

And you still haven't shown how that made DC's gun control effective.

Let's see; does availability of guns affect crime levels?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

https://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5278/chart6lr5.jpg

Now, you said this:

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Which is simply false. Let's take a look at Vermont (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm), shall we, where today's murder rate is a fraction of the national rate. And they certainly don't have 'source to user' legislation. Oh, you'll whine about how the situation there is different from other states. Maybe it is, but it certainly shows how false your claim is.

Hey, I've got an idea; let's look at Seattle (http://www.disastercenter.com/washingt/crime/14339.htm). That's a big city, lots of people and the like. But still, the rate their is 1/5 of the most recent rate in DC, which is lower than it's been in DC for many, many years.

And Seattle allows anyone who's not a criminal and 21 to apply and automatically receive a license to carry a gun, like the rest of Washington state. And with none of you 'source to user' legislation.

Gee, what's that word you like to write so often, and how does it apply to your claim?

My claim is that in the absence of effective firearm legislation examples from ineffective legislation cannot be used to measure effects .

And how is DC's legislation ineffective? No residents can own handguns, or buy handguns, or use long guns for self defense.

What city in the US would you say had effective gun control?

Oh, let's take a look at the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/31/do3101.xml

In response to the recent horror of Rhys Jones's killing in Liverpool, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, asserted that gun crime was falling. But, as her Tory counterpart, David Davis, has pointed out, Home Office statistics show that, if you exclude air guns (the least dangerous firearms), the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales has risen more than fourfold since 1998-99, from 864 to 3,821.

Really effective, that. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And what about that government study I posted here earlier; no evidence that gun laws reduced crime.

CR

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

10-25-2007, 21:35

Xiahou and Crazed Rabbit say that gun control laws have not reduced crime, which I believe may be true, but a question to ask is how heavily are these gun control laws enforced? If they aren't enforced very well, then there is no doubt that criminals can get them easily and just with some minor inconveniences, but is there any statistics on areas with gun control that are enforced very strictly?

Like I said, if they do enforce it correctly, even still though, how can they get the guns off the street if the crinmals are not caught and are not resigted?

Crazed Rabbit

10-27-2007, 17:51

Like I said, if they do enforce it correctly, even still though, how can they get the guns off the street if the crinmals are not caught and are not resigted?

Are you talking about criminals being registered?

The problem of getting guns already in criminal hands out of their hands is an interesting one. Most criminals are probably convicted felons, so they can't legally have a firearm. To me it seems like police departments are not doing much to proactively get guns from criminal hands before they are used in a crime. It would take a lot of manpower to make a dent, I'd think.

I do wonder why they do such useless things like 'gun buy backs' which are dominated by older folks turning in guns they haven't used in 20 years. And then the city crows about all the guns it 'got off the street' as if the ones it bought were remotely likely to be actually used in crime.

CR

Tribesman

10-27-2007, 19:14

The problem of getting guns already in criminal hands out of their hands is an interesting one. Most criminals are probably convicted felons, so they can't legally have a firearm.
An interesting one:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the problem is that people can have firearms before they are convicted felons , but when they become convicted felons there is no register of what guns they already own but are no longer allowed to own .

I do wonder why they do such useless things like 'gun buy backs' which are dominated by older folks turning in guns they haven't used in 20 years.
Yeah apart from the people who do strange things like hand in anti-aircraft missiles:2thumbsup:

And then the city crows about all the guns it 'got off the street' as if the ones it bought were remotely likely to be actually used in crime.

Errrrr....one source of weapons used in crimes is guns that are stolen from peoples homes , removing those weapons "off the street" reduces the available supply for criminals , strange that isn't it , if someone steals a gun it is a pretty sure fiire bet that they may just possiby be one of them criminal people , though of course pawn-shops are another target of people wanting to steal guns ...hmmm...laws concerning the trade of second had firearms by non-registered arms dealers again eh .:yes:

Proof?

Ooooooo ..thats a hard one :yes:
errrrrr....Gary , Newark , Richmond , Irvington , Flint , New Orleans ,Trenton, Detroit ,Camden , Compton , Richmond(not the same one) , Youngstown ,Oakland , Birmingham , St.Louis , Baltimore .

And you still haven't shown how that made DC's gun control effective.

Errrrrrr....I said the legislation was ineffective

Crazed Rabbit

10-27-2007, 21:13

the problem is that people can have firearms before they are convicted felons , but when they become convicted felons there is no register of what guns they already own but are no longer allowed to own .

Lol. And how many felons do you think buy guns from gun stores and the like, even before they're convicted? How big of a problem do you think that is? Is it 'the' problem? :laugh4: :laugh4: Gee, if we could just get those criminals to obey the law. :laugh4: :laugh4:

errrrrr....Gary , Newark , Richmond , Irvington , Flint , New Orleans ,Trenton, Detroit ,Camden , Compton , Richmond(not the same one) , Youngstown ,Oakland , Birmingham , St.Louis , Baltimore .

Heh. Now can you provide some data? Oh, and do give states for places like Richmond.

one source of weapons used in crimes is guns that are stolen from peoples homes , removing those weapons "off the street" reduces the available supply for criminals

I can see you've not been to a gun buyback. These are by and large a collection of old, dilapidated guns, that people have stored in some dusty corner deep in a closet. Not likely to be found or used.
Does it remove some chance of those old beaters being used? Meh, I suppose, but it's fairly minor and all out of proportion to what the groups doing the buybacks claim.

I said the legislation was ineffective

And I asked in my post;

And how is DC's legislation ineffective? No residents can own handguns, or buy handguns, or use long guns for self defense.

Oh wait, I get it; it isn't effective if it does nothing, but if the same laws someplace else work for an unrelated reason, it's 'effective'. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Funny how you ignore the bits trashing your silly claim comprehensive source to user legislation is needed, or about Britain's 'effective' gun control.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

CR

Tribesman

10-27-2007, 22:09

Lol. And how many felons do you think buy guns from gun stores and the like, even before they're convicted?
Errrrr...how many ...errrr......that would be all felons who purchased firearms from registered gun dealerships before they became convicted felons wouldn't it , however it would not cover any felons who purchased guns from unregistered arms dealers before they became convicted felons . It could also be used to cover all nutters who purchased firearms from registered dealers before they were classified as nutters who shouldn't be permitted firearms , though of course likewise it wouldn't cover any nutters who purchased them from non-registered dealers before they became nuts .

Oh wait, I get it; it isn't effective if it does nothing, but if the same laws someplace else work for an unrelated reason, it's 'effective'.
what a muppet :coffeenews:

Heh. Now can you provide some data?
Data ? oh thats quite simple Rabbit just look at murder rates per 100,000 people for american cities :idea2:

Funny how you ignore the bits trashing your silly claim comprehensive source to user legislation is needed
what is funny is that you havn't even attempted to address it , let alone trashed it .

Is your poor performance why you don't want to debate gun laws Rabbit ?:inquisitive:

No surprise when all you can manage is tripe like
or about Britain's 'effective' gun control.

Do you have to invent statements as well as inventing "facts" ?

Crazed Rabbit

10-27-2007, 23:07

Errrrr...how many ...errrr......that would be all felons who purchased firearms from registered gun dealerships before they became convicted felons wouldn't it

Duh. The question was; how large is that group?

Data ? oh thats quite simple Rabbit just look at murder rates per 100,000 people for american cities

For all your braying about it, you've shown no facts. And you still have said which Richmonds you're talking about. Do you really think this is clever? You make some vague reference and then when people want some proof you act like they're stupid for not trusting you about something you refuse to go into detail about?

what is funny is that you havn't even attempted to address it , let alone trashed it .

Are you blind? :inquisitive:

Now, you said this:

No rabbit the bare minimum isn't enough ,what is needed is comprehensive legislation all the way from source to user .

Which is simply false. Let's take a look at Vermont, shall we, where today's murder rate is a fraction of the national rate. And they certainly don't have 'source to user' legislation. Oh, you'll whine about how the situation there is different from other states. Maybe it is, but it certainly shows how false your claim is.

Hey, I've got an idea; let's look at Seattle. That's a big city, lots of people and the like. But still, the rate their is 1/5 of the most recent rate in DC, which is lower than it's been in DC for many, many years.

And Seattle allows anyone who's not a criminal and 21 to apply and automatically receive a license to carry a gun, like the rest of Washington state. And with none of you 'source to user' legislation.

Gee, what's that word you like to write so often, and how does it apply to your claim?

Lol!

Some questions you still haven't answered:

And how is DC's legislation ineffective? No residents can own handguns, or buy handguns, or use long guns for self defense.

What city in the US would you say had effective gun control?

Why did 'effective' legislation in Britain cause a big jump in people killed or injured by real (non air-gun) firearms?

For all your smug insults, all you've done is make statements with nothing to back them up. You claim 'source to user' legislation is needed; obviously it isn't. It's misguided; it's aimed at people who obey the laws while criminals will find ways around it. What is needed is better enforcement, on the legislation/police side and changing the society to reduce crime on the community side.

CR

Tribesman

10-28-2007, 00:22

For all your braying about it, you've shown no facts.

Since the facts are easily available to anyone with a computer is there any need to present them ? Much the same way as it is easy for anyone to check the "facts" you present

Are you blind?
No , and you havn't addressed it , you have attempted to skirt it by throwing irrelevant subjects into the equation .

Look ..
Why did 'effective' legislation in Britain
You are the only person who here who uses "effective" in relation top those laws , thats known as a strawman isn't it:idea2:

You claim 'source to user' legislation is needed; obviously it isn't. It's misguided; it's aimed at people who obey the laws while criminals will find ways around it.
errrrr...the idea is to make it harder for criminals to find ways round it:idea2:It has no impact on legal activities .

What is needed is better enforcement
errrr...the idea is to make it easier to enforce :idea2:

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2007, 00:59

Since the facts are easily available to anyone with a computer is there any need to present them ? Much the same way as it is easy for anyone to check the "facts" you present

Stalling the inevitable I see. I know its hard to accept what you've been saying is a bunch of bull, so I forgive you if you let yourself down slowly.

No , and you havn't addressed it , you have attempted to skirt it by throwing irrelevant subjects into the equation .

You say 'source to user legislation is needed' - I showed examples of places without such legislation and little violent crime. Kinda disproves the whole idea that such legislation is needed, doesn't it?

You are the only person who here who uses "effective" in relation top those laws , thats known as a strawman isn't it

And what isn't effective about those laws? They ban nearly all handguns, long guns, have strict regulations and licenses on what you can own, how you can use and store it, etc., etc. All the restrictions and regulations you could dream of. And the entire country is on an island, surrounded by nations with gun control.

errrrr...the idea is to make it harder for criminals to find ways round it

An idea unsupported by any evidence. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) Gee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that criminals don't have to find ways around them, they just ignore them. Registration? Just file off the serial numbers!

The list of questions you haven't answered:
1) And how is DC's legislation ineffective? No residents can own handguns, or buy handguns, or use long guns for self defense.

2) What city in the US would you say had effective gun control?

3) Why did 'effective' legislation in Britain cause a big jump in people killed or injured by real (non air-gun) firearms?

It has no impact on legal activities

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Next you'll say registration never leads to banning and confiscation!

Or did you mean to say 'no impact on illegal activities'?

CR

Tribesman

10-28-2007, 03:17

Stalling the inevitable I see. I know its hard to accept what you've been saying is a bunch of bull
Would you be saying that from personal experience rabbit ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I will post the figures when i choose to post them , until then it is funny watching your efforts to call them bull , you dig your own hole rabbit , it isa veritable warren by now , but keep digging :2thumbsup:

You say 'source to user legislation is needed' - I showed examples of places without such legislation and little violent crime. Kinda disproves the whole idea that such legislation is needed, doesn't it?

Not in the slightest , it would appear that your notion that you have "kinda dispoved it" shows that you havn't the faintest idea what the concept is that you are trying to disprove .:yes:

And what isn't effective about those laws? They ban nearly all handguns, long guns, have strict regulations and licenses on what you can own, how you can use and store it, etc., etc. All the restrictions and regulations you could dream of. And the entire country is on an island, surrounded by nations with gun control.

May I suggest you go way back to post #54 as I have already suggested you do and try and think , then maybe you might be able to have a little comprehension and stop trying irrelavant crap like Vermont .then perhaps you will understand the irrelavance of the questions 1,2,3 in your last post , though of course that will require some thought on your part which I don't think will be forthcoming as you have a closed mind when the words "firearm" and "regulation" appear in close proximinty to one another .

I mean seriously
Just file off the serial numbers!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: what part of source to user is it that is completely beyond your ken ?:dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2007, 08:57

Would you be saying that from personal experience rabbit ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I will post the figures when i choose to post them , until then it is funny watching your efforts to call them bull , you dig your own hole rabbit , it isa veritable warren by now , but keep digging :2thumbsup:

I'm just trying to goad you into actually supporting your statements with data. ~;p

As for the rest...meh. Amazingly I'm not impressed by arguments amounting to 'you're wrong cause I say so'.

CR

Banquo's Ghost

10-28-2007, 09:46

As for the rest...meh. Amazingly I'm not impressed by arguments amounting to 'you're wrong cause I say so'.

Indeed. :yes:

Whilst I respect your Socratic style Tribesman, in this case it might do your argument some good to post more of your rebuttal data.

A debate is rarely about convincing the opponent of his error, but persuading the audience of your veracity.

I suspect this thread is no longer being read by anyone but you two and the poor, enfeebled moderators who have no choice. If I'm wrong, no doubt someone will post to say so, but in the absence of any substantive rebuttals that don't require readers to spend half their lives googling, I shall soon close the thread.

:bow:

Tribesman

10-28-2007, 10:10

I'm just trying to goad you into actually supporting your statements with data.
whilst I am just watching you call fact "bull" and call bull "facts" .

As for the rest...meh. Amazingly I'm not impressed by arguments amounting to 'you're wrong cause I say so'.

Is that why you amazingly put forward arguements that say "you are wrong because this thing you didn't say is wrong"

Whilst I respect your Socratic style Tribesman, in this case it might do your argument some good to post more of your rebuttal data.

What you mean something like writing 38.8 , 44.3 , 40.1 , 32.4 , 43.3 , 37.6 ,36.4 , 37.4 , 67.1 , 46.8 , 58.0 , 41.2 , 43.7 , 47.3 , 40.8 and then asking rabbit to identify which murder rate is the one he says is #1 #2 or #3 ?

Nah thats too easy Banquo why would I want to do that ?

Crazed Rabbit

10-28-2007, 18:15

Meh, I don't care if you close this.

Is that why you amazingly put forward arguements that say "you are wrong because this thing you didn't say is wrong"

So when I quoted you, I was actually quoting your doppleganger? I see.

But I guess since you spent so much time hunting and googling to disprove a bit of my claim, you'd want to make others spend the same effort. But to reasonable people it just looks like having fun at wasting other people's time.

I mean, did you think I'd swoon and lavish praise on gun control laws after you finally revealed the data?

And so I say let's go easy on the enfeebled moderators and let them close this.

CR

Tribesman

10-28-2007, 18:38

But I guess since you spent so much time hunting and googling to disprove a bit of my claim
errrr.....american cities murder rates don't require much hunting and searching rabbit , perhaps you should consider that when you present "facts"

So when I quoted you, I was actually quoting your doppleganger? I see.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
rabbit you were quoting what you yourself said I had said .I repeat....You are the only person who here who uses "effective" in relation top those laws , thats known as a strawman isn't it

Meh, I don't care if you close this.

Is that because you don't want to debate firearm legislation ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Well hows this for a question .... how does this link you posted...http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm..do absolutely nothing to support your position (in fact it weakens it ), yet does absolutely nothing in relation to my position ?
As I said , (and you can actually quote it :yes:)it would appear that your notion that you have "kinda dispoved it" shows that you havn't the faintest idea what the concept is that you are trying to disprove .

You are indeed flailing around in the darkness of a warren that you dug yourself into ...well done Rabbit:2thumbsup: