-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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:
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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:
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
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.....
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warman
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
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) .
Quote:
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:
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
As the Org decided to die on me when I was supposed to post this one, it's a bit late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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)?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
''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.
Quote:
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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/ima...images/282.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
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 ?
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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.
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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/quo...olf-hitler.php
CR
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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:
Quote:
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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"
Quote:
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 ([tease]but read it through yourself, I wasted a happy 20 minutes reading the last link you gave me[/tease] :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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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:
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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...
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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.
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
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?
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Isn't that what you have police for ?
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
Quote:
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 .
-
Re: 5 Hurt in School Shooting
I'm not talking of simply since the handgun ban*.
CR
*If you need a footnote on this...
