NationStates Jolt Archive

Armed police swoop on boy waving a toy gun while playing cowboys and indians in the street
By Richard Savill and Paul Stokes
(Filed: 10/06/2005)

A boy was allegedly threatened with arrest by armed police officers for using a cap gun - minus caps - in the street.

Carl Astley, 10, was stopped by the two officers while playing cowboys and indians with his younger brother during a family walk in Salisbury.

No action was taken but his father, David, said the incident had caused his son great distress.

The bizarre caution is the latest example of increased police nervousness over replica weapons.

In another incident, a member of a pirate re-enactment society known in his home town of Whitby as Flintlock Fred found himself staring down the gun barrels of armed police officers after a neighbour mistook his replica flintlock - bought for 50p at a car boot sale - for a real weapon.

Mr Astley said Carl had been playing with his younger brother, Derren, and the family dog when an unmarked police car pulled up.

One of the officers "spoke sharply" to his son and said he could arrest him but he was about to go off duty and did not fancy the paperwork.

In a letter to his local newspaper, the Salisbury Journal, Mr Astley said the officer had been "very intimidating" and left his son very distressed.

He went on: "We have always told our children the police are here to help but I think our son finds that hard to believe at the moment."

Commenting further on the incident, he said: "A police car came screeching up behind us and two officers said they were an armed response unit.

"My son is a big lad and I know we have to be concerned these days about guns but I would have thought it was obvious the boys were just playing.

"It was a cap gun with no caps in it. We are a law-abiding family and I expect better behaviour from the police."

Wiltshire Police said they would investigate any complaint made by Mr Astley.

Flintlock Fred, alias Steve Dungworth, 43, was more understanding about the police point of view.

A member of the Whitby International Pirate Society, he was intending to take his replica flintlock to one of the society's meetings when the neighbour saw him taking it from his car and summoned the police.

Two armed response units equipped with handguns and automatic rifles duly swooped.

Mr Dungworth, a chauffeur, was not in piratical garb at the time. He was asked to attend the local police station as a "non-casual visitor".

He said later: "I was a bit embarrassed with the police but I told them all about it in my interview.

"I was glad they were on the ball. There's no question that the woman who told them didn't do absolutely the right thing.

"I will be a lot more careful in future, but I still want my gun back."

A North Yorkshire Police spokesman said: "Reports of people carrying replica guns are becoming increasingly common and it is something we are concerned about.

"The police have to take this extremely seriously - there have been cases of tragedies occurring with replica guns elsewhere. It is no joke."

The proposed Violent Crime Reduction Bill includes increased penalties for possession of imitation firearms capable of being mistaken for the real thing.

It also raises the age limit for buying airguns from 17 to 18.

Replica guns are used in a large number of robberies, and some can be activated into real weapons.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/nbang10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixnewstop.html)

Armed police swoop on boy waving a toy gun while playing cowboys and indians in the street
By Richard Savill and Paul Stokes
(Filed: 10/06/2005)

A boy was allegedly threatened with arrest by armed police officers for using a cap gun - minus caps - in the street.

Carl Astley, 10, was stopped by the two officers while playing cowboys and indians with his younger brother during a family walk in Salisbury.

No action was taken but his father, David, said the incident had caused his son great distress.

The bizarre caution is the latest example of increased police nervousness over replica weapons.

*snip*

Mr Astley said Carl had been playing with his younger brother, Derren, and the family dog when an unmarked police car pulled up.

One of the officers "spoke sharply" to his son and said he could arrest him but he was about to go off duty and did not fancy the paperwork.

*snip*

Wiltshire Police said they would investigate any complaint made by Mr Astley.


Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/nbang10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixnewstop.html)

This has nothing to do with gun control. And it takes a special brand of hysteria to make a big deal out of this.

Unless you think it should be legal for 10 year old boys to run around waving pistols. :rolleyes:

The officers thought it was a weapon and investigated. He allegedly "spoke sharply" to lad -- who was playing in the street. No big deal.

This has nothing to do with gun control. And it takes a special brand of hysteria to make a big deal out of this.

Unless you think it should be legal for 10 year old boys to run around waving pistols. :rolleyes:

The officers thought it was a weapon and investigated. He allegedly "spoke sharply" to lad -- who was playing in the street. No big deal.
There is something wrong with ten year olds playing cowboy? Or playing in the street? Not all streets are busy, you know. How the heck did you grow up without doing that?

This has nothing to do with gun control. And it takes a special brand of hysteria to make a big deal out of this.

Unless you think it should be legal for 10 year old boys to run around waving pistols. :rolleyes:

The officers thought it was a weapon and investigated. He allegedly "spoke sharply" to lad -- who was playing in the street. No big deal.
http://www.unitedmaskandparty.com/Theme_Party_Supplies/images/snub_nose_cap_gun_toy.jpeg
Similar to the "gun" in question. You think threatening a ten year old with arrest for playing in public is reasonable?
And the hysteria over replica guns, which included a chair leg, is a direct product of their hysteria over guns.

There are no proven benefits to gun control. Both of the two largest studies on it, the CDC report and the U.N., concluded that there's no determinable trend, that gun control reduces crimes. John Lott put forth research that gun control increases crime, and while I believe that what the co-author of the study said is true (fundamentally flawed, because it ignores sociological factors), the same could be said of the other limited studies done that show gun control has any effect on crime, positive or negative.

There is something wrong with ten year olds playing cowboy? Or playing in the street? Not all streets are busy, you know. How the heck did you grow up without doing that?

Not even close to anything I said.

Generally, no, children should not play in the street. You have no more idea than I do if the street was busy. Apparently there was a least some traffic.

Of course I sometimes played in the street. I sometimes got yelled at for it. It rarely made the paper when I did.

Do I think an officer should stop and check if he thinks a 10-year is running around the street with a real gun? Yes. Don't you?

http://www.unitedmaskandparty.com/Theme_Party_Supplies/images/snub_nose_cap_gun_toy.jpeg
Similar to the "gun" in question. You think threatening a ten year old with arrest for playing in public is reasonable?
And the hysteria over replica guns, which included a chair leg, is a direct product of their hysteria over guns.

Did you know that yesterday a guy in London kicked his dog?

Yep, 'cuz they have gun control! It makes them hysterical and is to blame for everything.

Over here, where we have CCW we have no problems whatsoever. Police never bother or "speak sharply" to children of any color for any reason. And kids are never shot when their toy guns are mistaken for real ones.

And there no cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese ...

One of the officers "spoke sharply" to his son and said he could arrest him but he was about to go off duty and did not fancy the paperwork.

Sounds more like a pig being a ****, than any kind of hysteria about firearms.

wait...

so its a bad thing that the police should discourage a "gun culture" and the use of lethal weapons by letting kids know when they are young that guns are bad?

fancy that.

Gun control is GREAT at making sure the serfs/pesants have no tangible means of recourse when the elites/government strip them of their rights.

Gun control is GREAT at making sure the serfs/pesants have no tangible means of recourse when the elites/government strip them of their rights.

I'd feel so safe from government oppression if I had a .38 special under my pillow.

And there no cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese ...

Okay, this one definitely made me laugh. :D

Not even close to anything I said.

Generally, no, children should not play in the street. You have no more idea than I do if the street was busy. Apparently there was a least some traffic.

Of course I sometimes played in the street. I sometimes got yelled at for it. It rarely made the paper when I did.

Do I think an officer should stop and check if he thinks a 10-year is running around the street with a real gun? Yes. Don't you?


Playing in the street is a bit of a colloquialism. It doesn't mean that he was running around in the roadway, more that he was just outside on the sidewalk (pavement to the brits).

It's extremely common for ten year olds in the UK to play outside like that. Especially in the suburbs. I do think the cops were a bit OTT here, especially due to the relative scarcity of firearms in the UK. At the very least there should have been no stern rebukes &c.

That said, I am fairly sure most of this article has the wrong end of the stick anyway.

I'd feel so safe from government oppression if I had a .38 special under my pillow.
Thanks to gun control, a 38 is one of the few things we're allowed to have.

Gun control is GREAT at making sure the serfs/pesants have no tangible means of recourse when the elites/government strip them of their rights.
well, in a country where the government is elected every 4 years, where the Prime Minister are directly answerable to Parliament, and gets regularly quizzed by MPs, where the Law Lords would throw out something they dont like, where we have an apolitical head of state who wouldnt let something that strips away rights through, and where the Court system is entirely seperate...we dont need guns to feel particularly safe

it always makes me think there must be something wrong with the US system if the people think they need guns to be protected from it

edit: and you should note that serfdom was ended a long time ago...

Sounds more like a pig being a ****, than any kind of hysteria about firearms.

Sadly, all to common these days.

A few years ago someone tried to break into my Auntie's house (he didn't manage and ended up giving up because the dog scared him off, dozy twat). She called the "P.C. Plods" of northumbria police, and when they did finaly deign to show up two days later and take a statement they "warned" her for having an aggresive animal.

Then they wonder why people call them pigs. :rolleyes:

Gun control is GREAT at making sure the serfs/pesants have no tangible means of recourse when the elites/government strip them of their rights.
Exactly. The Social Contract is only a contract if we have the ability to opt out of it. Otherwise, it's social blackmail.

Gun control is GREAT at making sure the serfs/pesants have no tangible means of recourse when the elites/government strip them of their rights.

And this tripe is relevant because ....

Oh, it isn't. :rolleyes: Unless you are suggesting the peasant/father should have shot the elite/officer to stop him from stripping the rights of (speaking "sharply" to) the serf/boy. ;)

<snip>
Just so as I am clear on your opinion:
The British police hate guns.
The British police hate fake guns because they might look like real guns.
These two facts are in no way connected.

Is that correct?

wait...

so its a bad thing that the police should discourage a "gun culture" and the use of lethal weapons by letting kids know when they are young that guns are bad?

fancy that.
What??? Guns aren't bad. Guns are inanimate. What people do with guns can either be good, neutral, or bad. Okay? Playing with a toy gun isn't bad.

And there no cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese ...

So thats why the stripes are orange and white! And here I thougth it was paint! Cheddar and mozzerella!

Well, in the U.S., if a fake gun looks real, and in the dark even a cell phone can look like a gun, as we've sadly seen), someone with a real gun may feel threatened and shoot.

That's where the toy gun danger lies here. Not so much as "encouraging or discouraging" a gun culture. That's moot.

Who wants to get shot because they have a toy gun?

What??? Guns aren't bad. Guns are inanimate. What people do with guns can either be good, neutral, or bad. Okay? Playing with a toy gun isn't bad.
teaching kids not to even think of touching a gun, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)

teaching kids not to even think of touching a gun, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)
Sounds like a typical urbanite. My daughters started hunting when they were big enough to keep up and aim true. So did I. We learned a lot about responsibility that way. I think that's the good thing.

The benefits of gun control:

Tight shot groupings and dead criminals. :p

Sorry, but it had to be said.

http://coalitionforguncontrol.org/crawl.jpg

http://www.coverups.com/media/photos/gun1.jpeg

http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/rkba/do_the_math.jpg

http://www.revolution2.us/content/lefties/emerson_bear.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_dream.jpg

http://gifu.cool.ne.jp/gunnuts/img/gun_control_works2.JPG

teaching kids not to even think of touching a gun, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)

Great thought!

Now exchange "gun" with "book". :(

Sounds like a typical urbanite. My daughters started hunting when they were big enough to keep up and aim true. So did I. We learned a lot about responsibility that way. I think that's the good thing.
I live in Northern Ireland....there's no such thing as hunting

unless its the IRA 'hunting' security forces

I would happily have guns never invented, if that meant that this place hadnt been wrecked by 30 years of violence by a paramilitary group better armed than most 3rd world countries

Great thought!

Now exchange "gun" with "book". :(
entirely different thing

entirely different thing

Riiiiiiiight. You keep believing that.

Riiiiiiiight. You keep believing that.
no, really, they are

freedom to own a gun and freedom to own a book are entirely different

i have my own reasons for disliking guns

including my dad getting shot at when he was 5, simply for being in a "protestant" playground, and one of my mums best friends getting shot in a random pub spraying (when my mum was sitting beside that person)

and my uncle getting shot...

i despise guns.


edit: having checked with my mum, it seems my mums friend wasnt killed, he 'only' got a bullet in the thigh (and he was sitting beside my mum), but there was someone else, who got killed...in the same incident

You can see the incident recorded here (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/alpha/D.html), under Dorman, Robert

no, really, they are

Baffling.

Baffling.
and you think "teaching kids not to even think of touching a book, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)" is a logical progression of "teaching kids not to even think of touching a gun, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)"


baffling.

well, in a country where the government is elected every 4 years, where the Prime Minister are directly answerable to Parliament, and gets regularly quizzed by MPs, where the Law Lords would throw out something they dont like, where we have an apolitical head of state who wouldnt let something that strips away rights through, and where the Court system is entirely seperate...we dont need guns to feel particularly safe

it always makes me think there must be something wrong with the US system if the people think they need guns to be protected from it

edit: and you should note that serfdom was ended a long time ago...

We feel equally confused about a government that refuses to allow their population to protect itself from it. It was after all your system and history that taught us that given the chance government will abuse that right.
That brings to mind, so sorry to hear they are taking away your sharp objects too. Got to change the old slogan to, "They'll get my butterknife when they rip it from my cold dead fingers!"

No offense intended. I really like your country. 8)

Liverbreath']We feel equally confused about a government that refuses to allow their population to protect itself from it. It was after all your system and history that taught us that given the chance government will abuse that right.
I always think that if the people feel that they have to have guns to protect themselves from 'the system' then there must be somrhing inherintely (sp?) wrong with 'the system'


Liverbreath'] That brings to mind, so sorry to hear they are taking away your sharp objects too. Got to change the old slogan to, "They'll get my butterknife when they rip it from my cold dead fingers!"
they arent, thats the thing

it was something one doctor said that the government should do

i could say "the US government wants to send all homosexuals to gaol" because of what one person has said

in both cases they are an example of what one person in the entier population has said, and not government policy

Liverbreath']No offense intended. I really like your country. 8)
depends if youre talking about "your country" as in the UK, or as Northern Ireland

I dont like the rest of the UK that much (or the rest of Ireland, for that matter), but Northern Ireland is one of the very most beautiful places in the world, and I wouldnt live anywhere else.

and you think "teaching kids not to even think of touching a book, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)" is a logical progression of "teaching kids not to even think of touching a gun, even fake, can only be a Good Thing (TM)"


baffling.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from: children SHOULD be taught not to touch guns unless there is an adult supervising them. No doubt about that.

My point was more that it's not the gun that is the problem, any more than a book or a movie or a song. It's the parents not being involved with their kids.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from: children SHOULD be taught not to touch guns unless there is an adult supervising them. No doubt about that.

My point was more that it's not the gun that is the problem, any more than a book or a movie or a song. It's the parents not being involved with their kids.
Well, what im saying is that if all children were taugh that guns were bad, and never to get involved with guns, never to touch a gun, you would see a decrease in the rate of gun muders. it certainly wouldnt go to 0, but im fairly certain there would be a decrease

i think we are probably on different wavelenghts on this one

no, really, they are

freedom to own a gun and freedom to own a book are entirely different

i have my own reasons for disliking guns

including my dad getting shot at when he was 5, simply for being in a "protestant" playground, and one of my mums best friends getting shot in a random pub spraying (when my mum was sitting beside that person)

and my uncle getting shot...

i despise guns.

Sorry, I didn't see you added/edited this post...

So, (and NOT to make light of any of that!) if they'd had the same experience with cars, you'd hate automobiles too? How about dogs?

Call me what you will, but I'd hate the perputrators, not the device.

Sorry, I didn't see you added/edited this post...

So, (and NOT to make light of any of that!) if they'd had the same experience with cars, you'd hate automobiles too? How about dogs?

Call me what you will, but I'd hate the perputrators, not the device.
nope, because cars arent specifically designed to kill. guns are.


theres a major difference there, and if you cant see that then i would really wonder

Well, what im saying is that if all children were taugh that guns were bad, and never to get involved with guns, never to touch a gun, you would see a decrease in the rate of gun muders. it certainly wouldnt go to 0, but im fairly certain there would be a decrease

i think we are probably on different wavelenghts on this one

The gun isn't good or bad. It's how it is used.
(And actually, the number of gun murders is much smaller than knife/bludgeoning... everywhere!)

You're likely right there...

nope, because cars arent specifically designed to kill. guns are.


theres a major difference there, and if you cant see that then i would really wonder

Guns are designed to move a projectile through space. A car does the same, only it's moving itself and touches the ground while doing it.

Guns are designed to move a projectile through space. A car does the same, only it's moving itself and touches the ground while doing it.
Guns were designed to move a pojective through space with the intention of killing someone, or something.

Armed police swoop on boy waving a toy gun while playing cowboys and indians in the street
By Richard Savill and Paul Stokes
(Filed: 10/06/2005)

A boy was allegedly threatened with arrest by armed police officers for using a cap gun - minus caps - in the street.

*SNIP*

Replica guns are used in a large number of robberies, and some can be activated into real weapons.

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/nbang10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixnewstop.html)


I am an advocate of gun control, but this makes little sense.

An officer should have the right to go up to a boy waving a toy gun on the street and ask him if it is a real gun.

And if the officer is a little snippy, that's a bad thing, but it's not the end of the world.

The gun isn't good or bad. It's how it is used.
and if people were taught to go nowhere near guns from a young age they wouldnt get as much use as they do now.

(And actually, the number of gun murders is much smaller than knife/bludgeoning... everywhere!)
and just because its a smaller number makes it better?

I would pretty much guarantee you that gun murders are higher than knife/bludgeoning in Northern Ireland.

And thats all I care about, I couldnt care less what people do elsewhere.

http://coalitionforguncontrol.org/crawl.jpg

http://www.coverups.com/media/photos/gun1.jpeg

http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/rkba/do_the_math.jpg

http://www.revolution2.us/content/lefties/emerson_bear.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_dream.jpg

http://gifu.cool.ne.jp/gunnuts/img/gun_control_works2.JPG

I think I got stupider just looking at that

I always think that if the people feel that they have to have guns to protect themselves from 'the system' then there must be somrhing inherintely (sp?) wrong with 'the system'


they arent, thats the thing

it was something one doctor said that the government should do

i could say "the US government wants to send all homosexuals to gaol" because of what one person has said

in both cases they are an example of what one person in the entier population has said, and not government policy


depends if youre talking about "your country" as in the UK, or as Northern Ireland

I dont like the rest of the UK that much (or the rest of Ireland, for that matter), but Northern Ireland is one of the very most beautiful places in the world, and I wouldnt live anywhere else.

The fact that they can have them does more to protect from the system than anything. About every decade or so, the FBI or ATF or Justice Department get too big and end up getting fired up, sued and reformed. But in truth, many do not have them at all. Some have them for personal protection, some simply collect them and others live only to sell and trade them. As far as the system goes it is very simple in principle. We take the smallest common denominator, the individual. If you protect his right to self determination, free of government interference, regulation and observation he will make his own way in a much better style than the group would.

I am aware of that. It was said in jest.

I had assumed Ireland in general. I didn't realize there was a major difference in north and south, but without a doubt it is one of the most beautiful places on earth (from what I have seen in pictures) and one of the few I have never been able to visit.

Just so as I am clear on your opinion:
The British police hate guns.
The British police hate fake guns because they might look like real guns.
These two facts are in no way connected.

Is that correct?

Moving further away from your little story ....

but, children playing with fake guns that get mistaken for real guns is a problem here in the gun-lovin' US too. Little kids get shot from time-to-time because fake guns are thought to be real guns.

The British police and the US police aren't fond of 10-years olds running around the street waving a real gun.

Thus, they are concerned when they see a 10-year old running around the street waving what looks like a real gun.

So, no, your little "facts" are connected in the way you think.

Also, are you of the odd opinion that there is a natural right to fake guns? That fake guns are a vital liberty?

Guns were designed to move a pojective through space with the intention of killing someone, or something.

And I fail to see why you see that as a "bad" thing:
Knives are designed to slice and gouge. Matches start fires. Water will drown people. But with proper training, these items are BENEFICIAL.

Another example...
To date:
My guns: 1 deer and 1 ornery IBM laptop.
My parent's 1997 Buick: *5* deer, a possum, and a sundry of other small creatures.

Had I shot those 5 deer instead, I could have donated them to a homeless shelter. At 80-120 pounds each, that's a lot of stew.

Not only has the car has killed a lot more things than my guns, it didn't feed anyone!

Liverbreath']The fact that they can have them does more to protect from the system than anything. About every decade or so, the FBI or ATF or Justice Department get too big and end up getting fired up, sued and reformed. But in truth, many do not have them at all. Some have them for personal protection, some simply collect them and others live only to sell and trade them. As far as the system goes it is very simple in principle. We take the smallest common denominator, the individual. If you protect his right to self determination, free of government interference, regulation and observation he will make his own way in a much better style than the group would.
whats the ATF?

Liverbreath']I had assumed Ireland in general. I didn't realize there was a major difference in north and south, but without a doubt it is one of the most beautiful places on earth (from what I have seen in pictures) and one of the few I have never been able to visit.
Oh theres a big difference, for a start the north has me ;)

but seriously, its got most of the most beautiful scenery in Ireland, places like the Giants Causeway, with cliffs, unique rock formations, and castles...its gorgeous. i could spend my entire life living there.

unfortunately i live a bit further south, but not in the south. if you get what i mean.

but yea, Ireland in general is beautiful, the north is stunning.

(of course, there are a few places in the south that would be just as good)

I think I got stupider just looking at that

Judging by other posts, I'd say you didn't have too far to go. :p

And I fail to see why you see that as a "bad" thing:
Knives are designed to slice and gouge. Matches start fires. Water will drown people. But with proper training, these items are BENEFICIAL.

Another example...
To date:
My guns: 1 deer and 1 ornery IBM laptop.
My parent's 1997 Buick: *5* deer, a possum, and a sundry of other small creatures.

Had I shot those 5 deer instead, I could have donated them to a homeless shelter. At 80-120 pounds each, that's a lot of stew.

Not only has the car has killed a lot more things than my guns, it didn't feed anyone!
why do i see guns as a bad thing?

ive already told you why i see guns as a bad thing, because of the experiences of my country and my family with guns.

According to Liberalism, liberty should only be restricted when there is necessary evidence that it is for the common good. So, like the title of this thread implies, the burden of proof is upon Democrats to prove that it works, not Republicans. So far, no major studies have proven gun control to have any determinable effect on crime, other than John Lott Jr's study (which opposed gun control), but was later discredited as "fundamentally flawed" by the co-author of the study.

But the fact remains: No strong empirical evidence supports the case for gun control. So, Democrats and Republicans are forced to dispute over the philosophy of gun control, rather than the science. For this reason, and because there's no argument that can convince the majority to support either side, gun control should be removed from Federal law. If States wish to enact their own gun control laws, let them. But Federal law has not been shown to have any impact on crime.

Specific statistics on gun control can be found here (http://politics.fapfap.org/guncontrol.html).

Great thought!

Now exchange "gun" with "book". :(

Asinine.

Books very rarely are used to kill or maim anyone.

Guns rarely teach one how to cook, perform first aid, properly own and use a gun, love liberty, etc.

Making such feeble arguments does not help your cause.

According to Liberalism, liberty should only be restricted when there is necessary evidence that it is for the common good. So, like the title of this thread implies, the burden of proof is upon Democrats to prove that it works, not Republicans. So far, no major studies have proven gun control to have any determinable effect on crime, other than John Lott Jr's study (which opposed gun control), but was later discredited as "fundamentally flawed" by the co-author of the study.

But the fact remains: No strong empirical evidence supports the case for gun control. So, Democrats and Republicans are forced to dispute over the philosophy of gun control, rather than the science. For this reason, and because there's no argument that can convince the majority to support either side, gun control should be removed from Federal law. If States wish to enact their own gun control laws, let them. But Federal law has not been shown to have any impact on crime.

Specific statistics on gun control can be found here (http://politics.fapfap.org/guncontrol.html).
And the relative merits of gun control depends entirely on the culture of each individual country

for example, a ban on guns has worked in the UK, but it most likely wouldnt work in the US, because of a different attitude towards guns

According to Liberalism, liberty should only be restricted when there is necessary evidence that it is for the common good. So, like the title of this thread implies, the burden of proof is upon Democrats to prove that it works, not Republicans. So far, no major studies have proven gun control to have any determinable effect on crime, other than John Lott Jr's study (which opposed gun control), but was later discredited as "fundamentally flawed" by the co-author of the study.

But the fact remains: No strong empirical evidence supports the case for gun control. So, Democrats and Republicans are forced to dispute over the philosophy of gun control, rather than the science. For this reason, and because there's no argument that can convince the majority to support either side, gun control should be removed from Federal law. If States wish to enact their own gun control laws, let them. But Federal law has not been shown to have any impact on crime.

Specific statistics on gun control can be found here (http://politics.fapfap.org/guncontrol.html).

You've said this already. And I'm not going to debate it here.

The main point is this stupid story that started this thread doesn't really have a damn thing to do with gun control.

I will note that John Lott is completely unreliable and disreputable. See here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/), here (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2078084), and here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott) for some evidence.

Asinine.

Books very rarely are used to kill or maim anyone.

Guns rarely teach one how to cook, perform first aid, properly own and use a gun, love liberty, etc.

Making such feeble arguments does not help your cause.

Um... right. No one ever fought over ideas on a page. :rolleyes:
After all, it's not like Martin Luther caused any violence. No one's ever killed anybody over a Bible, or a Koran, or a Torah.

Guns don't teach one to cook, but they do put the food on the table.
No, they don't perform first aid. And a first aid kit won't stop a burgler.

Feeble? Or just not your POV? :)

why do i see guns as a bad thing?

ive already told you why i see guns as a bad thing, because of the experiences of my country and my family with guns.

I got that part.

I'm just having trouble understanding why you put the fault on the inanimate object, not the people using it.

whats the ATF?


Oh theres a big difference, for a start the north has me ;)

but seriously, its got most of the most beautiful scenery in Ireland, places like the Giants Causeway, with cliffs, unique rock formations, and castles...its gorgeous. i could spend my entire life living there.

unfortunately i live a bit further south, but not in the south. if you get what i mean.

but yea, Ireland in general is beautiful, the north is stunning.

(of course, there are a few places in the south that would be just as good)

The ATF is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Basically our Armed Tax Collectors. They work for the Treasury department and if the government wants to put a serious squeeze on someone that is who they send, complete with tanks, personel carriers, attack helecopters, etc. They have been around since the people that decided they didn't want to pay taxes to England decided, that people should pay taxes to them instead.

It has you huh! Sounds like you put yourself up to some pretty tough competition with all that scenery! Actually, I almost got to go there once, but higher powers decided I needed to be seen in Normandy France instead.

I got that part.

I'm just having trouble understanding why you put the fault on the inanimate object, not the people using it.
because a gun creates a far bigger potential for injury than a knife

a gun can be used to spray a bar from a distance, whereas a knife can stab one or two people, before the assailant gets tackled.

Liverbreath']The ATF is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Basically our Armed Tax Collectors. They work for the Treasury department and if the government wants to put a serious squeeze on someone that is who they send, complete with tanks, personel carriers, attack helecopters, etc. They have been around since the people that decided they didn't want to pay taxes to England decided, that people should pay taxes to them instead.
oh ok, thanks for explaining that

Liverbreath'] It has you huh! Sounds like you put yourself up to some pretty tough competition with all that scenery! Actually, I almost got to go there once, but higher powers decided I needed to be seen in Normandy France instead.
well, next time youre coming to Ireland, its much nicer than Normandy

(says she from the experience of being to Normandy once for a week)


although Mont St Michel is rather nice.....

Well, what im saying is that if all children were taugh that guns were bad, and never to get involved with guns, never to touch a gun, you would see a decrease in the rate of gun muders. it certainly wouldnt go to 0, but im fairly certain there would be a decrease
That's kind of like telling kids not to have sex before marriage because it is 100% effective in preventing STDs and pregnancy... and we see how well THAT's worked. :rolleyes:

That's kind of like telling kids not to have sex before marriage because it is 100% effective in preventing STDs and pregnancy... and we see how well THAT's worked. :rolleyes:
no...its nothing of the sort

You've said this already. And I'm not going to debate it here.

The main point is this stupid story that started this thread doesn't really have a damn thing to do with gun control.

I will note that John Lott is completely unreliable and disreputable. See here (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/), here (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2078084), and here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott) for some evidence.
Nice bit of selective reading there. He SAID John Lott's study was discredited. :rolleyes:

oh ok, thanks for explaining that


well, next time youre coming to Ireland, its much nicer than Normandy

(says she from the experience of being to Normandy once for a week)


although Mont St Michel is rather nice.....

Oh! But I already know. Believe it or not President Regan told me so, while in Normandy. It was for the 49th or 50th anniversary of the invasion. Anyway, France was a huge let down. I had a much cleaner image in my mind.

no...its nothing of the sort
Actually, it is, somewhat. For the longest time, kids were taught that sex before marriage was bad. It didn't work.

Just because you blindly teach kids that something is BAD doesn't mean they won't gravitate towards it. In fact, it usually MAKES them gravitate towards it.

Gun control is GREAT at making sure the serfs/pesants have no tangible means of recourse when the elites/government strip them of their rights.


Guns are not a means to prevent oppression by the government. 9mm handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns, are not going to do you any good against the national guard armed with M-16's, tanks, APC's, and bullet proof vests. Even having AK-47's or other assault rifles won't prevent a populace from being smashed by the government if it turns its military might against its own country. For example, assault rifles do very little against say... apache helicopters... M1-Abrams tanks... or Hummer-mounted .50 caliber machine guns...

Guns are not a means to prevent oppression by the government. 9mm handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns, are not going to do you any good against the national guard armed with M-16's, tanks, APC's, and bullet proof vests. Even having AK-47's or other assault rifles won't prevent a populace from being smashed by the government if it turns its military might against its own country. For example, assault rifles do very little against say... apache helicopters... M1-Abrams tanks... or Hummer-mounted .50 caliber machine guns...

I beg to differ. There is no weapons system that cannot be overcome, and often with very low tech methods. All of the things you mentioned can be defeated with a bit of imagination, knowledge and guts.

Well, what im saying is that if all children were taugh that guns were bad, and never to get involved with guns, never to touch a gun, you would see a decrease in the rate of gun muders. it certainly wouldnt go to 0, but im fairly certain there would be a decrease

i think we are probably on different wavelenghts on this one


Simply wouldn't work. Not in the U.S. anyway. Don't you think children are taught that already? I remember when I was younger there were tons of ad-campaigns about how if children find a gun they should run and tell their parent and not touch it.

More recently they've had radio spots featuring the song with the lyrics, "where have all the children gone?" followed by a gun shot and some statistic about child death due to guns. Children are taught that guns are bad. It makes no difference. It's just how kids are. They're naturally curious of most things and especially curious about anything you tell them they shouldn't mess with. It's not like five year olds are running around outside gunning each other down and giggling maniacly. Usually they find an unsecured gun, they pick it up and think it's a toy or are just curious about it, and they get shot.

What HAS been shown to help with accidental gun deaths is using functional gun locks and not keeping the weapon loaded. Of course, telling someone not to keep it loaded defeats their purpose of buying it (for self-defense). The statistics have shown, though, that you're more likely to accidentally hurt someone with your handgun than you are to ever use it to defend yourself.

wait...

so its a bad thing that the police should discourage a "gun culture" and the use of lethal weapons by letting kids know when they are young that guns are bad?

fancy that.
Actually, its beyond bad, its tragic. Shooting sports are wholesome, safe and character building activities - much safer than a "nonviolent" sport like football.

And no, guns are not bad. Unless my guns are bad too... :rolleyes:

As I see it, if guns are gonna be around, we need firearm safety programs visiting schools. Not "GUNS R BAD ULL SHOOT UR EYE OUT!!111" because noone listens to that crap, but some actual education - how they work, who uses them and why, how easy it is for an accident to happen and why you shouldn't touch a gun unless you are with a parent or guardian.

@ "the benefits of gun control": I'm sure, gun related deaths are greatly reduced. As I see it its a very perverted form of seatbelt/helmet law - its my body, my home, and my choice.

Also, I want to know; how does anyone supporting GC think it should be enforced? Thats worse than marijuana laws; throw someone in jail for having an unregistered .22, or an "assault weapon"? Jeez, I have several "assault weapons." Maybe I should get put away for 10 years.

People forget that its called a _Justice_ System for a reason.

Liverbreath']I beg to differ. There is no weapons system that cannot be overcome, and often with very low tech methods. All of the things you mentioned can be defeated with a bit of imagination, knowledge and guts.
Exactly. Just look at the case of the Mujahadeen vs. the Soviet Army.

Liverbreath']I beg to differ. There is no weapons system that cannot be overcome, and often with very low tech methods. All of the things you mentioned can be defeated with a bit of imagination, knowledge and guts.

Give me a Humvee with a .50 cal machine gun, I'll give you a knife, we can start 150 feet apart, let's see who wins.

Imagination, knowledge, and guts are gonna get you outta that one, huh?

And no, guns are not bad. Unless my guns are bad too... :rolleyes:
Better spank them guns! They's gone and been bad! BAD GUNS! BAD! *spank*

:p

Give me a Humvee with a .50 cal machine gun, I'll give you a knife, we can start 150 feet apart, let's see who wins.

Imagination, knowledge, and guts are gonna get you outta that one, huh?
Strawman argument. Strike 1.

Like I said...just look at the Mujahadeen vs. the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and THEN tell me that poorly armed but highly motivated people can't stand against a fully outfitted army.

Exactly. Just look at the case of the Mujahadeen vs. the Soviet Army.


That's a very different situation. They were, essentially, veteran guerilla warfare experts on their home turf fighting a foreign enemy.

If the U.S. government decided to oppress the people here, it'd be trained expert rifleman and tank operators against mostly civilian shooters with handguns and hunting rifles who've rarely done more than bring down a deer. Both sides would know the terrain equally, so that removes another advantage.

That's a very different situation. They were, essentially, veteran guerilla warfare experts on their home turf fighting a foreign enemy.

If the U.S. government decided to oppress the people here, it'd be trained expert rifleman and tank operators against mostly civilian shooters with handguns and hunting rifles who've rarely done more than bring down a deer. Both sides would know the terrain equally, so that removes another advantage.
And you expect the Marines to shoot Ma and Pa? They joined to serve the country, not destroy it. Jeez.

Btw, your average gunnut gets much, much more rangetime than your average ground-pounder.

Give me a Humvee with a .50 cal machine gun, I'll give you a knife, we can start 150 feet apart, let's see who wins.

Imagination, knowledge, and guts are gonna get you outta that one, huh?

Obviously no point in reasoning with you.

Um... right. No one ever fought over ideas on a page. :rolleyes:
After all, it's not like Martin Luther caused any violence. No one's ever killed anybody over a Bible, or a Koran, or a Torah.

Guns don't teach one to cook, but they do put the food on the table.
No, they don't perform first aid. And a first aid kit won't stop a burgler.

Feeble? Or just not your POV? :)

Feeble.

Nice change from "killed with" to "fought over" and "books" to "ideas."

Regardless, how many people are killed accidently by books?

How many books are used to kill people daily?

Guns are useful -- sometimes vitally important -- and the ideas in books can be dangerous.



But guns are obviously inherently far, far, far more dangerous than books. You cannot accidently blow your head off with a book. It is possible but far more dangerous to kill someone in the heat of passion with a book than with a gun. It may be possible, but would be damn difficult to rob a convenience store with a book. Do I really need to continue?

Yes, you can give counter-examples. ("You can't do X with a book ...) But they won't really be comparable. Don't try.

It really is a stupid comparison. I can't believe you are continuing to argue it.

Nice bit of selective reading there. He SAID John Lott's study was discredited. :rolleyes:

Nice bit of selective reading there. I didn't say otherwise. :rolleyes:

And Lott has done more that has been discredited than that one study. :rolleyes: The man is a walking set of lies and half-truths.

Gun control is a big steamin' load of bull$hit. Especially in situations like the Assault Weapons Ban.
The Winchester 1896 does more damage than an AK-47. A Colt 1911 is more powerful than an Uzi. A Toyota can kill more people than an M-16. Fires kill more people than firearms.

And you expect the Marines to shoot Ma and Pa? They joined to serve the country, not destroy it. Jeez.

So if that's the case, then it kinda wipes out the whole 'We need guns to resist the oppressive government' issue.

<snip>
Thus, they are concerned when they see a 10-year old running around the street waving what looks like a real gun.

Except, of course, it didn't look like a real gun.

So, no, your little "facts" are connected in the way you think.

Also, are you of the odd opinion that there is a natural right to fake guns? That fake guns are a vital liberty?
I am of the opinion that civil liberties are a good thing. So if someone wants to own a cheap piece of plastic that is in no way dangerous to anyone it is not reasonable to say they cannot, or for them to be harassed by the police for doing so.
And please explain how they are not connected (I assume that is what you actually meant).

<snip>
Also, I want to know; how does anyone supporting GC think it should be enforced? Thats worse than marijuana laws; throw someone in jail for having an unregistered .22, or an "assault weapon"? <snip>
This is actually what I thought was interesting in the original story:
GC is enforced by having your neighbours watch you and report you for any suspicious activity. Whereupon you will be hunted down by heavily armed police officers who will threaten you at gunpoint.
Of course, I've seen more about this issue than just this story. So I know that for every ten times the police stop and threaten a citizen they get one arrest. That's a 90% failure rate, or a 10% success rate, depending on how you want to look at it.
Now obviously that suggests malicious reporting, someone doesn't like you they anonymously report that they saw you with a gun, or they saw a gun in your car. Personally, I think that is a bad thing.

Feeble.

Nice change from "killed with" to "fought over" and "books" to "ideas."

Insulting, but of no substance. But then you excel in that. (Now, if you can't keep this civil, I will taunt you a second time!)

Nice change? Where?? You said:

Books very rarely are used to kill or maim anyone.

How about the Crusades? Martin Luther's thesises? The Holocaust? MILLIONS of people were killed, all over books. Books (which, last time I checked, contain IDEAS written on pages!) were used as a means to murder.

Why did the Christians go to kill the "infidel"? Because the nobility and Church convinced them that it was right... BIBICALLY!
The Protestant schism? WORDS nailed to the church, making people THINK, and forcing the Church to get medieval on their opposition. A battle OVER how the Bible is used!
Why did Hitler kill the Jews? Because they were Jewish (read: followed the Torah, believed they are God's chosen people)... note that in every town captured, the Torahs were always taken.
In the USSR, Poland and other Slavic nations, the Nazis went out of their way to destroy every scrap of Slavic culture they could find, including and most particularly the libraries and papers/works of authors.

In point of fact, books are the PRIMARY reason why people kill and maim.

Regardless, how many people are killed accidently by books?
Screw accidentially, how about the examples above which was ON PURPOSE?!?

How many books are used to kill people daily?
Good question! On any given day...
How many Falun Gong are the Chinese killing? (Communist manifesto AND "Li Hongzhi and His "Falun Gong"" vs. Zhuan Falun & other Falun Gong books.)
How many Jews are the Palestinians killing? (Torah vs. a radical interpretation of the Koran.)
How many Palestinians are the Jews killing? (a radical interpretation of the Koran vs. Torah)
How many Terrorists are the Americans/Allies killing? (a radical interpretation of the Koran vs. US Constitution, Bill of Rights and every tome on western philosophy and law)
How many Americans/Allies are the Terrorists killing? (US Constitution, Bill of Rights and every tome on western philosophy and law vs. a radical interpretation of the Koran.)

Guns are useful -- sometimes vitally important -- and the ideas in books can be dangerous.

Well, at least we agree on that!

But guns are obviously inherently far, far, far more dangerous than books.

Au contraire. Ideas are far more powerful than metal. History shows us that.
Else, how does the law keep down crime in a nation that's armed? How do people stand up against oppression or attack? It shouldn't work if the gun is more dangerous. If might were greater than philosophy, then the human race would never have made it past Roman-age technology. Ideas are powerful... and dangerous. That's why you can have a gun in lots of places that have banned Catcher in the Rye and Tom Sawyer.

You cannot accidently blow your head off with a book.
True. And you can't commit genocide without an ideal that's been propogated by a written means. Even the Murder of the Innocents by King Herod had paperwork.
Take even Columbine. You think those kids would have blown away the school had they been looked after by their folks and not had access to morally questionable works 24/7? Yes, the guns were there. They had to steal them, though. They had to culivate a mindset of death to do what they did.

It is possible but far more dangerous to kill someone in the heat of passion with a book than with a gun. It may be possible, but would be damn difficult to rob a convenience store with a book. Do I really need to continue?

I'm not arguing that the book is a good hand to hand combat weapon.
I'm arguing that the idea that guns are more powerful than books/the written word is a fallacy. The 1st & 2nd Amendments are the same thing, as most of the Amendments are. (Well, at least 1-15, 19, 23, and 26, which directly guarentee liberties.)

Yes, you can give counter-examples. ("You can't do X with a book ...) But they won't really be comparable. Don't try.

I've already laid out my case earlier in this email.
As for not trying, then what's the point of the forums? To take your POV at face value? :rolleyes:

It really is a stupid comparison. I can't believe you are continuing to argue it.

It really is stupid to not consider the comparison valid. (Again, I warn you about being insulting. It's unbecoming, and not decorous.)

I can't believe you are continuting to argue that one Amendment of the Constitution is less valueable than another one.

Markreich and Cat-Tribe: You're both wrong and this has got to be the longest, two-sided strawman argument I've ever seen. :headbang:

Books (containing IDEAS) and guns are both inanimate objects. They are nothing more than tools. You use one for certain things and the other for other things. Neither is inherently "evil" or "bad."

Guns can be used for both destructive and beneficial purposes. The ideas in books (because Markreich is essentially arguing that ideas are the destructive thing, not the books themselves) can also be used for both destructive and beneficial purposes. (A book with blank pages is rather useless unless you need a paperweight, blunt weapon or something to use as a journal.) BOTH are nothing more than tools. People CHOOSE to use them in beneficial or destructive ways.

The person is to blame for their choices, not the object.

Simply wouldn't work. Not in the U.S. anyway.
i couldnt give a fuck about the US.

Except, of course, it didn't look like a real gun.

I am of the opinion that civil liberties are a good thing. So if someone wants to own a cheap piece of plastic that is in no way dangerous to anyone it is not reasonable to say they cannot, or for them to be harassed by the police for doing so.
And please explain how they are not connected (I assume that is what you actually meant).


This is actually what I thought was interesting in the original story:
GC is enforced by having your neighbours watch you and report you for any suspicious activity. Whereupon you will be hunted down by heavily armed police officers who will threaten you at gunpoint.
Of course, I've seen more about this issue than just this story. So I know that for every ten times the police stop and threaten a citizen they get one arrest. That's a 90% failure rate, or a 10% success rate, depending on how you want to look at it.
Now obviously that suggests malicious reporting, someone doesn't like you they anonymously report that they saw you with a gun, or they saw a gun in your car. Personally, I think that is a bad thing.

Could lead to something similar to the communist witch-hunts in the 1950's and 60's. Or the witch hunts back in Salem...

Fear of POTENTIALS just leads to more suffering whilst trying to control the populace (which is what ANY control is--not protection of the populace, but control of the populace, exactly how the word is defined).

i couldnt give a fuck about the US.

Thanks.

That's a very different situation. They were, essentially, veteran guerilla warfare experts on their home turf fighting a foreign enemy.

If the U.S. government decided to oppress the people here, it'd be trained expert rifleman and tank operators against mostly civilian shooters with handguns and hunting rifles who've rarely done more than bring down a deer. Both sides would know the terrain equally, so that removes another advantage.

I think you're a bit off in your assessment.

First, most of the infantry use .223 ammunition. You have issues with range, effectiveness of the round past a certain point, etc.

Civilian shooters, in my experience have just as much ability to shoot, and use much larger calibers that are more effective at range. Hunters are the equivalent of low-level snipers (many are more experienced, and get more practice in). There are 80 million gun owners in the US at this time, with over 300 million firearms. If it were so easy to beat the US military, the US military wouldn't be in Iraq today.

A standard .30-06 will go through un-plated kevlar without a hitch. This is a standard hunting round, with even more powerful calibers out there (.300 win mag, for instance).

The US military doesn't want to face millions of snipers--and rightly so. Yes, a tank will be able to take out a person with a bolt-action rifle. How about a chunk of them, where one has a home-made explosive (VERY easy to make), to take out the tracks of a tank? If you can't move the tank, you're dead eventually.

There are no benefits to gun control.

It only makes it easy for the government to do whatevery they wish to citizens and allow only criminals to own arms.

There are no benefits to gun control.

It only makes it easy for the government to do whatevery they wish to citizens and allow only criminals to own arms.

Exactly what I was going to say, and if people don't believe the part about criminals being the only ones with guns, you're dead wrong. They will have them.

Exactly what I was going to say, and if people don't believe the part about criminals being the only ones with guns, you're dead wrong. They will have them.

You won't be able to convince the antis of that. They'll rationalize that just the reduction on the law-abiding side would make it tougher to get the firearms in the first place.

The sheer number of firearms in circulation in the US will not allow for banning of firearms. There are so many unregistered (due to the fact that firearms tend to outlast their owners) that there would be no way to track them down.

There is a more insidious way to accomplish what they want, though--and that's exactly what they are doing around the world--teach the children that the gun is "evil". The kids grow up hating an inanimate object, and are more willing to get away from the "evil" thing.

Even GANDHI (yeah, Mr. Pacifist himself) berated the Brits for disarming his fellow Indians.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

He realized that's how you control large groups of people. Gun control is not about guns--it's definitely about control.