NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:

1. If we take away guns nobody will have them.
Do you really think that crimminals will obey that law? How many criminals have illegal guns anyway? If the guns are taken away from the criminals do you really think that they won't just make guns? All you need is a barrel, a combustion chamber, a projectile and propelant.

2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

Everyone should have guns, sure the criminals will have guns too, but they would have guns anyway, and if somone mugs you you pop him in the head..everyone should have guns.

How about you have guns, but don't shoot people with them.

Seems to work well were I live.

How about you have guns, but don't shoot people with them.

Seems to work well were I live.

And for that you get the " Duhh" Award for the thread.

And for that you get the " Duhh" Award for the thread.

Sadly, so few get this.

There is a guy who gives instructions on how to make homemade submachine guns and pistols without the use of a lathe or drill press. Essentially, they are all Home Depot tools with standard pipe parts with detailed instructions.

Though I suppose some googling could do it anyway.

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

I can never believe it when someone thinks it is a good idea to ban guns. I mean, do you really think that it would solve any problems? It would only disarm the innocent - just look at the drug trade for an example.

And there has never been a good case saying increased gun control lowers crime. It has, however, been shown to work the other way around numerous times.

And above all else, it really doesn't matter if it would be "safer." The fact is that you would be taking away people's rights, which is a much bigger crime than lack of safety measures.

I think it should be compulsory for every man, woman & child to not only own at least one gun, but to carry it on them at all times. That way we could shoot whomever we want, whenever we want.

2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.
Of course all the guns have been taken away in Japan and it reported 19 gun deaths last year. 19 for a country of 125 million people.

Oh, and of those, some 80% were gang related.

No, then you'd have kids reminiscing on their first ownership of a Glock 9mm. And, I mean, that's not the stuff of family albums, yknow? :D

On a more serious note, the ban of guns would be unenforceable. Just as you had speakeasies and underground distilleries of the 20's, you'd have the same kind of stuff going on with guns. Banning the item doesn't ban the trade.

Sure, it would effectively limit the number of people with guns, but gun control laws aren't made for normal civilians. They're made for the psychopaths that go out and kill dozens of people. Banning guns would only serve to increase violent crime.

And, of course, Texas would secede. We all know that. :D

Of course all the guns have been taken away in Japan and it reported 19 gun deaths last year. 19 for a country of 125 million people.

Oh, and of those, some 80% were gang related.

The United States of America occupies 3,718,695 square miles. Japan, on the other hand, occupies far less at 145,883 square miles . America also outnumbers in population Japan by more than 2 to one. And our population density is far less than Japans.

To think that banning guns in the US would give the same results as in Japan is nearly criminal. I know that's not the subject of your post, but still...

The United States of America occupies 3,718,695 square miles. Japan, on the other hand, occupies far less at 145,883 square miles . America also outnumbers in population Japan by more than 2 to one. And our population density is far less than Japans.

To think that banning guns in the US would give the same results as in Japan is nearly criminal. I know that's not the subject of your post, but still...
And just how is the large size of the US and less population density supposed to account for that?

And just how is the large size of the US and less population density supposed to account for that?

You'd think it would have the opposite effect. All those people around, pissing you off.

The United States of America occupies 3,718,695 square miles. Japan, on the other hand, occupies far less at 145,883 square miles . America also outnumbers in population Japan by more than 2 to one. And our population density is far less than Japans.
You're entirely not making sense.

The US is made of a lot of rural space with little towns, with fairly largetastic cities on the coast, no?
To think that banning guns in the US would give the same results as in Japan is nearly criminal. I know that's not the subject of your post, but still...
Well it really depends, doesn't it.

In your more backwater, arsehole-of-the-US areas (Kansas etc.) then population density is very, very low indeed, I can't argue with that, and most people there probably have guns to facilitate hunting.

But in the more built up connurbations (LA, New York etc.) then the population density is pretty Japan-esque, and it really probably would help crime rates, or at the very least cut down on unnecessary deaths, to take out guns from the equation.

I live in a country that took the guns away, and is now getting along just fine. Of course we're not born with a bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other so...

I live in a country that took the guns away,

You have some odd ideas of Australia's gun laws. Gun ownership levels haven't changed much in the last 10 years. The types of guns owned has changed a little, and then only those guns in the hands of the law abiding.

Incidently, if you love Honest Johnny's gun laws so much, perhaps you can explain how they can prevent smuggling from outside Australia, and theft from the Army.

The United States of America occupies 3,718,695 square miles. Japan, on the other hand, occupies far less at 145,883 square miles . America also outnumbers in population Japan by more than 2 to one. And our population density is far less than Japans.

To think that banning guns in the US would give the same results as in Japan is nearly criminal. I know that's not the subject of your post, but still...

Australia has quite strict gun laws & far fewer gun deaths, in total and per head of population, than the USA. Our population density is also much less the the USA. What is your point?

Australia is also different in terms of demographics, culture, economics, and history. And, Australia's gun laws aren't as strict as those of the UK, or Japan, and they of course only apply to those who want to respect them.

As I indicated above, Australia's "strict" gun laws did not keep rocket launchers out of the hands of bikies and terrorists, and they do not keep pistols out of the hands of Sydney-based gangs.

Think of all the times that people get so angry they punch someone. Now think what would happen if, as you suggested, everyone had a gun. Are you so arrogant as to claim that NOBODY would pull out a gun instead?

I think it more likely that, knowing that everyone had a gun, they would restrain themselves lest they get shot. The crime statistics in the jurisdictions that permit concealed carry would support that conclusion.

You might be the sort to do that, but I am not.

I live in a country that took the guns away, and is now getting along just fine. Of course we're not born with a bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other so...Hehe.

I don't understand why Americans are so keen on having guns all over the place. I mean, if I owned a gun, I'd store it at the shooting range/hunting lodge/whatever. You must be terribly scared, you poor, poor Americans. Perhaps you should consider fleeing to somewhere safer?

I think it more likely that, knowing that everyone had a gun, they would restrain themselves lest they get shot. The crime statistics in the jurisdictions that permit concealed carry would support that conclusion.
So you'd rather have fear than safety. Interesting.

That only accounts for premeditated attacks. If you get pissed at someone and punch them, you're not thinking that they might punch back.

That only accounts for premeditated attacks. If you get pissed at someone and punch them, you're not thinking that they might punch back.

There is a slight difference between a left-hook, and a jacketed hollowpoint.

So you'd rather have fear than safety.

That statement is based on a false premise (that disarming the law abiding makes people safer)

That statement is based on a false premise (that disarming the law abiding makes people safer)
And you explain Japan's extremely low crime rate and disarmed population how then?

That statement is based on a false premise (that disarming the law abiding makes people safer)Sophistry. A lot of gun-related deaths are accidental or crimes of passion. Disarming people would prevent a lot of both.

But I don't want to play the devil's advocate here. I'm all for guns to the people.

I just don't understand why a densely populated district would allow people to keep firearms at home, or why any district would allow people to walk around with firearms hidden on their persons. It's not like you're under siege, after all.

Disarming people would prevent a lot of both.

Disarming whom? If you are talking about disarming law abiding civilians who intend no harm to anyone, then the effect, if any, will be negligable.

If you are talking about disarming criminals, then one question: how?

People say passing a law banning guns will get rid of them, just like passing laws banning crystal meth, heroin, alcohol, esctasy, etc have all failed.

Even if gun control were theoretically sound, it is simply not practical.

And you explain Japan's extremely low crime rate and disarmed population how then?

Actually, since you are proposing the idea that disarming law abiding people will reduce crime, it is you who should show how strict guns have contributed to Japan's relatively peaceful society.

While you're at it, perhaps you could explain how Britains strict gun laws have seen gun crime skyrocket?

I'm less fussed about guns total, as to what type of guns. How can you justify owning an assault rifle... I mean a hand gun for personal protection i can understand, a rifle or shotgun for the protection of live stock and hunting i can understand. But submachine guns weren't made for protection, theyre for mowing down unarmoured people.

I will confess its not difficult to get a gun in Australia, but it is practically impossible to get semi/fully automatics, short of stealing from the military... crazy ass bikies.

How can you justify owning an assault rifle

A better question would be: why should anyone have to justify it?

But submachine guns weren't made for protection, theyre for mowing down unarmoured people.

Which is why bodyguards never, ever, under any circumstances, on no account, regardless of anything else, carry automatic weapons.

Here are some pictures of people employed on protective duties not carrying submachine guns:

http://www.walkblackforest.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/US%20Secret%20Service%20CAT%20officer.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41395000/jpg/_41395638_security203ap.jpg

http://www.machinegundealer.com/Reagan_Assassination%20attempt.jpg

get semi/fully automatics, short of stealing from the military... crazy ass bikies.

I thought Little Johnny's laws were supposed to remove these firearms from non-official circulation.

At least, that was the case that was made to me.

And you explain Japan's extremely low crime rate and disarmed population how then?

By being an entirely different country?

But submachine guns weren't made for protection, theyre for mowing down unarmoured people.

On a more serious tack, this line reveals that the poster's knowledge of firearms comes only from movies, and from the media (which has shown itself only too eager to embrace civilian disarmament).

Submachine guns were originally conceived as an alternative to rifles for trench warfare. They are descendents of the Luger Artillery model, which was fitted with a stock, and a 32-round snail drum for trench raiding. Later, a weapon called the MP-18 was built to replace it, and the Germans made good use of it in their trench raids.

The trench concept also occurred to the Americans, when Thompson designed his gun (the first to be called the "sub machine gun", also called the "trench broom", because it was meant to "sweep" trenches clean).

The SMG later came to be used by personnel who had to do things other than engage in combat (radio-operators, artillery, NCO's, Officers, etc) as a compact protective weapon.

It has also found use in special operations (in close combat scenarios).

I will confess its not difficult to get a gun in Australia, but it is practically impossible to get semi/fully automatics, short of stealing from the military... crazy ass bikies.

Legally getting a firearm is a major undertaking.

Then again, the gun laws didn't prevent this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1904875.htm

or this

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shot-fired-during-armed-robbery/2007/05/04/1177788344151.html

or this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1910661.htm

or this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1907633.htm

But yeah, gun laws really work.They work so well that the only people with guns are the criminals.

Work in the city late? Travel home by train?

You have a major chance of being assaulted or attacked or robbed or raped.

What defensive weapons are ordinary citizens allowed to have?

None.

Pepper spray? Illegal
knife? Illegal
Gun? Don't make me laugh
Mace? Illegal
Knuckle dusters? Illegal
Sword? Illegal
Acid spray? Illegal

Diplomats son assaults five women on a train.Guess what he gets

Sentence: Pleaded guilty on the 16-3-2005 in the Melbourne Magistrates Court to 5 charges of indecent assault. Sentenced to a 3 month intensive corrections order/ receive counselling/ 100 hours community work.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bashings-robberies-rife-at-city-train-stations/2007/04/26/1177459878741.html

There were 1300 assaults, 417 robberies and 111 sexual offences committed during a 13-month period to November 2006.

I am not saying they should all have guns.

I am saying that they had NO self defence allowed WHATSOEVER.

Mind you, having a gun shoved in your face when demanding money at knife point on a train sort of does a lot to make you want to go elsewhere.

Sex offences were most common in central Sydney stations; 15 were recorded by police. Assaults, robberies and sexual offences were also a feature at Blacktown, Penrith and Redfern stations.


Defend your family and be charged with murder (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/02/1154198204577.html?from=top5)

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:
Let's. And let us start at with the basics, which you kinda have ignored:

0.Gun control is only about banning guns.
No. Gun control = Regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns. One example of gun control: Making it illegal for convicted felons to buy or own a gun. Are you really opposed to gun control?


2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.
But it's also decreased in the states that does not have conceal and carry laws. It's down all over since peaking in the 90s. There are many factors, and though the presence of guns is one it's not shown to be the most important one.
Sadly, so few get this.

There is a guy who gives instructions on how to make homemade submachine guns and pistols without the use of a lathe or drill press. Essentially, they are all Home Depot tools with standard pipe parts with detailed instructions.
Sadly so few get this.

Zip guns are usually one-shot and unreliable. For the crimes of passion, zip guns won't be used. For killing sprees zip guns won't be used. Zip guns are usually of a smaller caliber, and the bullets from zip guns usually won't go through walls and doors killing accidentally.
And there has never been a good case saying increased gun control lowers crime. It has, however, been shown to work the other way around numerous times.
Oh good. Then you'll have no problem proving it to us.
By being an entirely different country?
So gun control, in and by itself, does actually work?

So gun control, in and by itself, does actually work?

No, he was talking about the differences in societies, values, demographics, economics etc. between the US and Japan.

Gun control works in certain circumstances:

a) In an unfree society
b) Where the intention is not to increase public safety, but to make government crimes easier.

Actually, since you are proposing the idea that disarming law abiding people will reduce crime, it is you who should show how strict guns have contributed to Japan's relatively peaceful society.
I haven't proposed anything. But, as it drives even more nails into your coffin because you can't answer, here you go:

Last year the current number of gun deaths in Japan was 19. The current average of gun crimes, including possession, is some 600 hand guns and 900 long guns (These are when guns were used in crimes, including deaths), the US average is astronomical. Currently Tokyo (The largest city in the world) experiences around 40 muggings per year; New York: 11,000. The homicide rate is 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homicide cases per 100,000. Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.

While the police do have guns, they rarely use them. They rarely draw them. Criminals, even though guns are available on the black market in Japan, also rarely use guns in crimes as shown above.

While you're at it, perhaps you could explain how Britains strict gun laws have seen gun crime skyrocket?
I'm not addressing Britain. I am, however, awaiting for you to address Japan. Because I have never seen an answer from you "More guns=less crime" folks about disarmed Japan.

a) In an unfree society
b) Where the intention is not to increase public safety, but to make government crimes easier.
*snorts* Riiiiiight.

So gun control, in and by itself, does actually work?

Err, did I say that? Nay, if Gun Control worked, I want to see trends. A change in gun crime from when gun control was enacted. Instantaeneous values tell me nothing.

I haven't proposed anything. But, as it drives even more nails into your coffin because you can't answer, here you go:

Sorry, you haven't answered the question.

I will repeat the question: How have strict gun laws (which do not affect the black markets upon which criminals can draw) contributed to Japan's relatively peaceful society?

You have shown differing crime rates, but you have not drawn a causal link between gun laws and low crime.

Also, your US statistics treat the US as a monolith, which it is not, either in terms of crime, or in degrees of gun control. This is nothing more than dishonesty. Washington DC has more strict gun laws than almost anywhere in the world, and extremely high crime rates. Vermont has liberal gun laws, and low crime.

I am, however, awaiting for you to address Japan.

Perhaps you are blind. I have addressed it, different demographics, economics, etc.

I'm not addressing Britain.

Of course you aren't. It doesn't agree with your case.

*snorts* Riiiiiight.

Firstly, an unfree society lacks the protections of due process, and protection from warrantless search and seizure. The degree of control the government of an unfree society exerts over the people makes enforcement of gun control laws easier.

As to the second point, not every government that disarms the law abiding civilian population has the good intention of reducing crime. Some, like Apartheid-era South Africa, use it to make it more difficult to resist the regime.

I am suprised that you could not work this out for yourself.

Gun control works in certain circumstances:

a) In an unfree society
b) Where the intention is not to increase public safety, but to make government crimes easier.
Yet there are gun control laws in the US at present. Do you feel that the US is an unfree society, that the laws barring criminals from buying guns have the intention of making government crimes easier, or that those laws should be remved altogether?
Err, did I say that?
No, I asked a question. Is gun control inherrently flawed, or does it work in other coutries? To me, it seems to be a viable solution that reduces gun crimes - again, in other countries. As such, the idea that gun control is an unworkable and ineffective policy seems flawed.

Nay, if Gun Control worked, I want to see trends. A change in gun crime from when gun control was enacted. Instantaeneous values tell me nothing.
I can't show you that... I can only show that there are a lower rate of gun-related crime and gun-related deaths in many countries that have stricter gun-control laws.

Yet there are gun control laws in the US at present.

Bloody hell. I said gun control works in unfree societies. It is imposed in free and unfree societies.

Do you feel that the US is an unfree society, that the laws barring criminals from buying guns have the intention of making government crimes easier, or that those laws should be remved altogether?

I said the governments of unfree societies impose gun control to make government crimes easier.

Which laws prevent US criminals buying guns on the black market? How do they prevent black market purchases? How do they prevent smuggling? How do they prevent thefts?

No, I asked a question. Is gun control inherrently flawed, or does it work in other coutries? To me, it seems to be a viable solution that reduces gun crimes - again, in other countries. As such, the idea that gun control is an unworkable and ineffective policy seems flawed.
I can't show you that... I can only show that there are a lower rate of gun-related crime and gun-related deaths in many countries that have stricter gun-control laws.

And if we looked, areas with high crime and looser laws. And areas with low crime and lax laws. And areas with high crime and stricter laws.

I simply see no correlation.

Sorry, you haven't answered the question.

I will repeat the question: How have strict gun laws (which do not affect the black markets upon which criminals can draw) contributed to Japan's relatively peaceful society?

You have shown differing crime rates, but you have not drawn a causal link between gun laws and low crime.
Alright, simply put, before the war, an armed Japan had a much higher rate than is does now. See?

Also, your US statistics treat the US as a monolith, which it is not, either in terms of crime, or in degrees of gun control. This is nothing more than dishonesty. Washington DC has more strict gun laws than almost anywhere in the world, and extremely high crime rates. Vermont has liberal gun laws, and low crime.
Do you really want me to break things down into prefectures? Stop attempting to weasel out of answering the issue of how Japan's gun laws have resulted in very low rates of gun crimes.

Perhaps you are blind. I have addressed it, different demographics, economics, etc.
How? Your bullshit answer doesn't answer anything.

Of course you aren't. It doesn't agree with your case.
No, because I'm talking about Japan. If I wanted to talk about the UK I would have brought up the UK. Now answer the damn question.

Firstly, an unfree society lacks the protections of due process, and protection from warrantless search and seizure. The degree of control the government of an unfree society exerts over the people makes enforcement of gun control laws easier.
So somehow the UK is an unfree society and Iraq a free one? Methinks your logic ain't working a-right.

Do you really want me to break things down into prefectures? Stop attempting to weasel out of answering the issue of how Japan's gun laws have resulted in very low rates of gun crimes.

I have never made the case that Japan's gun laws have contributed to Japan's low crime. It is you who proposed that it did, and it is you who has refused to provide any evidence of a causal link.

Why won't you show me how Japan's gun laws have helped reduce Japan's crime rate? Why do you simply insist that I believe it without evidence?

Answer my question: How do Japan's gun laws reduce the crime rates?

As to splitting Japan into Prefectures, you tell me. Does firearms legislation in Japan vary widely (or at all) between Prefectures? It does between US states.

No, because I'm talking about Japan. If I wanted to talk about the UK I would have brought up the UK. Now answer the damn question.

Don't transfer your burder of proof. You said Japan's gun laws were responsible for Japan's law crime rate, you show how.

And since your case is that strict gun laws lead to lower crime rates, perhaps you can explain why they have not in Britain.

Bloody hell. I said gun control works in unfree societies. It is imposed in free and unfree societies.
So what are you saying? Does gun control not work in free societies?

I said the governments of unfree societies impose gun control to make government crimes easier.

Which laws prevent US criminals buying guns on the black market? How do they prevent black market purchases? How do they prevent smuggling? How do they prevent thefts?Same way laws prevent people from speeding; By making it a punishable offence, and by creating a preventive effect.
And if we looked, areas with high crime and looser laws. And areas with low crime and lax laws. And areas with high crime and stricter laws.

I simply see no correlation.
So you would agree with me that the implications of the OP are flawed? We cannot say that gun control does not reduce crime, nor can we really say that it does? That there are many other factors playing in, that might be more influential?

So somehow the UK is an unfree society and Iraq a free one? Methinks your logic ain't working a-right.

Are you illiterate, or just stupid. Where did I say that only unfree societies impose gun control?

Let me make this clear again: free societies, and unfree socieites impose gun control, but it only tends to accomplish the government's aim in an unfree society.

So what are you saying? Does gun control not work in free societies?

Congratulations!

The penny dropped at last. Gun control tends not to work in free societies.

Same way laws prevent people from speeding; By making it a punishable offence, and by creating a preventive effect.

No, you are not making the full connection.

I will put it this way, gun laws and traffic laws have one thing in common, they are intended to prevent the acts proscribed in them. Whether or not they actually do it is another matter.

It is pretty easy for the police to catch you speeding on a public road, they set up what ever sensor is in use (either permanently, or temporarily), and if you drive past the sensor over the speed limit, it catches you.

It is not such a simple matter for violations of gun laws. The police can't simply set up a "black market gun sales camera", and catch everyone selling illegal weapons.

While you're at it, perhaps you could explain how Britains strict gun laws have seen gun crime skyrocket?

skyrocket?

There were a provisional 9,513 firearm offences, a decrease of 16 per cent since 2005

Handguns were used in 4,191 offences, a decrease of 11 per cent from 2005

Shotguns were used in 590 offences, a decrease of 5 per cent from 2005

Imitation weapons were used in 2,448 offences, a decrease of 26 per cent from 2005

Rifles were used in 61 offences, a decrease from 74 in 2005

The number of fatal injuries was 57, 4 more than in the previous year, the number of offences that resulted in serious injury decreased by 12% to 424 and the number of slight injuries decreased by 28% to 2,491.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF08.htm

Total firearms offences in
2001/02 22400
2002/03* 24070
2003/04 24094
2004/05 22798
2005/06 21521

* The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced on 1.4.02. Figures for some categories may be inflated by this
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

looks like its going down to me

So you would agree with me that the implications of the OP are flawed? We cannot say that gun control does not reduce crime, nor can we really say that it does? That there are many other factors playing in, that might be more influential?

*does a quick scan*
Technically, the OP never claimed gun control had any effect...I'd've considered that a default position...

We've no reason to believe it reduces crime, I personally assume it's null, because that's where one starts and I've not been compelled to move.

Are you illiterate, or just stupid. Where did I say that only unfree societies impose gun control?

Let me make this clear again: free societies, and unfree socieites impose gun control, but it only tends to accomplish the government's aim in an unfree society.
Ah, so unfree societies work towards consolidating the power of the government, while free societies do not. Not surprising really...
Congratulations!

The penny dropped at last. Gun control tends not to work in free societies.
Finally!

Prove it. It seems to be working in Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...


No, you are not making the full connection.

I will put it this way, gun laws and traffic laws have one thing in common, they are intended to prevent the acts proscribed in them. Whether or not they actually do it is another matter.

It is pretty easy for the police to catch you speeding on a public road, they set up what ever sensor is in use (either permanently, or temporarily), and if you drive past the sensor over the speed limit, it catches you.

It is not such a simple matter for violations of gun laws. The police can't simply set up a "black market gun sales camera", and catch everyone selling illegal weapons.
Catch everyone? No. You can't catch everyone that are speeding either, as you cannot contol every streatch of road there is.

But the preventive effect of stricter laws, more control and more police enforcement seems to be underestimated by you. Would you sell a gun on the black market if you thought there were, say, a 30% chance of being caught, and that would lead to five years imprisonment?

*does a quick scan*
Technically, the OP never claimed gun control had any effect...I'd've considered that a default position...
He seems to imply it by saying how crime was reduced by allowing people to carry concealed weapons. But then again, he uses the term "gun control" erroneously, so...

*Shrugs*

We've no reason to believe it reduces crime, I personally assume it's null, because that's where one starts and I've not been compelled to move.
*Moves*

Prove it. It seems to be working in Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...

Are you not reading ... let me put it in a single word: causation.

Prove a causal link between gun control and reductions in crime.

But the preventive effect of stricter laws, more control and more police enforcement seems to be underestimated by you. Would you sell a gun on the black market if you thought there were, say, a 30% chance of being caught, and that would lead to five years imprisonment?

How do the odds get to 30%.

By the way, you should realise that you have just rebutted your own argument. Gun laws that restrict the legal trade in firearms are by definition not effective against the black market.

Are you not reading ... let me put it in a single word: causation.

Prove a causal link between gun control and reductions in crime.
Are you not reading...

Prove that "Gun control tends not to work in free societies."

How do the odds get to 30%.
Random number for illustration.

By the way, you should realise that you have just rebutted your own argument. Gun laws that restrict the legal trade in firearms are by definition not effective against the black market.
No, I haven't. Gun laws that restrict legal trade and gun laws that restrict illegal trade are not mutually exclusive. You can (and do) have both.

Prove it. It seems to be working in Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...



So, that means those countries used to have a major gun death problem and gun bans saved them?

I have a better idea. Since most US gun crime is drug related, maybe we should ban drugs so nobody will have them. Oh wait, we did.

*Moves*

Is that *moves* as in moves self, or *moves* as in moves me?

The bottom line is that gun laws disarm law abiding citizens, leaving them easy prey to well armed criminals.

I am Australian, and we see gun crimes every single day.

And we have very strict gun laws.

NOT ONE of them was committed by a legal gun owner.So how does gun control stop gun crime? It doesn't.

All it does is make sure that you the citizen have no recourse to self defence.

In the situation that a LEGAL gun owner uses said firearm to defend himself ore his family, he or she is the one put on trial.

Gun laws are the liberal meme of the rights of the criminal outweighing the rights of their victims.

So, that means those countries used to have a major gun death problem and gun bans saved them?

I have a better idea. Since most US gun crime is drug related, maybe we should ban drugs so nobody will have them. Oh wait, we did.
*sigh*

Gun control does not equal gun ban.

Because the situation in the countries are different from the US, it doesn't prove that the idea of gun control is not a viable one in and by itself.

Are the current gun control laws in the US helping to keep gun crime down? Difficult to prove, but I believe so.
Could even stricter legislation work in the US? Maybe.

Did gun control laws reduce crime in those countries, or is it just helping to keep it low? Difficult to say, innit.

Is that *moves* as in moves self, or *moves* as in moves me?
Actually, I was trying to move out of the thread... But if I moved you, all the better :cool:

NOT ONE of them was committed by a legal gun owner.
I don't believe you.

*Shrugs*

Gun laws are the liberal meme of the rights of the criminal outweighing the rights of their victims.

Gun laws are? Right... So you would be in favour of the unrestricted sales of firearms to convicted felons then? That would strengthen the rights of the victims?

Answer my question: How do Japan's gun laws reduce the crime rates?
What part of pre-war (and post, but there were other things going on) Japan had much, much higher rates of murder and robbery (and more political assignations than western countries) than they do now that the ban is in effect are you not understanding? What part of only 19 gun deaths and 600 hand gun crimes are you not comprehending? If you can't get a gun, obviously you can't commit a gun crime. Wow! What a concept.

As to splitting Japan into Prefectures, you tell me. Does firearms legislation in Japan vary widely (or at all) between Prefectures? It does between US states.
No, but we are talking about the national figures. Attempts to try and shift things around ain't going to work.

Don't transfer your burder of proof. You said Japan's gun laws were responsible for Japan's law crime rate, you show how.
No, I asked you how to explain Japan's low rates when you made a claim that having guns contributes to lower rates. I am simply asking you to finally answer instead of trying to get me to do something. So answer and admit you don't know.

And since your case is that strict gun laws lead to lower crime rates, perhaps you can explain why they have not in Britain.
I am still not talking about the UK. Please get that through your head.

Are you not reading ... let me put it in a single word: causation.

Prove a causal link between gun control and reductions in crime.
Prove a link between having guns and a reduction in crime.

I find it amusing when people not of the US say silly things like 'Americans must live in fear since they want to own guns'.

Nothing could be father from the truth. Gun ownership is about taking personal responsibility for your own protection, not about living in fear. It's about not thinking that Mother Government should always be the one protecting and caring for you.

It's also the failsafe on our Constitution. Many have referred to the 2nd Amendment as the 'reboot button' for the populace if faced with a tyrannical goverment. It is not just about hunting, sport, or self defense. It's about the people having real power and not just paper power. Don't believe it? Read the Federalist Papers then come back to the debate.

It's also the failsafe on our Constitution. Many have referred to the 2nd Amendment as the 'reboot button' for the populace if faced with a tyrannical goverment. It is not just about hunting, sport, or self defense. It's about the people having real power and not just paper power. Don't believe it? Read the Federalist Papers then come back to the debate.
That is STILL the stupidest reason for gun ownership out there.

I don't believe you.

I am not surprised. Do the research and find out.

Gun laws are? Right... So you would be in favour of the unrestricted sales of firearms to convicted felons then?

I never said that. Nice straw man.

The bottom line is that gun laws disarm law abiding citizens, leaving them easy prey to well armed criminals.

I am not permitted by law in any shape or form or substance , of any type or mode, any form of defensive weapon whatsoever.

If attacked, I have the legal right to try and outrun a fucking BULLET.

I want the right to keep and bear arms to defend myself and my family

That would strengthen the rights of the victims?

Google Timothy Nam.

He was attacked repeatedly by a mobster, who tried to kill him.The police did nothing.He used a gun to defend himself and was charged with murder.

What's wrong with this picture.??

We have magistrates that give killers of a taxi driver six years for murder and they are out in three.We have a revolving door policy with crims that get off lightly.,

Were a gang to kick down my door, rape my wife and try to murder me, I have no rights to self defence and if I use any form of deadly force including a knife, I go on trial.

Assaults and attacks on transport are CLIMBING, and there is no security.

Home invasions and rapes are becoming more common, all at gunpoint.

The criminals have the guns, the citizens do not.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-drawn-in-coogee-carjack/2007/05/05/1177788442877.html

Gun drawn in Coogee carjack

There are hundreds more.

Two teenage girls who boasted of killing a disabled Sydney taxi driver each have been jailed for at least three-and-a-half years.

Youbert Hormozi, 53, died of a heart attack after he was bashed by two 14-year-old girls on January 31 last year.

After refusing to pay the fare, they punched and kicked the father of two, whose left arm was paralysed by an earlier stroke.

The girls left him injured on a road in Canley Heights before stealing his taxi and crashing it some distance away.

Mr Hormozi died at the scene.

The Judge acknowledged that some members of the community and Mr Hormozi's family might consider the sentences too light but said it was important for both girls to have an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Justice McClellan sentenced both girls to a maximum jail term of six years and ordered they serve at least three-and-a-half years behind bars.

With time already served, the girls will be eligible for parole in August 2008.

That is STILL the stupidest reason for gun ownership out there.


It's the main reason we have a Second Amendment. Go ahead and research the debates and thinking going into the US Bill of Rights.

An unarmed population is very easy to deal with in whatever manner a Goverment chooses.

Blind trust in your Government is far more stupid than wanting the People to be able to defend their naturally given rights. Am I advocating an armed revolution? Not at all. I'm just explaining the historical context of why Americans in general feel it's their right to bear arms.

Of course, your brilliant counter arguement really has me on my heels (not).

It's also the failsafe on our Constitution. Many have referred to the 2nd Amendment as the 'reboot button' for the populace if faced with a tyrannical goverment. It is not just about hunting, sport, or self defense. It's about the people having real power and not just paper power. Don't believe it? Read the Federalist Papers then come back to the debate.
Right, right.

Exactly like none of you used in 2000, when your constitution was completely shat upon by a leader who stole power?

Yeah. Nice one.

Right, right.

Exactly like none of you used in 2000, when your constitution was completely shat upon by a leader who stole power?

Yeah. Nice one.


I was waiting for that kind of trolling. If anyone has trampled on our Constitution it is Congress, not the Administration. Both parties too.

However, this is another topic. I was merely pointing out various reasons why US gun culture is what it is. Funny how the anti gun crowd picks on only one part of the discussion and ignores the rest. Typical though.

From the NSW police.

A MAN armed with a sawn-off gun roamed the streets north of Sydney for seven hours before police managed to talk him into surrendering.

Police were called to a property in the Hawkesbury River suburb of Marlow at 3.30pm (AEST) yesterday after reports that a man carrying a sawn-off gun was walking around houses in an agitated state.

“Police evacuated a number of residents and other residents were told to stay inside their homes as police negotiated with the man,” a police spokeswoman said.

“Negotiators spent several hours negotiating with the man and he was arrested just after midnight,” the spokeswoman said.

Police found a shortened gun and ammunition, she said. A 49-year-old Wisemans Ferry man was charged with possessing an unregistered firearm, possessing ammunition, possessing a shortened firearm, unauthorised possession of an unlawful firearm and not keeping a firearm safely.

He was refused bail to appear at Parramatta Bail Court today.

I am not surprised. Do the research and find out.
Nope. Burden of proof is on you. Prove that not a single gun crime is done in Australia with a legally owned gun.


I never said that. Nice straw man.
Not a straw man at all. You attack "Gun laws", i.e. the laws banning criminals from legally buying guns. When attacking gun laws in general, you attack all restrictions. That means you will allow criminals, children and insane people to buy guns. That's the consequence of removing gun laws, innit.


What's wrong with this picture.??
Seems that you're upset about the prison- and sentencing system. You cannot use your example in a debate on gun control, as you have no indication whatsoever that a) the man would have bought a gun if he was allowed to, or b) that owning a gun would have saved his life.

Here is one of many stories of people successfully protecting themselves and their property with legally owned guns:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/04/21/entertainment/local/fb7e5313eff666a1862572c4000ec1a0.txt

I was waiting for that kind of trolling. If anyone has trampled on our Constitution it is Congress, not the Administration. Both parties too.

However, this is another topic. I was merely pointing out various reasons why US gun culture is what it is. Funny how the anti gun crowd picks on only one part of the discussion and ignores the rest. Typical though.
It's not trolling, it's just the truth.

If you have guns supposedly for the actual purpose of removing shitty and illegal leadership, then for what reason didn't George Bush get ousted from power within, let's say... 10 minutes?

You seem to have a reading problem

The bottom line is that gun laws disarm law abiding citizens, leaving them easy prey to well armed criminals.

I am not allowed to have a gun.If attacked by a criminal, they have a gun and I don;t.The gun laws do not have any effect on a criminal as he does not give a fuck what the laws say

That's why they are called CRIMINALS.

When attacking gun laws in general, you attack all restrictions.

I attack the restriction that says as a law abiding citizen with a perfect record I am not considered responsible to own a firearm for self defence.

In Australia, home defence or self defence is not considered a legal reason to own a firearm.

Seems that you're upset about the prison- and sentencing system. You cannot use your example in a debate on gun control, as you have no indication whatsoever that a) the man would have bought a gun if he was allowed to, or b) that owning a gun would have saved his life.


That means you will allow criminals, children and insane people to buy guns. That's the consequence of removing gun laws, innit.

I am a law abiding citizen with a perfect record. Not as much as a speeding ticket in my entire life.Tell me why I cannot be trusted with a firearm?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/02/1154198204577.html?from=top5

AFTER two days of terror, the farmer Timothy Nam killed a Sydney enforcer known as "No Thumbs" to save his family.

Yesterday, a Supreme Court judge ordered he be set free, questioning whether he should have been jailed in the first place.

Justice Adams gave him the minimum sentence, making him eligible for parole from today. He said the case was one of the most troubling he had heard and that Nam hardly deserved the reduced charge.

He expressed astonishment that police called to the isolated farm at the hamlet of Arthurville allowed Pestano and five other thugs to terrorise Nam, his partner, their baby and his parents, threatening to bulldoze their house, burn it down, bash them and rape the two women.[

I want the right to keep and bear arms for personal self defence.

Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and make them easy prey for well armed criminals.

TRUE OR FALSE??

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:

1. If we take away guns nobody will have them.
Do you really think that crimminals will obey that law? How many criminals have illegal guns anyway? If the guns are taken away from the criminals do you really think that they won't just make guns? All you need is a barrel, a combustion chamber, a projectile and propelant.

2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif

If violent crime has decreased, why are more people buying guns?

"It's safer than ever.. Now's the perfect time to defend ourselves!"

Here is one of many stories of people successfully protecting themselves and their property with legally owned guns:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/04/21/entertainment/local/fb7e5313eff666a1862572c4000ec1a0.txt

Come ON, you can do better than that! Of all the examples out there you choose that one?? Dear lord, please!

She successfully protected herself and her property just by showing up! The protecting part was over when she shot the tires and stopped them from getting away.

Seriously, if you're gonna do it do it properly. Link to the hot story about the man who shot the kid walking up his front porch and waving a gun, wanting to rob him. You know, this one. (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/cleveland_man_caught_in_gun_co.html) Geeze!

Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and make them easy prey for well armed criminals.

TRUE OR FALSE??
Absolutely false.

Because in states with harsh gun laws such as the UK, it's practically bloody impossible for criminals to be particularly well armed. They might have a couple of pistols around, but it's not like LA, where gangs are armed with AK47s.

Pistols are pretty dangerous indeed, but we have armed police who can sort such things out.

When criminals start being able to buy or steal automatic rifles with any kind of ease, that's when things go awry, and extremely quickly.



Plus it means that we don't have to deal with degrees of guilt - if there's a gun in your house and you're not a farmer, we're going to arrest you. That's it.

It's not "hmm well you've got a couple of bolt action rifles about, fair enough, but it seems you've got a burst-fire pistol, that just won't do, now we'll have a check for other stuff and we'll keep you in custody if we find much else".

You're just an outlaw.

It's the main reason we have a Second Amendment. Go ahead and research the debates and thinking going into the US Bill of Rights.

An unarmed population is very easy to deal with in whatever manner a Goverment chooses.

Blind trust in your Government is far more stupid than wanting the People to be able to defend their naturally given rights. Am I advocating an armed revolution? Not at all. I'm just explaining the historical context of why Americans in general feel it's their right to bear arms.

Of course, your brilliant counter arguement really has me on my heels (not).
I know where the second came from, but in today's world with today's technology, it makes very little sense. Even an armed population can be dealt with, easily as well.

Trying to say, well, 200 years ago when people stood in lines to fight and fought with the same rifles they went hunting with is the reason why we should have guns today makes for a very silly reason.

His cousin, Tameka Foster, 21, questioned why police refused to punish Buford's shooter. "They let that man run out freely," Foster said. "My cousin is dead."

I love this part.

Lemme finish it for him. Your cousin is dead because he was a scumbag who picked the wrong person to threaten.

His last mistake.

Come ON, you can do better than that! Of all the examples out there you choose that one?? Dear lord, please!

She successfully protected herself and her property just by showing up! The protecting part was over when she shot the tires and stopped them from getting away.

Seriously, if you're gonna do it do it properly. Link to the hot story about the man who shot the kid walking up his front porch and waving a gun, wanting to rob him. You know, this one. (http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/cleveland_man_caught_in_gun_co.html) Geeze!

The best stories of self defense with a gun are the ones where nobody gets hurt. It's also the majority of them. Had she had no gun, she would have been robbed. Nobody was injured. THAT is sucessful self defense.

I'm not at all opposed to gun laws. We have plenty of them now. What is lacking is enforcement and the fact that the gun charges almost always get plea baragained away. Let's enforce current laws before deciding if current regulations need to be tightened.

The best stories of self defense with a gun are the ones where nobody gets hurt. It's also the majority of them. Had she had no gun, she would have been robbed. Nobody was injured. THAT is sucessful self defense.

I'm not at all opposed to gun laws. We have plenty of them now. What is lacking is enforcement and the fact that the gun charges almost always get plea baragained away. Let's enforce current laws before deciding if current regulations need to be tightened.
Yeah. You know what else stops robbers?

Lights and sounds which suggest people are in the house - instead of buying guns, which might lead you to actually kill people - why not just leave the lights on a bit longer?

I am a law abiding citizen with a perfect record. Not as much as a speeding ticket in my entire life.Tell me why I cannot be trusted with a firearm?

You seem to have a reading problem
You seem to have a problem with communication and forming arguments.


I am not allowed to have a gun.If attacked by a criminal, they have a gun and I don;t.The gun laws do not have any effect on a criminal as he does not give a fuck what the laws say But they may reduce the presence and availability of guns, thereby reducing the number of criminals with guns.

That's why they are called CRIMINALS.
And criminals are just law-abiding citizens who have stopped abiding laws. So?


I attack the restriction that says as a law abiding citizen with a perfect record I am not considered responsible to own a firearm for self defence.
Then say so!

If you attack spesific gun laws, say which gun laws you are attacking. You seem to forget that gun laws are more than just the one law you're thinking of - and when you claim that gun laws - in general - are "the liberal meme" etc, then your ignorance is showing. And, indeed, you arre factually wrong.

Oh, and...
"All I want is a couple of guns and thanks to your f------ bill I will probably not get any! Come on, I'll have a clean record and I only want them for personal protection. It's not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree." Eric Harris, one of the Columbine killers, in his journal about the Brady gun law. (http://www.treasury.gov/usss/ntac/chicago_sun/find15.htm)

You might be responsible. Others may not.

I want the right to keep and bear arms for personal self defence.

Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and make them easy prey for well armed criminals.

TRUE OR FALSE??
False. Gun laws in general do no such thing. No regulation is no way to go.

And before you attack my "reading skillz" - Generalising is where you fail, so try to be more accurate.

I still don't get it. Why would anyone want to disarm people?

I understand and approve of the sovereignty of the local democratic process of the individual districts, to enact restrictions on the handling of firearms in public. They do cause a hell of a lot of accidents, and to be perfectly honest, if I saw some random civillian walking down the street with a gun on his person, I'd do my very best to incapacitate and likely kill him as fast as humanly possible. Who other than a murderous loon would walk around in public with a firearm, after all? I mean, the accident potential alone makes it a menace to public safety, and your autonomy stops when it infringes on the autonomy of others.

If you want to walk around armed, go live on a mountain. Indeed, if you're so fucking paranoid you need to wave guns at ther people, go live on a mountain. Nobody's forcing you to live among us big, scary humans.

Mesoriya, I think, asked which people I meant in my last post. I meant all people. The "law abiding" thing is bullshit, because it lets you neatly dodge certain types of accidents and crimes of passion - which are radically reduced by banning firearms (and big fucking surprise that is, considering how incredibly much more effective guns are at killing people than, say, butterknives). But do note I don't consider it a good reason to ban or restrict firearms. I'd think it wholly appropriate to ban people with very young children from having ammunition stored anywhere near their homes, but that's because kids are fucking stupid sometimes, and can't consent to living in a potentially lethal home. Then again, I don't have much of a clue about neither kids nor firearms, so it's not something I'd ever participate in deciding. I'm not Ted Tubes, after all.

I am a law abiding citizen with a perfect record. Not as much as a speeding ticket in my entire life.Tell me why I cannot be trusted with a firearm?
Because absolutely nobody can be trusted with a firearm, let's be honest.

If something goes tremendously wrong in your life and you're in a complete mental state (let's say your partner leaves you and burns all of the stuff that's yours that they can, before getting together with your best friend) then having some kind of deadly weapon around seems like a really crappy idea to me.

Lights and sounds which suggest people are in the house - instead of buying guns, which might lead you to actually kill people - why not just leave the lights on a bit longer?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Three-stabbed-in-Melbourne-home-invasion/2007/04/29/1177787950527.html

A man and two teenage boys have been knifed during a violent home invasion in Melbourne.

The three victims, aged 17, 25 and 15, were stabbed when a group of up to six men forced their way into a flat in Napier Street, Fitzroy at about 1.30am (AEST) on Sunday, police said.

The 17-year-old was stabbed in the stomach and leg, while the 25-year-old suffered a single stab wound to the groin.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/04/1177788344233.html

A man has been charged with the indecent assault of a seven-year-old girl after allegedly breaking into her home in the NSW far north-west.

A 28-year-old woman and her two children, aged seven and two, were asleep in their home in Pandora St, Lightning Ridge, when the mother awoke to find a man in her room at about 6am (AEST) yesterday, police said.

The man had got into bed with the seven-year-old girl before the woman confronted him, police allege.

He fled the house with some property, but returned a short time later and allegedly attempted to strangle the woman.

If I am an "outlaw" for wanting my right to keep and bear arms,then I am proud of it.

I join in the millions of voices in the USA who proudly and responsibly carry their weapons every single day.

The best stories of self defense with a gun are the ones where nobody gets hurt. It's also the majority of them. Had she had no gun, she would have been robbed.
No. She only pulled out the gun after they had said that they were leaving. It does not say they had taken anything that they would be leaving with.
Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing
...no charges of theft or attempted robbery or anything. Her mere presence was enough, a gun was not needed in that situation. Thus, a bad example.

I do agree with you that better enforcement of current laws are needed though.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Three-stabbed-in-Melbourne-home-invasion/2007/04/29/1177787950527.html
...

Here's the bit you missed -

None of the injuries were considered life threatening

Absolutely none of that whatsoever revolved around guns... that's also nothing to do with theft, none of them died, and if they'd have shot the person who invaded their home then it'd be one more person dead onto the total of loss already.

Because absolutely nobody can be trusted with a firearm, let's be honest.

You have got to be kidding me. :eek: :confused:

Sorry..I can't go on with this thread..I'm laughing too hard. Someone else handle this clown.

Absolutely none of that whatsoever revolved around guns... that's also nothing to do with theft, none of them died, and if they'd have shot the person who invaded their home then it'd be one more person dead onto the total of loss already.

And I would shed no tears at his passing.

And maybe the next bastard who thinks of a crime like this might remember what happened to the last guy who tried it, and do something else.

Yootopia, you're all about the rights of the criminal, and nothing about the rights of those they harm. You're a typical bleeding heart liberal, and that one comment of yours says that you treat everyone else as an idiot who needs to be "governed".

You have got to be kidding me. :eek: :confused:

Sorry..I can't go on with this thread..I'm laughing too hard. Someone else handle this clown.
Why, because you don't actually have a comeback?

Please explain to me, how's a tool actually designed to kill and intimidate ever going to be used responsibly?

That's simply not the point of it.

You have got to be kidding me. :eek: :confused:

Sorry..I can't go on with this thread..I'm laughing too hard. Someone else handle this clown.

I notice that you never commented on the quote by Eric Harris either...

Why should you be trusted over him?

Please explain to me, how's a tool actually designed to kill and intimidate ever going to be used responsibly?

Sure.Love to.

Go down to your local police station.

Or Marine recruiting station

Or Army base.

Or shooting club.

Or Olympic venue.

Why should you be trusted over him?

By that logic I should then have the right to take away your drivers licence, or ban you from ever having one. How can I trust you to use the car in a responsible manner?

I'm signing off to have dinner. I wont be back to this forum for at least a few weeks.

You're an idiot and I have better things to do.

By that logic I should then have the right to take away your drivers licence, or ban you from ever having one. How can I trust you to use the car in a responsible manner?

No, by following that logic we see that we do in fact have drivers licences and the right to take away the right to drive if you show that you can't or won't handle the car in a responsible manner.

I.e. "car control laws".

I'm signing off to have dinner. I wont be back to this forum for at least a few weeks.

You're an idiot and I have better things to do.

And you're a flaming poster who won't be missed.

[B]And I would shed no tears at his passing.
Right, well that's a shame, because they're a person too, even if they're a hugely fucked up one.

What they needed was some time in a mental hospital, because it's just wrong to launch home invasions and stab people, I can understand that.

Killing people is completely beyond the pale. In almost any circumstance.
And maybe the next bastard who thinks of a crime like this might remember what happened to the last guy who tried it, and do something else
Yeah. Interesting that buglaries and murders happen on a daily basis in the US when obviously, that's exactly what happens when there are guns around, isn't it?
Yootopia, you're all about the rights of the criminal, and nothing about the rights of those they harm.
Absolute crap.

I'm in favour of rehabilitation and, if need be, putting people in mental hospitals if they're buggered up enough to want to hurt society for fun.

For the people who steal out of desperation, then the obvious answer is to take away the poverty that causes such problems.

No point in killing people at all.
You're a typical bleeding heart liberal
And you're a classic gun-loving nutter. We're just two different people on this issue.
and that one comment of yours says that you treat everyone else as an idiot who needs to be "governed".
Right, right. No... wait...

I thought that you were in favour of enforcing gun laws. Sounds a lot like "governing" people, no?

As far as treating people like idiots is concerned - why the hell not?

People have proved to have done incredibly moronic things in the past, and whilst the human race might talk differently, might have running water and electricity, our basic needs are the same as ever, and the problems that can create are the same as ever.

When the solution throughout history has been to kill people for whatever reason, then if you've got weapons around, then it's going to happen.

Take the weapons away and it becomes a lot more difficult - so people don't bother, and they live their lives in a more responsible manner, because for the amount of energy it'd take to kill someone, it'd be just as easy to do something actually productive to sort your problems out.

Go down to your local police station.
Right, you know why they need guns?

Because other people have them, and they need to kill people because of them.

Fucking brilliant.
Or Marine recruiting station

Or Army base.
Because from time to time we fight with other people who we don't like much and they have guns, so we need to kill them.

Amazingly fucking responsible.
Or shooting club.
Ah, yes, the old joy of shooting at things for the sake of it - how's about doing something better with your life than that, like volunteering or playing pool?
Or Olympic venue.
5 more years for that, mate. And it'd be 200ish miles away regardless.

I'm signing off to have dinner. I wont be back to this forum for at least a few weeks.

You're an idiot and I have better things to do.
How's about address our points first and then piss off and never return, eh?

If we are discussing gun control in the US, its easy! The NRA are always going on about the constitution (and misquoting it!) Let the people have firearms from the period that the constitution was written, ie Kentucky Rifles! Meanwhile my gun smileys are having a war! :mp5: Budda! Budda! :sniper: POW! POW! :gundge: Eat this I gotta ray gun! Oh the humanity!

THE KINGDOM OF WARTOM BANNS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

We refuse to have any dealings with America, or any other country that allows guns! If a gun are seen inside the borders of my country, the wielder of the gun will be executed by falling into a trap filled with hot chocolate and rubber ducks!

:confused: :sniper:

Ah, the newbie posts. Cheers, now it'll be locked for posterity.

Is no one gonna throw their dummy out the pram over the gun smileys?

Is no one gonna throw their dummy out the pram over the gun smileys?
Meh. Seen it a million times before.

I mean "YOU BASTARDS!" :gundge:

Or something. I dunno.

In fact I bet people get more wound up over bloody silly sprites on this site than the effect of real guns on their society! Thats why the US will never have gun control.

How's about address our points first and then piss off and never return, eh?

Considering you'd just make some sort of comment on his newest post after he's left, it really wouldn't make much difference...

Right, you know why they need guns?

Because other people have them, and they need to kill people because of them.

Fucking brilliant.

Because from time to time we fight with other people who we don't like much and they have guns, so we need to kill them.

Amazingly fucking responsible.

Ah, yes, the old joy of shooting at things for the sake of it - how's about doing something better with your life than that, like volunteering or playing pool?

5 more years for that, mate. And it'd be 200ish miles away regardless.
The olympic shooting site for 2012 is about 800 yards from me in a straight line!

Considering you'd just make some sort of comment on his newest post after he's left, it really wouldn't make much difference...
Hmm a reasoned argument to me basically just being pissed off, eh?

Fair play.

The olympic shooting site for 2012 is about 800 yards from me in a straight line!
Err super.

Doesn't really make it particularly responsible. Couldn't we just put a roof on it and use it as The Official Olympic Pie-Eating Contest Hall?

[QUOTE=Free Pacific Nations
I join in the millions of voices in the USA who proudly and responsibly carry their weapons every single day.[/QUOTE]

Oh, good, go there and join them. Maybe one day one of them will accidentally shoot you while cleaning his gun. :) I'm an Australian and the only time i have ever seen a gun in real life is on the waist of a police officer. And that is exactly what i want. I don't want someone like you living next door to me

Free Pacific Nations; your a disgrace, how can an Aussie support the idea of giving everyone a tool designed from the ground up to end life? :(

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:

1. If we take away guns nobody will have them.
Do you really think that crimminals will obey that law? How many criminals have illegal guns anyway? If the guns are taken away from the criminals do you really think that they won't just make guns? All you need is a barrel, a combustion chamber, a projectile and propelant.
Legalise everything then, if we ban murder only criminals will commit murder etc. Laws do have to be enforced y'know.


2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.

Three types of lies, the third being statistics. We could discuss other countries where gun control is stricter and crime rates lower, or we could discuss the numerous other factors that could have contributed to the decrease.

Lastly, stop being so US centric.

The bottom line is that gun laws disarm law abiding citizens, leaving them easy prey to well armed criminals.

I am Australian, and we see gun crimes every single day.

And we have very strict gun laws.

NOT ONE of them was committed by a legal gun owner.So how does gun control stop gun crime? It doesn't.

All it does is make sure that you the citizen have no recourse to self defence.

In the situation that a LEGAL gun owner uses said firearm to defend himself ore his family, he or she is the one put on trial.

Gun laws are the liberal meme of the rights of the criminal outweighing the rights of their victims.
A mate of mine was one of the largest burglers in South Africa. The first place he looked after breaking in to a house was under the matress in the main bedroom for the pistol used as a "HOUSEHOLD DEFENCE WEAPON" He would steal it and sell it on to other criminals to shoot cops or other victims.
That is what happens to your guns you keep to defend your family. That or you comit suicide with it, a member of your family shoots another member of your family or your three year shoots themselves playing with it.

Err super.

Doesn't really make it particularly responsible. Couldn't we just put a roof on it and use it as The Official Olympic Pie-Eating Contest Hall?
Its called Woolwich Army barracks. Its full of anti aircraft missiles and sqaddies!:D

A mate of mine was one of the largest burglers in South Africa. The first place he looked after breaking in to a house was under the matress in the main bedroom for the pistol used as a "HOUSEHOLD DEFENCE WEAPON" He would steal it and sell it on to other criminals to shoot cops or other victims.
That is what happens to your guns you keep to defend your family. That or you comit suicide with it, a member of your family shoots another member of your family or your three year shoots themselves playing with it.

I like you. You're silly. :)

The olympics is full of war! Javalin! (spear chucking) Hammer throw,(chucking hammers at your enemy!) The Marathon! Running 26 miles to tell your people you've won a battle against the Persians

A mate of mine was one of the largest burglers in South Africa. The first place he looked after breaking in to a house was under the matress in the main bedroom for the pistol used as a "HOUSEHOLD DEFENCE WEAPON" He would steal it and sell it on to other criminals to shoot cops or other victims.
That is what happens to your guns you keep to defend your family. That or you comit suicide with it, a member of your family shoots another member of your family or your three year shoots themselves playing with it.

Err...You turned him in, right? Personally, this is, what, second-hand anecdotal evidence?

I like you. You're silly. :)

All too horribly true mate!;)

The olympics is full of war! Javalin! (spear chucking) Hammer throw,(chucking hammers at your enemy!) The Marathon! Running 26 miles to tell your people you've won a battle against the Persians

And curling!

... um... Nevermind. :p

Err...You turned him in, right? Personally, this is, what, second-hand anecdotal evidence?
He served time, got deported back to Blighty!

Lets face it, the olympic marathon would be much better if they had to fight a huge battle before they ran it!

I can never believe it when someone thinks it is a good idea to ban guns. I mean, do you really think that it would solve any problems? It would only disarm the innocent

as long as you put "in america" in that sentence, i'll agree with you

Its called Woolwich Army barracks. Its full of anti aircraft missiles and sqaddies!:D
Ah right :D

I've got a barracks about a mile away. It too is full of squaddies, and we've got a fair few Ghurkas too. As well as some Warrior AFVs and more trucks than you could shake a stick at.

Lets face it, the olympic marathon would be much better if they had to fight a huge battle before they ran it!
Wearing Hoplite kit and all :)

"argh no, my shield is heavy"
"yes, well you have to keep holding it, Persian horsemen could come at any time!"
"err argh"

as long as you put "in america" in that sentence, i'll agree with you

"I can never believe it when someone in america thinks it is a good idea to ban guns. I mean, do you really think that it would solve any problems? It would only disarm the innocent"

Agreed?

What part of pre-war (and post, but there were other things going on) Japan had much, much higher rates of murder and robbery (and more political assignations than western countries) than they do now that the ban is in effect are you not understanding? What part of only 19 gun deaths and 600 hand gun crimes are you not comprehending? If you can't get a gun, obviously you can't commit a gun crime.

You aren't getting it. I want to know how these laws stop criminals getting guns. I don't care how they stop ordinary, law abiding people getting guns.

You have not shown a causal link between the gun laws and the lack of gun crime because you have not shown, and so far refuse to show, that these laws affect the means of firearm acquisition open to criminals.

No, but we are talking about the national figures. Attempts to try and shift things around ain't going to work.

Actually, we're talking about the effect gun laws have on gun crime, therefore, the level we should talk on depends on where the legislation is made. If most is made on a sub-national level, with wide variations between the different jurisdictions (as in the US), then there is no case for using the national statistics, the statistics of the state in question are more relevant in terms of the effect of various regimes of gun control.

No, I asked you how to explain Japan's low rates when you made a claim that having guns contributes to lower rates. I am simply asking you to finally answer instead of trying to get me to do something. So answer and admit you don't know.

I don't have to show anything of the sort. You have have asked me to, but the burden of proof is upon you.

I am still not talking about the UK. Please get that through your head.

I am. I don't see how you can insist that I make your argument for you regarding Japan, while you won't even answer a simple question about the UK.

Prove a link between having guns and a reduction in crime.

Again, you are attempting to shift your burden of proof. You have so far refused to show how gun laws prevent gun crime, because you have refused to show how those laws affect criminals obtaining firearms.

Prove that "Gun control tends not to work in free societies."

If they did work, how can you explain the amount of gun crime in free socieities with gun control? The gun control should be preventing those crimes.

Not a straw man at all. You attack "Gun laws", i.e. the laws banning criminals from legally buying guns. When attacking gun laws in general, you attack all restrictions. That means you will allow criminals, children and insane people to buy guns. That's the consequence of removing gun laws, innit.

They get guns anyway. The fact that gun crime even happens shows that.

But they may reduce the presence and availability of guns, thereby reducing the number of criminals with guns.

No, it only restricts availability to the law abiding. It does not address the black market.

Because in states with harsh gun laws such as the UK, it's practically bloody impossible for criminals to be particularly well armed.

They don't need rifles, handguns will do, and these can be easily smuggled in.

How do the UK's harsh gun laws stop smuggling?

Free Pacific Nations; your a disgrace, how can an Aussie support the idea of giving everyone a tool designed from the ground up to end life?

Dry your eyes, princess. Guns have been part of Australian society, and a welcome part, for most of our history. It has only since we have allowed ourselves to be governed by a pack of lefty pantywaists that we have "needed" to be disarmed.

That is what happens to your guns you keep to defend your family. That or you comit suicide with it, a member of your family shoots another member of your family or your three year shoots themselves playing with it.

In the US alone, there are over 2 million instances each year of firearms being used to defend innocent people from criminals.

If they did work, how can you explain the amount of gun crime in free socieities with gun control? The gun control should be preventing those crimes.
Because gun control is not realistically about stopping all gun crime - that can't be done, the only way to stop it completely is to remove all guns. That won't happen.

So gun control is about reducing and limiting gun crime. Therefor I don't need to explain that crime does happen. What we should look at is the reduction of gun related crime. And in the free societies with good gun control laws, gun crime is low. Again, I refer you to Scandinavia.

And you still haven't proved "Gun control tends not to work in free societies."

They get guns anyway. The fact that gun crime even happens shows that.
Again, gun control does not equal gun ban, so some gun related crime will happen. And through illegal means some guns will reach the criminals. But the numbers are greately reduced when the accessability of guns is reduced.

No, it only restricts availability to the law abiding. It does not address the black market.
Actually, it does have an impact. But of course, resources would be needed to reduce the black market as well.


In the US alone, there are over 2 million instances each year of firearms being used to defend innocent people from criminals.
Actually, the numbers differ between 80,000 and two million. And those numbers include just saying "I have a gun" even if you don't.

They don't need rifles, handguns will do, and these can be easily smuggled in.

How do the UK's harsh gun laws stop smuggling?
By making it absolutely clear that if you do it, you're going to get shafted by the law sooner or later.

Which is quite a good deterrent, I'm sure you'll note.

So gun control is about reducing and limiting gun crime. Therefor I don't need to explain that crime does happen. What we should look at is the reduction of gun related crime. And in the free societies with good gun control laws, gun crime is low.

Of course, reduction means a change from a higher value to a lower one, and not just 'being low'. But whatev, eh? :P

"I can never believe it when someone in america thinks it is a good idea to ban guns. I mean, do you really think that it would solve any problems? It would only disarm the innocent"

Agreed?I don't agree.
I can believe it, because people are all too eager to force enforce their norms on each other.
I do think it'd solve a lot of problems, especially in the long run. I just think it's about as sensible as neutronbombing the henhouse to stop the fox stealing chickens.
And I don't think it'd only disarm innocents, though it depends slightly on what you mean by innocent.

... Whatever. I still think it's idiotic not to leave things like this to the individual districts/municipalities/communes or whatever the hell you call 'em. One Law will never fit all in this instance.

... Whatever. I still think it's idiotic not to leave things like this to the individual districts/municipalities/communes or whatever the hell you call 'em. One Law will never fit all in this instance.

The hell? Not even states rights, we've now got Counties-rights people?

Disarming whom? If you are talking about disarming law abiding civilians who intend no harm to anyone, then the effect, if any, will be negligable.

I agree with everything but this part. Hunting. that is the main reason that guns are purchased in the United states if I rember right. So why take away guns because a few people use them incorrectly?

Of course, reduction means a change from a higher value to a lower one, and not just 'being low'. But whatev, eh? :P

Reducing and limiting gun crime. Getting it low and keeping it low.

Looking at the reduction of gun related crime - compared to the past, and compared to present-day comparable societies.

I don't agree.
I can believe it, because people are all too eager to force enforce their norms on each other.
I do think it'd solve a lot of problems, especially in the long run. I just think it's about as sensible as neutronbombing the henhouse to stop the fox stealing chickens.
And I don't think it'd only disarm innocents, though it depends slightly on what you mean by innocent.

... Whatever. I still think it's idiotic not to leave things like this to the individual districts/municipalities/communes or whatever the hell you call 'em. One Law will never fit all in this instance.

So anyone who buys a gun is not innocent? What your saying is that guns have never done any good any were and if you touch one you automaticly should be deemed guilty of a crime?

The hell? Not even states rights, we've now got Counties-rights people?You misunderstand. I meant regulation should be a local matter, not your right to own gizmo X.

Three hermits on a hill will have radically different needs and concerns than three million suckers in a dense urban area. It won't, for example, have any significant consequences for the safety of the hermits, if one or more of them run around armed. The opposite is true of the three million city dwellers.

I don't give a fuck about your constitution, and I'm not gonna interfere with your legislation. I'm just offering an opinion. And it's a simple, obvious one. When your actions affect me, I get to have a say. Anything else is a violation of my rights.

You don't exist in a vacuum, and frankly, the gun-nut side of this debate is as idiotic and authoritarian as the control freak side. Both sides want to subjugate the other, and both sides whine about the other wanting to subjugate it. Hypocrisy of the highest order, but fascinating to watch.

Looking at the reduction of gun related crime - compared to the past, and compared to present-day comparable societies.

Hmm? Looking at what now? I don't see anything...Should I be looking for a graph or something?

How do we decide a 'comparable' society?

When your actions affect me, I get to have a say. Anything else is a violation of my rights.

Yup. You get to have a say as soon as someone makes to shoot you. How's that sound?

Hmm? Looking at what now? I don't see anything...Should I be looking for a graph or something?You could look it up. The burden of proof concerning what I was talking about lied with Mesoriya.

How do we decide a 'comparable' society?

How about "Western-style democracies"?

Hmm? Looking at what now? I don't see anything...Should I be looking for a graph or something?

How do we decide a 'comparable' society?

A society that has a very low crime rate and no guns that would work well for his argument.

How about "Western-style democracies"?

Vary immensely in factors that likely affect crime. Nay, we'd need to be more exact than that. More...scientific. Yes, that's it, we'll have a procedure, a control society...

Vary immensely in factors that likely affect crime. Nay, we'd need to be more exact than that. More...scientific. Yes, that's it, we'll have a procedure, a control society...

It would be nice to have some societies to experiment with :)

Hehe.

I don't understand why Americans are so keen on having guns all over the place. I mean, if I owned a gun, I'd store it at the shooting range/hunting lodge/whatever. You must be terribly scared, you poor, poor Americans. Perhaps you should consider fleeing to somewhere safer?


I'm not scared that other people may have firearms (not everyone who owns a firearm has one for self defense), and I like it where I am (except for the occasional problem of almost hitting deer with my truck).

It's not trolling, it's just the truth.

If you have guns supposedly for the actual purpose of removing shitty and illegal leadership, then for what reason didn't George Bush get ousted from power within, let's say... 10 minutes?


Um, Bush won the election by 5 electoral votes. Therefore, how was it illegal?

Absolutely false.

Because in states with harsh gun laws such as the UK, it's practically bloody impossible for criminals to be particularly well armed. They might have a couple of pistols around, but it's not like LA, where gangs are armed with AK47s.

Pistols are pretty dangerous indeed, but we have armed police who can sort such things out.

When criminals start being able to buy or steal automatic rifles with any kind of ease, that's when things go awry, and extremely quickly.



Plus it means that we don't have to deal with degrees of guilt - if there's a gun in your house and you're not a farmer, we're going to arrest you. That's it.

It's not "hmm well you've got a couple of bolt action rifles about, fair enough, but it seems you've got a burst-fire pistol, that just won't do, now we'll have a check for other stuff and we'll keep you in custody if we find much else".

You're just an outlaw.


Do you realize that Philip Luty (from England) made an open bolt submachine gun (with simple tools and materials) and wrote a book about how he accomplished it? He did it to prove that it wasn't impossible to get such a weapon in the UK.

THE KINGDOM OF WARTOM BANNS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

We refuse to have any dealings with America, or any other country that allows guns! If a gun are seen inside the borders of my country, the wielder of the gun will be executed by falling into a trap filled with hot chocolate and rubber ducks!

:confused: :sniper:


I'm gonna take a wild guess, and say you're on the wrong forum for that post. You probably wanted one of the 2 roleplaying forums, not the General forum.

Hope I've helped. :D

A mate of mine was one of the largest burglers in South Africa. The first place he looked after breaking in to a house was under the matress in the main bedroom for the pistol used as a "HOUSEHOLD DEFENCE WEAPON" He would steal it and sell it on to other criminals to shoot cops or other victims.
That is what happens to your guns you keep to defend your family. That or you comit suicide with it, a member of your family shoots another member of your family or your three year shoots themselves playing with it.


That's irresponsible firearms storage. My rifle has a trigger lock on it, which is stored in a locked case, which is stored in a locked safe. To fire my rifle, I need to know 2 different combinations, and have the correct key.

Of course, it helps that my safe is partailly obscured by a growing mound of dirty clothes (my room's a bit of a mess).

And through illegal means some guns will reach the criminals. But the numbers are greately reduced when the accessability of guns is reduced.

Again, the laws do not address the illegal means of moving firearms, only the legal means.

By making it absolutely clear that if you do it, you're going to get shafted by the law sooner or later.

No, because the law concentrates on those it can disarm readily (the law abiding), in the meantime, smuggling is not combatted.

In the case of the UK, nothing can stop smuggling because the UK lacks an effective international border that it can police (due to its EU membership). Guns come in overland from Eastern Europe, and because they never actually leave the EU, they cannot be inspected as they enter Britain.

You're still not making the fundamental connection that would allow the pro-gun-control argument to work: that is how it combats the illegal trade in firearms.

These laws do not do anything about thefts from the military etc.

Um, Bush won the election by 5 electoral votes. Therefore, how was it illegal?
Because many, many people in Florida who were Democrat voters were stopped from voting on fairly weak grounds. Which would have made the Dems win.

Hehe.

I don't understand why Americans are so keen on having guns all over the place. I mean, if I owned a gun, I'd store it at the shooting range/hunting lodge/whatever. You must be terribly scared, you poor, poor Americans. Perhaps you should consider fleeing to somewhere safer?

Maybe you should shut up *Takes swig of beer and bites into a fried chicken* before I empy all 5 of my 7.62x54s in that Un-American freedom hating brain of yours! *passes out*

Maybe you should shut up *Takes swig of beer and bites into a fried chicken* before I empy all 5 of my 7.62x54s in that Un-American freedom hating brain of yours! *passes out*

7.62x54Rs you mean... ;)

Here's the thing:

I keep a mosin-nagant (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/9/92/300px-Mosin-Nagant.jpg) in my room, with the ammo right next to it. I keep the bolt hidden though, so I don't need to hear from you guys how much of an irresponsible idiot I am, because I know I'm not.

Banning guns in the United States of American would do no gun because they are heavily intigrated into our society, and dispelling them is not realisticly possible.

However, if my guns are taken away, it's much harder for me to do the following:

Shoot cops
Shoot neighbors
Rob banks
Accidentally kill family members

So if guns are taken away from people who wish to do anything in the above list, then it would seem that things would be safer from everyone.

There's also the idea of actually wanting to own guns and/or kill people, which I must say America is full of in comparison to other developed nations.

All I use my rifle for is target practice and shooting up cacti when I get the chance.

I know I have absolutley no intention of killing anyone, but that's not the case for everyone.

Unfortunatly, these gun control threads are stupid, and the "WE HAVE TO OWN GUNS TO PROTECT FREEDOM!" people are never going to listen to logic, while the, "GUNS KILL EVERYONE! PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE EVIL!" are also not willing to listen to a well placed argument.

Of course, the people who actually deal with firearms (A small minority here) probably know that gun control is useless when I can get AK47s, AR15s and other assault rifles designed soley for the purpose of killing people at a gunshow with no backround check and no questions asked.

I'd have a problem if G-Men came and took my guns away, but that's only because as I said, guns are intergrated into my society.

If I lived in Scandinavia or Japan or something, I'd have no problem what so ever with not owning a gun.

Whatever though, I'll just let you guys keep bickering. :rolleyes:

Do you realize that Philip Luty (from England) made an open bolt submachine gun (with simple tools and materials) and wrote a book about how he accomplished it? He did it to prove that it wasn't impossible to get such a weapon in the UK.
Right.

OK, well your argument is utterly crippled in itself. He did it to prove that it wasn't impossible - exactly the issue.

People don't go around routinely doing so, mainly because the most armed up people are in our state is generally with pistols, outside of a few farmers with shotguns. If people aren't particularly well-armed, then people don't see a need to outdo their rivals with ever more dangerous weapons.

You're not going to get automatic rifles and SMGs floating about nearly as much in the UK, simply because there's no real need. If you have a single handgun, you are vastly better armed than the majority of the public here. So no need to try and have an upwards spiral of dangerous weapons.
Again, the laws do not address the illegal means of moving firearms, only the legal means.
Again, fairly rare, and the cargoes brought in aren't of a dangerous size. Negligible risk.
No, because the law concentrates on those it can disarm readily (the law abiding), in the meantime, smuggling is not combatted.

In the case of the UK, nothing can stop smuggling because the UK lacks an effective international border that it can police (due to its EU membership). Guns come in overland from Eastern Europe, and because they never actually leave the EU, they cannot be inspected as they enter Britain.
OK, well you're actually completely wrong. All cargo is checked as it comes into the state, no matter if it's from Paris or Praetoria, and since we run x-ray checks etc. then dangerous cargo is going to be checked - our customs service is pretty ruthless, and to be honest, you're not going to get much through.
You're still not making the fundamental connection that would allow the pro-gun-control argument to work: that is how it combats the illegal trade in firearms.
...

Well by there being very stringent laws, people aren't willing to take such risks in the trade as in other states. That's how it works.
These laws do not do anything about thefts from the military etc.
Just doesn't happen here - not enough army bases around and we defend our kit well, since we're always short. You'd be shot and pretty sharpish if you tried to nick anything from a barracks.

Here's the thing:

I keep a mosin-nagant (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/9/92/300px-Mosin-Nagant.jpg) in my room, with the ammo right next to it. I keep the bolt hidden though, so I don't need to hear from you guys how much of an irresponsible idiot I am, because I know I'm not.

Banning guns in the United States of American would do no gun because they are heavily intigrated into our society, and dispelling them is not realisticly possible.

However, if my guns are taken away, it's much harder for me to do the following:

Shoot cops
Shoot neighbors
Rob banks
Accidentally kill family members

So if guns are taken away from people who wish to do anything in the above list, then it would seem that things would be safer from everyone.

There's also the idea of actually wanting to own guns and/or kill people, which I must say America is full of in comparison to other developed nations.

All I use my rifle for is target practice and shooting up cacti when I get the chance.

I know I have absolutley no intention of killing anyone, but that's not the case for everyone.

Unfortunatly, these gun control threads are stupid, and the "WE HAVE TO OWN GUNS TO PROTECT FREEDOM!" people are never going to listen to logic, while the, "GUNS KILL EVERYONE! PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE EVIL!" are also not willing to listen to a well placed argument.

Of course, the people who actually deal with firearms (A small minority here) probably know that gun control is useless when I can get AK47s, AR15s and other assault rifles designed soley for the purpose of killing people at a gunshow with no backround check and no questions asked.

I'd have a problem if G-Men came and took my guns away, but that's only because as I said, guns are intergrated into my society.

If I lived in Scandinavia or Japan or something, I'd have no problem what so ever with not owning a gun.

Whatever though, I'll just let you guys keep bickering. :rolleyes:


I just went to a knife and gun show last month (in Durham, CT), and all the sellers were required to perform the NICS check for anyone purchasing a firearm.

I'm gonna take a wild guess, and say you're on the wrong forum for that post. You probably wanted one of the 2 roleplaying forums, not the General forum.
The sad part is that around here, he probably did mean this forum. ;)

Right.

OK, well your argument is utterly crippled in itself. He did it to prove that it wasn't impossible - exactly the issue.


How is my argument utterly crippled in itself? He took common materials, used common hand tools, and made a fully automatic weapon. He also wrote a book on it, which anyone (even in the UK) could buy, follow the direction of, and have their own open bolt submachine gun.

Basically, what he did shows that if someone is willing, they will get whatever weapon they need/want, regardless of the law (therefore, it's not practically bloody impossible for criminals to be particularly well armed). In a country where firearms are rare (and even the police don't have many), an open bolt submachine gun is well armed (IMO). Hell, even in a country where firearms are common (like the US), an open bolt submachine gun is well armed (again, IMO).

How is my argument utterly crippled in itself? He took common materials, used common hand tools, and made a fully automatic weapon. He also wrote a book on it, which anyone (even in the UK) could buy, follow the direction of, and have their own open bolt submachine gun.

Basically, what he did shows that if someone is willing, they will get whatever weapon they need/want, regardless of the law (therefore, it's not practically bloody impossible for criminals to be particularly well armed). In a country where firearms are rare (and even the police don't have many), an open bolt submachine gun is well armed (IMO). Hell, even in a country where firearms are common (like the US), an open bolt submachine gun is well armed (again, IMO).
Yeah, but the point of writing his book is to prove something. Not to recount any great deal of previous experiences involving such weapons. Just to prove that he could.

To me, that's why the argument falls down.

why are the pro gun people so paranoid?...

i mean seriously you guys sound like you live in a Iraq or Something, with roving death squads everywhere....

You aren't getting it. I want to know how these laws stop criminals getting guns. I don't care how they stop ordinary, law abiding people getting guns.

You have not shown a causal link between the gun laws and the lack of gun crime because you have not shown, and so far refuse to show, that these laws affect the means of firearm acquisition open to criminals.
Oh! I see. You want to know how Japan stopps folks from getting guns. Alright. In Japan if the police suspect you have a gun, they have the right to search and take it. And they do, last year the amount of guns taken was 204 (44% in the hands of gangs) this is down from a high of 1,396 in 1995 and includes air guns illgeally modified to fire bullets. Given that you cannget get a gun in Japan unless you have a signed licence from the police, you cannot get a handgun at all, period end of statement, the police have to know where your gun is at all times, the only way for criminals to get a gun is on the blackmarket, which Japan constantly cracks down on.

Again, very little guns, very little gun crimes. I don't know how much plainer I can explain that.

Actually, we're talking about the effect gun laws have on gun crime, therefore, the level we should talk on depends on where the legislation is made. If most is made on a sub-national level, with wide variations between the different jurisdictions (as in the US), then there is no case for using the national statistics, the statistics of the state in question are more relevant in terms of the effect of various regimes of gun control.
Nice try, you still can't get away from the US stats.

I don't have to show anything of the sort. You have have asked me to, but the burden of proof is upon you.
Bull, I aksed you to explain Japan's rates in face of your statement that gun control laws do nothing for the gun crime rate. I have shown that Japan has very tight laws and very low levels of gun crime, It's your turn to dance and answer the damn question or quit the field.

I am. I don't see how you can insist that I make your argument for you regarding Japan, while you won't even answer a simple question about the UK.
Say it with me now, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BLOODY UK! We are talking about Japan. If I wanted to talk about the UK, I would have mentioned the UK. Now will you PLEASE answer the question put to you?

Again, you are attempting to shift your burden of proof. You have so far refused to show how gun laws prevent gun crime, because you have refused to show how those laws affect criminals obtaining firearms.
I've shown repeatedly. Now answer.

I know where the second came from, but in today's world with today's technology, it makes very little sense. Even an armed population can be dealt with, easily as well.

1) Since when was sense involved with people's gut feeling? :p
2) Well, an unarmed populace is even EASIER to deal with.

Yeah, but the point of writing his book is to prove something. Not to recount any great deal of previous experiences involving such weapons. Just to prove that he could.

To me, that's why the argument falls down.


Actually, as I said when I first mentioned his name, Philip Luty's motivation to write the book (and in the process, make the firearm so he'd be able to take pictures for illustration), was to prove that it wasn't impossible to get those types of weapons, even in the UK.

Basically, he was trying to make a statement against gun control and show that banning/regulating certain firearms isn't foolproof.

why are the pro gun-control people so paranoid?...

i mean seriously you guys sound like you live in a Iraq or Something, with roving death squads everywhere....


The pro gun-control people? Are you talking about the people that want more laws, more firearms restricted/banned? Or did you mean to say, "the pro gun people" (the people that feel we have enough/too many firearms laws)?

The only reason I ask is, many people think that the pro-firearms crowd is paranoid, so I wanted clarification.

Actually, as I said when I first mentioned his name, Philip Luty's motivation to write the book (and in the process, make the firearm so he'd be able to take pictures for illustration), was to prove that it wasn't impossible to get those types of weapons, even in the UK.

Basically, he was trying to make a statement against gun control and show that banning/regulating certain firearms isn't foolproof.
*sighs*

We're taking this different ways. I'm taking it as "he did it to prove a point and that's that" whereas you're taking it in a kind of "he did it to prove a point, but I bet loads of people made their own kit by doing so, ner-ner-ner-ner-ner gun control".

That's all it is. Ideological differences.

Bull, I aksed you to explain Japan's rates in face of your statement that gun control laws do nothing for the gun crime rate. I have shown that Japan has very tight laws and very low levels of gun crime, It's your turn to dance and answer the damn question or quit the field.

Cross-country comparisons don't work. Switzerland and Israel have a much higher gun-to-citizen ratio then the US, and their crime rates are minuscule compared to everyone elses.

1) Since when was sense involved with people's gut feeling? :p
I just hate that argument. There are far, far better arguments for gun ownership out there and yet, this line of tought always gets trotted out even though it hasn't been a valid argument since the turn of the 20th century.

Cross-country comparisons don't work. Switzerland and Israel have a much higher gun-to-citizen ratio then the US, and their crime rates are minuscule compared to everyone elses.
Nope, sorry. I can't accept that because we have people on this thread trying to say that since the UK banned guns their gun crime rates have gone up and try to use Switzerland and Israel as good examples of why if everyone had a gun, crime rates would go down.

Yup. You get to have a say as soon as someone makes to shoot you. How's that sound?Sounds fine, as long as you don't mind me messing around with nerve gas whenever we meet in public.

Again, it's got fuck all to do with whether or not you decide you want gizmo X. It's about whether or not you're willing and able to act in a responsible manner in a situation with innocent bystanders. If you're not, you're infringing on their rights.

Whether or not you choose to live under circumstances that involves innocent bystanders, is completely in your hands. I couldn't care less if you hold a little shooting practice with your battle tank, as long as you're not putting people in harms way without their consent.

Again, you don't act in a vacuum. Your autonomy ends when it infringes on the autonomy of others. If you can't accept that, you shouldn't be around others. This is why regulations on things like firearms should be a local matter. Some guy in DC isn't affected by whether or not some other guy in the ass-end of Alaska goes for morning jogs with his bazooka. Letting one have a say on the regulations affecting the other, infringes on the autonomy of the other.

*sighs*

We're taking this different ways. I'm taking it as "he did it to prove a point and that's that" whereas you're taking it in a kind of "he did it to prove a point, but I bet loads of people made their own kit by doing so, ner-ner-ner-ner-ner gun control".

That's all it is. Ideological differences.

I don't bet (I used to work at a casino, so that kind of turned me off the whole concept). ;)


I guess ultimately what I'm saying is (in regards to the Philip Luty argument), the possibility is there if someone really wanted a firearm.

I guess ultimately what I'm saying is (in regards to the Philip Luty argument), the possibility is there if someone really wanted a firearm.Just like it's possible to rob a bank armed with nothing but Cup Noodles.

Doesn't mean either's widespread enough to be of any consequence ;)

I think it should be compulsory for every man, woman & child to not only own at least one gun, but to carry it on them at all times. That way we could shoot whomever we want, whenever we want.
Preemptive/proactive problem solving for the win! ;)

Again, I refer you to Scandinavia.Gun prevalency in Nordic countries is much higher than you make it, infact after USA and possibly Switzerland Finland and Norway have one of the highest guns per capita ratios in the world. Sweden isn't that far behind. Though, it's true that the Nordic countries do have strict controls about guns.

Guns don't kill people, it's people with guns that kill people...Or more accurately the gun culture, the ecstasy of violence and power - loving and craving the gun and the power it gives - that's the prime culprit. For example, in Finland (pop: ~5.5 mil, gun prevalency ~20-30%) the entire police force used a gun in 27 cases last year, in those 27 cases only 7 actual shots were fired, out of the 7 shots 3 were targeted and hit another human being, out of the 3 shots none were lethal.

I wouldn't ban guns, I'd educate people about the value of the lives of *other* people and how owning a gun should be a non-issue.


btw. If I had to ban certain guns I'd start with small guns like pistols and such: Concealed gun is much more dangerous than any rifle: If you see a guy armed with a rifle you can turn and run, with a pistol you can be ambushed anywhere anytime.

Just like it's possible to rob a bank armed with nothing but Cup Noodles.

Doesn't mean either's widespread enough to be of any consequence ;)

Ony Macgyver could rob a bank with a Cup-O-Noodles. I think he'd need a popsicle stick and a lens from a pair of sunglasses, too. :D

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:

1. If we take away guns nobody will have them.
Do you really think that crimminals will obey that law? How many criminals have illegal guns anyway? If the guns are taken away from the criminals do you really think that they won't just make guns? All you need is a barrel, a combustion chamber, a projectile and propelant.

2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif


Yea, the kids at columbine broke 19 gun laws... 2 more wouldn't have stopped them.

Hey all, late to the party, but enjoying the thread.

As an ante: it seems weird to me to talk about what banning guns (or banning handguns) would be like as if no one has ever done that.

There are many countries which largely ban guns. The result is basically the same in every country: no one has guns.

So the argument that criminals will somehow manage to have guns even if guns are banned isn't terribly strong for me. This isn't a hypothetical that where we have to construct a speculative model. We can just look at the results where it's been tried.

The outcome when serious (say, UK-style) gun control is laid down isn't that only outlaws have guns. It's that outlaws have knives. So the specter of heavily armed criminals in a country with no gun sellers doesn't compel me.

The way it works is this: if you outlaw guns, only the police will have them. That may sound wonderful to you; it may sound very ominous. But that's the issue we're really discussing.

We could probably reduce gun crime almost completely, but at the cost of giving the government a monopoly on firearms (a monopoly the Founders insisted the government ought not to have). What to do about that?

We could probably reduce gun crime almost completely, but at the cost of giving the government a monopoly on firearms (a monopoly the Founders insisted the government ought not to have). What to do about that?Doesn't matter. The state has the monopoly on the use of force. If it wants to come after you, it will. No amount of guns will avail you, and no amount of yelling "It's self defence" will make armed resistance against the state legal.

The only way to solve that problem is to get rid of the state. Besides, if you'd ever been in a riot, you'd appreciate just how fortunate it is that at least one of the parties don't have firearms.

Alright. In Japan if the police suspect you have a gun, they have the right to search and take it. And they do, last year the amount of guns taken was 204 (44% in the hands of gangs) this is down from a high of 1,396 in 1995 and includes air guns illgeally modified to fire bullets.

Netting 1400 guns is pretty pathetic, especially since it includes modified air guns. I would say that such tiny numbers shows a reluctance on the part of the police (quite understandable) to use that provision of the law.

Given that you cannget get a gun in Japan unless you have a signed licence from the police, you cannot get a handgun at all, period end of statement, the police have to know where your gun is at all times, the only way for criminals to get a gun is on the blackmarket, which Japan constantly cracks down on.

"Constantly cracks down on" and nets 1400 guns? Sorry, the facts and the rhetoric simply don't match. And let me remind you that criminals operating in the black market don't bother with licenses, and don't bother with informing the police about where their guns are.

Nice try, you still can't get away from the US stats.

Rubbish. The fact is that the overall national stats for the US tell us nothing regarding the effects of gun laws because the gun laws vary widely across the US.

If you want to do a comparison of strict gun laws vs. loose gun laws, the whole US is not useful because not all the US has loose gun laws, and not all the US has strict gun laws. If you were to refer to (for example) Vermont vs. Japan, you might have a point, but the US laws vary from being more strict than Japan (Washington DC for instance), to far less strict (Vermont for instance), so I can't see how the national stats for the US tell us anything about gun control, and you haven't made the case that they do.

Bull, I aksed you to explain Japan's rates in face of your statement that gun control laws do nothing for the gun crime rate. I have shown that Japan has very tight laws and very low levels of gun crime, It's your turn to dance and answer the damn question or quit the field.

I am not going to explain your argument for you.

Say it with me now, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BLOODY UK! We are talking about Japan. If I wanted to talk about the UK, I would have mentioned the UK. Now will you PLEASE answer the question put to you?

No, you are not in charge here. You do not define the discussion. You do not get to say what is in and what is out of the discussion. The UK's is relevant to any discussion of gun laws.

I am not going to have my posts defined by your orders. If you don't like that, don't post.

I am asking you about the UK, you can either answer, or we'll stipulate that you don't want to talk about the UK because it tends to rebutt your argument.

Again, fairly rare, and the cargoes brought in aren't of a dangerous size. Negligible risk.

Negligable to whom?

OK, well you're actually completely wrong. All cargo is checked as it comes into the state, no matter if it's from Paris or Praetoria, and since we run x-ray checks etc. then dangerous cargo is going to be checked - our customs service is pretty ruthless, and to be honest, you're not going to get much through.

Errm, most countries don't check all cargoes, they check a fraction of the containers coming in, and you are telling me that a member of a customs union checks every piece of cargo coming in from that customs union?

I call BS.

Your customs service can't do jack about people and cargo coming in from the EU, the EU forbids that, because you have freedom of movement within the EU, just as the US customs can't stop you taking stuff from Maryland to Virginia.

Well by there being very stringent laws, people aren't willing to take such risks in the trade as in other states. That's how it works.

They are willing to take it, the fact that guns are still coming in to the UK (perhaps the customs deliberately let them in, because, according to you, they search absolutely everything coming in, even though they have no business checking cargoes from the EU) shows that they are willing to take it.

Just doesn't happen here - not enough army bases around and we defend our kit well, since we're always short. You'd be shot and pretty sharpish if you tried to nick anything from a barracks.

Yeah, right. Did you know that both the PIRA, and the loyalist paramilitaries used stolen British arms (whether stolen by them, or by sympathisers)?

It does happen. It happens in most countries.

Once again, I call BS.

Netting 1400 guns is pretty pathetic, especially since it includes modified air guns. I would say that such tiny numbers shows a reluctance on the part of the police (quite understandable) to use that provision of the law.
No, it means that there just ain't that many guns in Japan. Because people don't have them. Sorry, thanks for trying to play.

*snip*
And pretty you CAN'T explain it, you don't want to try. And I can't say I am surprised.

You lose.

No, it means that there just ain't that many guns in Japan. Because people don't have them. Sorry, thanks for trying to play.

Nonsense. You have no firm evidence of how many guns are in Japan, both legal and illegal.

And pretty you CAN'T explain it, you don't want to try. And I can't say I am surprised.

You lose.

You are the one who argued that gun laws have a causal link to reductions in gun crime. You have so far refused to explain that, you have instead been blustering at me to explain it for you.

Why should I explain your arguments for you? If you won't explain your arguments, and insist that I do your work for you, then you lose.

If you want to argue that gun laws have a causal link to reductions in gun crime, then the burden of proof is on you. You must prove it. You have refused so to do.

Of course all the guns have been taken away in Japan and it reported 19 gun deaths last year. 19 for a country of 125 million people.

Oh, and of those, some 80% were gang related.

The guns aren't banned in Japan.
The fact is that the paperwork and examinations needed to obtain a gun license are so complicated (and requires a lot of time),then very few people owns guns there.
That's the real reason behind the low gun death rates in Japan.

Nonsense. You have no firm evidence of how many guns are in Japan, both legal and illegal.
You were one of those special children that needed the teacher's help on connect the dots, weren't you?

Why should I explain your arguments for you? If you won't explain your arguments, and insist that I do your work for you, then you lose.
Because all I ever asked you was how to you explain Japan's low rate of gun crime when Japan has a extremely low rate of gun ownership. Something you have constantly refused to do. Instead you keep going on and on and on and on about things that have no bearing on the question. Now answer the goddamned question or quit the field.

You were one of those special children that needed the teacher's help on connect the dots, weren't you?

When I hear someone say "ZOMG! They seized 1400 guns!", I think "big deal". The numbers of gun seizures you cited are pathetic, and you have refused to show me why that might be wrong. You have simply asserted that these numbers, which appear to be tiny, are in fact substantial, based on your fallacious argument that all the once-legal guns in Japan were seized.

Because all I ever asked you was how to you explain Japan's low rate of gun crime when Japan has a extremely low rate of gun ownership.

Why should I explain your argument for you? If you won't explain your own argument, don't come crying and bellowing to me for help. I am not going to help you make your argument, you will have to do that yourself. You've so far not done it. You have not shown that the gun laws actually lead to a substantial removal of criminal's firearms (only a pathetic number of street seizures), nor have you shown how these laws affect the black market (only claimed that the presence of such a law preempts the black marketeers).

I will now recapitulate one of Yootopia's points:

Well by there being very stringent laws, people aren't willing to take such risks in the trade as in other states. That's how it works.

Think about that. What he, and you (because you have used essentially the same argument) are saying is that because something is outlawed, dealing in that something becomes so risky enough that few consider it worthwhile dealing in it.

Has that ever been the case? Have government prohibitions ever created such conditions? No. Prohibition in the US, and drug prohibition in many countries have all failed to create the conditions of risk that you and Yootopia claim gun laws create.

That places another burden of proof upon you, to show why gun laws are so different to drug laws, and the old alcohol prohibition that the conditions of risk for dealing not created by drug laws and prohibition, are present where gun laws are concerned.

Ony Macgyver could rob a bank with a Cup-O-Noodles. I think he'd need a popsicle stick and a lens from a pair of sunglasses, too. :D

And duct tape. *nod*

I am asking you about the UK, you can either answer, or we'll stipulate that you don't want to talk about the UK because it tends to rebutt your argument.
Well since he doesn't live in the UK, how the fuck should he know much about it?

That's like me quoting Cambodian hunting laws or something - I don't actually know about them because I'm not being continually updated, like I am with British law.
Negligable to whom?
Errr the general populace.

It's very, very rare for shooting sprees etc. to happen in the UK. Can't even think of the last one (Ireland isn't in the UK, remember that).

On the other hand, the last year in the US has been kind of chaotic, eh?
Errm, most countries don't check all cargoes, they check a fraction of the containers coming in, and you are telling me that a member of a customs union checks every piece of cargo coming in from that customs union?

I call BS.

Your customs service can't do jack about people and cargo coming in from the EU, the EU forbids that, because you have freedom of movement within the EU, just as the US customs can't stop you taking stuff from Maryland to Virginia.
OK, well you're basically completely wrong on this one.

We can check anything we like, and we do indeed check everything as far as possible, with X-rays and Infra-red scans (basically to cut down on illegal immigration). We can't stop you taking stuff unless it's over the customs allowance, or if there's anything suspect over there, so very little cargo is stopped. But almost all of it is checked.

We might not ostensibly be supposed to, but it happens.
They are willing to take it, the fact that guns are still coming in to the UK (perhaps the customs deliberately let them in, because, according to you, they search absolutely everything coming in, even though they have no business checking cargoes from the EU) shows that they are willing to take it.
Gun prevalence in the UK is tiny and you know it.

Some things will slip through the net at Customs, and we can't constantly patrol our borders, because they're bloody huge (by sea).

But that doesn't mean that we've got a society full of unlicensed and illegal weapons. Absolutely not.
Yeah, right. Did you know that both the PIRA, and the loyalist paramilitaries used stolen British arms (whether stolen by them, or by sympathisers)?
Err "well funded terrorist groups, with overseas help (US for the PIRA, Britain for the UVF et al.) is surprisingly well armed shock"

Plus at the time when the real troubles started (the 1970s into 80s), Britain already didn't have any kind of juristiction over Ireland's affairs - the fact that they were bought AR-18s by the CIA and other sympathisers and then had them shipped in whilst the Irish government did fuck all about it kind of shows a lack of willingness to try and stop what was essentially a private army. Quelle surprise. If it had been cracked down on too far, it would have gone mental.

And anyway, almost all of their weapons have been melted down, so that one's basically sorted itself out.

As for the various UVF/UDA type groups, they had hardly any weapons, and were of a smaller scale than the IRA groups, and again, they were helped by foreign sympathisers.

Again, they're laying their weapons down and they're probably going to be melted down pretty sharpish - problem solved, eh?

Now gangs or whatever are what's hard to actually sort out by the police (you can't just intern people like we did in Ireland), but seeing as they don't have the kind of foreign support needed for large amounts of weapons, they're not nearly so well armed as their American (see the various mafias), Italian or Russian bretheren.
It does happen. It happens in most countries.

Once again, I call BS.
And once again, I say "you just don't have a clue".

where i aggree with the nra is that:
there is only one effective way to control guns and that is to not produce them.

where i disaggree wtih the nra is that:
not producing them sounds like a damd good idea to me.

guns do make a wide variety of criminal activities easier and to many people, who would otherwise not even consider them, more tempting.

same goes for governments, agencies of governments, and people who might wish to become or replace governments.

having them in this world is a bad scene all arround.

and they always put the honest citizen at a disadvantage.

as for hunting, there's already more of us, then there is of anything you can eat that you could kill with one, other then on a feedlot maybe.

there really is no good sense to any of the arguments for continuing to manufacture them.

=^^=
.../\...

Think about that. What he, and you (because you have used essentially the same argument) are saying is that because something is outlawed, dealing in that something becomes so risky enough that few consider it worthwhile dealing in it.

Has that ever been the case? Have government prohibitions ever created such conditions? No. Prohibition in the US, and drug prohibition in many countries have all failed to create the conditions of risk that you and Yootopia claim gun laws create.

That places another burden of proof upon you, to show why gun laws are so different to drug laws, and the old alcohol prohibition that the conditions of risk for dealing not created by drug laws and prohibition, are present where gun laws are concerned.
Hmm, fair enough.

In the UK (because I know about that, rather than the US), private arms have never been a particularly common thing to own, at any stage.

This means that it's not ingrained in our culture, and we don't have what I'd term a cultural addiction to weaponary. What I mean by a cultural addiction is that it hasn't been ingrained on us that we should have weapons around, to the extent that when without them, things feel particularly different.

On the other hand, amusing yourself with alcohol has been, and will continue to be, a cultural part of the British nature. Since Anglo-Saxon times we've been going to pubs and getting pissed with our mates, maybe having a fight on the way back home, but nothing too serious.

Drugs are basically and extention of alcohol, but for when times are really fucking bad, and for the same reason, they have been used in the past basically forever, and will be, basically forever.

That's because both of these things are what keeps us alive as humans, when times are so bad that we'd otherwise kill ourselves - they're survival mechanisms, like eating, breathing and...err... masturbation.

On the other hand, guns are basically around as a device to go out and kill other people, or threaten them. Maybe some people use them for hunting, yeah, but in the cities, that's an amazingly crappy excuse. In the UK at least, guns aren't a part of everyday life, and it's actually very surprising to see people with guns at all (our police don't carry them as standard, and short of cycling through the barracks, I've never seen one in my live otherwise).

So basically, you get 2 sets of needs - one is constant, the need to keep oneself alive by amusing yourself, and that's where drink and drugs come into it. There's no way you can stop people from needing to amuse themselves, we'd be bloody miserable and probably suicidal were that to be the case.

So what do people do when deprived of a basic need?

Try even harder to get some kind of relief from it. That's why you saw people going to Canada for a drink, that's why you saw people brewing tremendously dangerous stuff up and that's why you saw vast amounts of illicit alcohol being shipped in from overseas.

Because they basically needed it, and it was a part of their culture.

The same pretty much goes for drugs - whenever one chemical is banned, people just make something fairly similar, if more dangerous - see Magic Mushrooms / LSD for a great example.

Yeah, fine, casual drug abuse isn't ostensibly a part of our culture, but that doesn't mean that people don't need to keep themselves amused, and when things get rough, then there's not much better than drugs to just forget about it all for a few blissful hours.



Guns, on the other hand, aren't a part of UK culture, because we see them as implements to kill other people with, and that's just the way it is. We don't actually want to be able to play at being God if a robber breaks in, there's no need for it. It just causes unnecessary anguish for everyone involved.

Guns aren't actually around for any particular basic need any more. Yeah, fine, 200 years ago some pioneer or other may have wanted to shoot a deer so that his family could eat. Woo-fucking-hoo.

Nowadays you could just go to the shops and buy a pizza to quell the same hunger. No need for guns in that.

Yeah, sure, 230 years ago, we British were taking our land back. Yep, you probably did need to shoot at us back then, we were being a bit stupid.

But you know what - your nation hasn't been substantially invaded... well... ever since. So I don't really see why you need guns around for that.

Or at all any more.

The same pretty much goes for drugs - whenever one chemical is banned, people just make something fairly similar, if more dangerous - see Magic Mushrooms / LSD for a great example.

Please explain that.

Well since he doesn't live in the UK, how the fuck should he know much about it?

He doesn't live in Japan either, yet he claims to know exactly how their gun laws affect it.

We can check anything we like, and we do indeed check everything as far as possible, with X-rays and Infra-red scans (basically to cut down on illegal immigration).

No country checks every single container to enter its borders, no country can afford to (unless it does practically no trade, which obviously does not apply to the UK). Not even the countries with the right to restrict their own borders (which Britain does not effectively have).

I'm going to need some real evidence that the UK can check its own borders for things coming in from the EU (because in a Customs Union, the border security is only as strong as that in the weakest country).

As for the various UVF/UDA type groups, they had hardly any weapons, and were of a smaller scale than the IRA groups, and again, they were helped by foreign sympathisers.

The loyalists, and the PIRA did steal, or have stolen for them, British Army weapons. It did happen, especially in the context of the loyalists.

Now, if the MOD could not even secure all the weapons in Ulster (which ought to have had the most secure bases in the British Isles), then how could they have totally secured the rest of the UK?

Once again, you said thefts from the MOD never happened. They did happen, they even had inside help.

Please explain that.
A lot of people used to do magic mushrooms because they were basically legal, and then they were banned and people started using LSD (until that got banned, too), which was even more dangerous.

snip

That rant didn't actually address anything. It was nothing more than a long, incoherent drone on something not at all related to your argument.

Let me recap your argument: Gun laws create a sufficient element of risk to ensure that the benefits of black market gun trading are outweighed by the risks.

Now, there is a demand for guns for criminals in the UK, it is not as generalised, but it is significant. You have not shown how the laws create that element of risk that would prove your argument.

And duct tape. *nod*


Doh! I always forget the duct tape. :(

A lot of people used to do magic mushrooms because they were basically legal, and then they were banned and people started using LSD (until that got banned, too), which was even more dangerous.

LSD was synthesized by Albert Hofman in 1938, and was legal until it was scheduled in 1971 along with Psylocibin Mushrooms (which until that point also been legal). So the popularity of LSD cannot be attributed to the criminalization of Psylocibin Mushrooms.

He doesn't live in Japan either, yet he claims to know exactly how their gun laws affect it.
"Amerika-jin in Nagano-ken, Japan"

Nice one there, shit-for-brains!
No country checks every single container to enter its borders, no country can afford to (unless it does practically no trade, which obviously does not apply to the UK). Not even the countries with the right to restrict their own borders (which Britain does not effectively have).

I'm going to need some real evidence that the UK can check its own borders for things coming in from the EU (because in a Customs Union, the border security is only as strong as that in the weakest country).
OK, well you're either immensely stupid, or just don't listen.

It might ostensibly be a customs union, but we check everything that we can (which is a LOT), especially coming in by the Eurostar, due to illegal immigration and all, which we're trying to combat.
The loyalists, and the PIRA did steal, or have stolen for them, British Army weapons. It did happen, especially in the context of the loyalists.
The loyalists were mainly actually given weapons by British forces because they knew they'd help them.

I wouldn't call that stealing, but you might.
Now, if the MOD could not even secure all the weapons in Ulster (which ought to have had the most secure bases in the British Isles), then how could they have totally secured the rest of the UK?
Err maybe they found it kind of hard to secure their bases because they were surrounded almost entirely by hostile forces?

In the rest of the UK, people don't feel any need to go out and nick a couple of L1A1s (70s and 80s Ireland) or SA80s from army bases, because they don't have anything in particular to do with them.

On the other hand, if you're leading a guerrila group, then it's kind of imperative to get weaponary and a fair few bullets around.

So you're always prowling around the bases, working out the weak points, waiting until some new private blunders into an easy trap and loses his gun or whatever.

That's why it's different to everywhere else.
Once again, you said thefts from the MOD never happened. They did happen, they even had inside help.
For the UVF and UDA at least, it wasn't theft, it was more donations that anything esle.
That rant didn't actually address anything. It was nothing more than a long, incoherent drone on something not at all related to your argument.

Let me recap your argument: Gun laws create a sufficient element of risk to ensure that the benefits of black market gun trading are outweighed by the risks.

Now, there is a demand for guns for criminals in the UK, it is not as generalised, but it is significant. You have not shown how the laws create that element of risk that would prove your argument.
OK, well it actually did address everything, you're just being a cretinous fool, you just asked me a different question.

Has that ever been the case? Have government prohibitions ever created such conditions? No. Prohibition in the US, and drug prohibition in many countries have all failed to create the conditions of risk that you and Yootopia claim gun laws create.

That places another burden of proof upon you, to show why gun laws are so different to drug laws, and the old alcohol prohibition that the conditions of risk for dealing not created by drug laws and prohibition, are present where gun laws are concerned.

That's what you asked, that's what I answered, whether you choose to accept your own failings or not, that's up to you.

It wasn't about having a rant, it was about proving why there isn't a need for guns in the UK to the extent that there is a need for drugs / alcohol and hence why there isn't the perceived need for firearms in the same way that there is in the US.

Which is why our gun laws are easier to enforce, because a significantly smaller part of the public is wont to actually care about the issue enough to buy a weapon, so demand is smaller, and hence the supply falls as a result.

LSD was synthesized by Albert Hofman in 1938, and was legal until it was scheduled in 1971 along with Psylocibin Mushrooms (which until that point also been legal). So the popularity of LSD cannot be attributed to the criminalization of Psylocibin Mushrooms.
Different laws in the UK, which is what I was talking about ;)

Different laws in the UK, which is what I was talking about ;)

LSD was actually made illegal the same year in the UK as it was in the US. But Psylocibin Mushrooms weren't criminalised until 2005.

LSD was actually made illegal the same year in the UK as it was in the US. But Psylocibin Mushrooms weren't criminalised until 2005.
Depends on how you take them, and if you're seen drying them in your window, I can remember even in 2002, when I was having my first drugs education lessons we were told they you'd be sorted out by the police.

IIRC I think they were banned in 1971, which would lead to me still being quite wrong on the issue, but it was at the same time that they were banned, checking again.

Depends on how you take them, and if you're seen drying them in your window, I can remember even in 2002, when I was having my first drugs education lessons we were told they you'd be sorted out by the police.

IIRC I think they were banned in 1971, which would lead to me still being quite wrong on the issue, but it was at the same time that they were banned, checking again.

Fresh mushrooms used to be legal, not so anymore under the new law your wonderful government passed under the guise of protecting the populace.

http://erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_law14.shtml

Nope, sorry. I can't accept that because we have people on this thread trying to say that since the UK banned guns their gun crime rates have gone up and try to use Switzerland and Israel as good examples of why if everyone had a gun, crime rates would go down.

So two wrongs make a right. I see how you think now.

They are mistaken to cite other countries when states that adopted lax gun laws here in America prove the point just fine. Vermont being the best example with having no gun laws save for the federal ones. Most states saw a substantial decline in the overall crime rates, with violent crimes dropping the most. While cities with harsh and restirctive gun control laws like Washington D.C., Chicago, Detorit and Los Angeles make up the majority of all the violent crime in America. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule no matter where you are.

Though to my knowledge since England outlawed owning pistols and such, their crime has gone up. Or perhaps it was gun offenses went up. I don't quite remember which the statistic was on. Either way it ended by saying you are 10 times more likely to get mugged in London than New York City. That report was a bit old. I think it went back to 2003 so things could be different now. Though I know over there parents are buying vest for their kids to help absorb or lessen blows from knives. I guess knife violence over there is so bad that soon they may outlaw owning those.

Everyone should have guns, sure the criminals will have guns too, but they would have guns anyway, and if somone mugs you you pop him in the head..everyone should have guns.

No, he pops you in the head! You are (hopefully) a law abiding citizen. Killing other people is not normal for you. The armed forces take months of hard training to make soldiers able to kill. Even then there is a percentage of troops who aim to miss or to wound. This is because they are not psychopaths. Gun toting villians tend to be psychopathic to a certain extent and have less problems with shooting other human beings. You or I would tend to freeze. Don't kid yourself that you are a hardened killer.

A lot of people used to do magic mushrooms because they were basically legal, and then they were banned and people started using LSD (until that got banned, too), which was even more dangerous.

You ever done either? LSD is a great laugh, opens your mind to art and music and gives you nine hours of the giggles! But the worst trip I've ever had was on magic mushies. Complete and total amnesia for about 20 mins. Fucking scary!

t might ostensibly be a customs union, but we check everything that we can (which is a LOT), especially coming in by the Eurostar, due to illegal immigration and all, which we're trying to combat.

Your illegals enter in shipping containers?

The loyalists were mainly actually given weapons by British forces because they knew they'd help them.

I wouldn't call that stealing, but you might.

It is stealing, the Britons who gave them the arms stole them in this case. I never excluded inside jobs.

For the UVF and UDA at least, it wasn't theft, it was more donations that anything esle.

As I said before, I never excluded inside jobs.

OK, well it actually did address everything, you're just being a cretinous fool, you just asked me a different question.

No. I asked you all along what difference existed between gun laws and drug laws that created a risk in trading.

You may have misinterpreted the question, but I have always focussed on the risks in trading.

It wasn't about having a rant, it was about proving why there isn't a need for guns in the UK to the extent that there is a need for drugs / alcohol and hence why there isn't the perceived need for firearms in the same way that there is in the US.

The difference in demand does not create the risk in trading.

Actually, people did mushrooms 'cos they were basically FREE. if we get a wet September, Wales is covered in 'em!

Your illegals enter in shipping containers?



It is stealing, the Britons who gave them the arms stole them in this case. I never excluded inside jobs.



As I said before, I never excluded inside jobs.



No. I asked you all along what difference existed between gun laws and drug laws that created a risk in trading.

You may have misinterpreted the question, but I have always focussed on the risks in trading.



The difference in demand does not create the risk in trading.

It was'nt stealing. The Government gave weapons to the Loyalist paramilitarys. And told 'em which IRA members to shoot! I really have no problem with that!

And while we are talking about Ulster, can anybody from the states explain in the light of the "war on terror", why there are still millions of your citizens free who gave money to NORAID to support terrorism in Northern Ireland? Should they not be in Camp Delta dressed in orange boiler suits?

And while we are talking about Ulster, can anybody from the states explain in the light of the "war on terror", why there are still millions of your citizens free who gave money to NORAID to support terrorism in Northern Ireland? Should they not be in Camp Delta dressed in orange boiler suits?

If you want the hard truth it's because it didn't directly affect United States interests, or result in the death of US citizens.

'Thought so!:rolleyes:

Its called"HYPOCRICY"

Here's a post I made at another site on the subject in response to a gun rights advocate:

Your claims don't mean anything without numbers. Quaint anecdotes don't mean anything. (Gee, a bobby gets shot at by a gun collector, and escapes with a hole in his hat? That's anarchy there. I could find you many more anecdotes about US cops randomly shot to death at traffic stops; those stories are too depressingly common to make much news.)

There's still gun violence in countries without guns? Sure; nothing guarantees an absolute zero. But the difference in gun crime rates is very, very large.

I got these numbers from http://fleshisgrass.wordpress.com/20...te-and-weapon/

They, helpfully, cite their sources and use recent stats:

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

_________________________

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006a). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Long-term trends. Available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid.../totalstab.htm.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2006). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.. Weapons used. Available from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...weaponstab.htm

Home Office (undated). ‘Homicide’ - long-term national recorded crime trends. Available from: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp.


So, you'll see that even when we allow for the larger US population, the number of handgun murders in the US is much larger than that of ALL murders in Britain. I had a very hard time finding data for murders committed with a gun in the UK. It's not a much-discussed stat, for reasons that should become clear.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

There were 50 shooting victims [i.e. gun-related homicides] in 2005/06 compared to 75 in 2004/05.

The July 7 bombings accounted for 52 (7%) of homicide victims.


Note that the July 7 bombings killed more people than handguns did in Britain for that entire year.

I'll give you a freebie and use the 75 gun murders in 2003-4; let's compare that to the 10,654 murders in the US in 2004.

Let's multiply the 75 UK murders by 5 to reflect the different population size (but note again that the rounding here minimizes, rather than exaggerates, the difference, since the US population is a hair less than 5 times the UK's):

That gives us 375 murders to 10,654.

375.

10,654.

Please note that the US figure has five digits and the adjusted UK number still has three.

Note also that we can subtarct the whole adjusted UK figure from the US figure, and the US figure still looks almost the same: 10, 279.

And if you're curious, the 75 gun murders make the firearm murder rate in Britain about .11 per 100,000 people. The rate of firearm murders in the US works out to about 2.81 per 100,000 people.


Here's the British Home Office again, embarrassed that gun crimes are rising. But that's relative: it's a percentage rise of a small total. (Gun crimes have in fact doubled in Britain since the mid nineties: from a tiny, tiny fragment of American gun crime to two tiny, tiny fragments.) And the fact remains that:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-v...ime/gun-crime/

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.


Some years, that means 0.4%. On a better year, it's like 0.17%.


That's all I have time to reply to right now. I'll catch up with the rest of your post over the weekend. But I would urge you to be careful with your tone. If you're going to argue from the position that your opponents are absurd and have no factual basis for their claims (and I'd suggest that such a position is always risky and unpleasant), you should be ready to back yourself up much, much better than it seems you are.

http://www.serve.com/pfc/misc/collusion2.html#theft

WEAPONS THEFTS RECORDED IN EVERY COUNTY

THE 'half-truths' presented to politicians are all the more shocking when set against yet another document listing how army guns were passed to loyalists.
The document entitled 'Subversion in the UDR', detailed in yesterday's Irish News, revealed how loyalists launched major weapons raids on army bases in 1972/73 with the help of soldiers.

But in addition to this document, a separate file shows how military officials recorded the loss of small amounts of weapons at locations in every county in Northern Ireland.

The losses usually involve single weapons - one officer calculating them on the back of a page, as pictured.

A total of 64 weapons - mainly semi-automatic rifles - were recorded as stolen from UDR members. The author fills out a 'comment' box for each case and in 23 cases collusion was suspected.

The comments written for these cases include remarks such as:

- "UDA Portadown believed responsible. Possible collusion with unknown member of unit."
- "Three armed masked men took two UDR soldiers' weapons whilst sitting in their car outside their home. One soldier's son is known to be member of the UDA."
- "Car stopped by armed men. Weapon taken. One of the men seemed to know soldier. Possible collusion, but maybe coercion as children were in the car at the time."

In the majority of cases the weapons went to loyalists - but two thefts are blamed on republicans. In one of these, the IRA brutally murdered UDR member Tommy Fletcher who was taken from his Fermanagh farmhouse in front of his wife and shot 14 times in a nearby field.

Like I said: theft. Inside theft, and its begs another question to the gun control fanatics: how do gun laws prevent corruption in the various security forces.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980327/text/80327w01.htm

Even the government admits that theft goes on.

Also, the blithering that Yootopia has done about the PIRA's sources of arms begs yet another question: why did the strict gun laws not prevent any of that.

Bear in mind that the weapons favoured by the PIRA (SMG's, automatic rifles) have been illegal in Britain for decades, and not offered for routine civilian sale.

So, you'll see that even when we allow for the larger US population, the number of handgun murders in the US is much larger than that of ALL murders in Britain. I had a very hard time finding data for murders committed with a gun in the UK. It's not a much-discussed stat, for reasons that should become clear.

Sorry, you don't seem to have been reading the thread. Treating the US as monolithic with regard to gun laws is simply dishonest, because gun laws vary widely across the US, they vary from state to state, and even within a state. They go from more strict than Britain (Washington DC, for example), to extremely liberal (Vermont, for example)

As has been said before, the worst areas in the US for violent crime as also those areas with the most strict gun laws.

Gun crimes have in fact doubled in Britain since the mid nineties

And gun laws have gone from extremely strict, to downright tyrannical in that time.

As has been said before, the worst areas in the US for violent crime as also those areas with the most strict gun laws.
Complete and utter bullshit!! :p

As has been said before, the worst areas in the US for violent crime as also those areas with the most strict gun laws.
Cause, effect, or coincidence? It could very well be that it's the heightened violent crime that makes people more willing to enact strict gun control laws, rather than strict gun control laws causing an increase in violent crime.

:headbang: :mp5:

Of course all the guns have been taken away in Japan and it reported 19 gun deaths last year. 19 for a country of 125 million people.

Oh, and of those, some 80% were gang related.

There aren't gun many deaths in Japan because they use these (http://buy.overstock.com/images/products/L1009279.jpg).

There aren't gun many deaths in Japan because they use these (http://buy.overstock.com/images/products/L1009279.jpg).
Moot point:

Japan and Scotland have the world's lowest homicide rates, with 0.51 murders per 100,000 and 0.64 per 100,000 respectively. (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aGEsdK7xB3M8&refer=canada)

Gun prevalency in Nordic countries is much higher than you make it, infact after USA and possibly Switzerland Finland and Norway have one of the highest guns per capita ratios in the world. Sweden isn't that far behind. Though, it's true that the Nordic countries do have strict controls about guns.
Indeed. And I have not tried to hide the fact. Rather the opposite, really.

Guns don't kill people, it's people with guns that kill people...Or more accurately the gun culture, the ecstasy of violence and power - loving and craving the gun and the power it gives - that's the prime culprit. For example, in Finland (pop: ~5.5 mil, gun prevalency ~20-30%) the entire police force used a gun in 27 cases last year, in those 27 cases only 7 actual shots were fired, out of the 7 shots 3 were targeted and hit another human being, out of the 3 shots none were lethal.
I agree with you.

I wouldn't ban guns, I'd educate people about the value of the lives of *other* people and how owning a gun should be a non-issue.
All good ideas. After all, gun control does not equal banning guns, and will have no effect alone. Other measures must be taken as well.

btw. If I had to ban certain guns I'd start with small guns like pistols and such: Concealed gun is much more dangerous than any rifle: If you see a guy armed with a rifle you can turn and run, with a pistol you can be ambushed anywhere anytime.
I keep agreeing with you :)

Also, since hunting is a popular sport, it makes more sense to allow long guns and shotguns.

If you feel that you're unsafe in your society, isn't that a strong indication that there's something wrong with your society?

*snip*

Trends, trends, trends. An instant doesn't say anything about the value of gun control laws. How do I know the UK's rate isn't so low because it's a big island? Where's the graph that shows gun crimes dropping at the point when legislation was enacted? Where's the study, showing causation?

Cause, effect, or coincidence? It could very well be that it's the heightened violent crime that makes people more willing to enact strict gun control laws, rather than strict gun control laws causing an increase in violent crime.

Irrelevant, the point is that the gun laws are not having the desirable effect, and they may even be diverting police resources from where they can be more effective.

Complete and utter bullshit!!

So, you are saying that Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York either have low levels of violent crime, or loose gun laws.

Complete and utter bullshit.

(yes gravedig, I know.)


It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.

But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun” policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.

I found this article froma link I got in an email.

here ya go (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html)

Trends, trends, trends. An instant doesn't say anything about the value of gun control laws. How do I know the UK's rate isn't so low because it's a big island? Where's the graph that shows gun crimes dropping at the point when legislation was enacted? Where's the study, showing causation?Must be some sort weird trend that everywhere guns are banned gun crimes are extremely low. Strange don't ya think?

On gun control I'm very libertarian. People should be able to own whatever type of gun they want, how many they want, and where they want. If you have the money for an assault rifle, why not? If you have the money for an armored personel carrier with a 50 cal on top, why not? Private military equipment is the last bastion against tyranny!

As has been said before, the worst areas in the US for violent crime as also those areas with the most strict gun laws.

Complete and utter bullshit!! :p

So, you are saying that Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York either have low levels of violent crime, or loose gun laws.

Complete and utter bullshit.
No, what I am saying is that what you stated earlier (above and bolded) was complete and utter bullshit!!

I will give you a couple of many examples:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

In the year 2000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm)Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population. For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,882.7 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 3rd highest.
Florida has had concealed carry since 1987, and some of the most liberal gun laws, and yet in the year 2000, it recorded the HIGHEST violent crime rate for States!!

Florida has had concealed carry since 1987, and some of the most liberal gun laws, and yet in the year 2000, it recorded the HIGHEST violent crime rate for States!!

The District of Colombia is not a state.

Check the lower tables for rates (rather than raw numbers).

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

DC has been consistantly higher than Florida

Virginia's violent crime rates (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm) are about a quarter of DC's.

Once again, you are pushing complete and utter bullshit.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

The District of Colombia is not a state.

Check the lower tables for rates (rather than raw numbers).

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

DC has been consistantly higher than Florida

Virginia's violent crime rates (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm) are about a quarter of DC's.

Once again, you are pushing complete and utter bullshit.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
You prattle on, yet you still have not proven your point. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Mesoriya

As has been said before, the worst areas in the US for violent crime as also those areas with the most strict gun laws.
Now prove it.

Actually, the numbers differ between 80,000 and two million. And those numbers include just saying "I have a gun" even if you don't.
Some people actually like to exaggerate and the bigger the number the better?

You prattle on, yet you still have not proven your point. Not even close.

You're very selective about the data you quote, so you are hardly in a position to judge anyone else's arguments. How about looking at the data, rather than picking scary quotes and praying that I won't look deeper.

You fail to say that Florida has been trending down since the introduction of concealed carry. If the data proved your case, Florida would surely be trending up.

DC bans civilian ownership of firearms, if your case held true, DC's crime rates would be lower, they are not, they are about four times those of Florida.

That sort of selectivity is dishonest. This is an affliction of gun control fanatics, they ignore any data which does not suit them, and hope not to be caught out.

Some people actually like to exaggerate and the bigger the number the better?

Well, it's depends on the methods and numbers used. So 2 million is the absolute maximum, while 80,000 is the minimum. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

But then again, some people use the numbers for (more than) all they're worth :)

Prove a link between having guns and a reduction in crime.

You've been shown one before NERVUN.

Kenniwick, GA.

You've been shown one before NERVUN.

Kenniwick, GA.

How about sharing with the rest of the class?

Must be some sort weird trend that everywhere guns are banned gun crimes are extremely low. Strange don't ya think?

Considering not only are you wrong, but that you obviously didn't understand me, yeah, I'd say you've made a pretty strange post.

You're very selective about the data you quote, so you are hardly in a position to judge anyone else's arguments. How about looking at the data, rather than picking scary quotes and praying that I won't look deeper.
You made a statement that you cannot prove and post selective data and then accuse me of the same. You are grasping at straws. :p

You fail to say that Florida has been trending down since the introduction of concealed carry. If the data proved your case, Florida would surely be trending up.
Just like you "fail to say" that Washington DC is also "trending down". Remember, it was you that stated:

As has been said before, the worst areas in the US for violent crime as also those areas with the most strict gun laws.

DC bans civilian ownership of firearms, if your case held true, DC's crime rates would be lower, they are not, they are about four times those of Florida.
I was not making the case that you are presenting, just refuting your statement as being untrue.

That sort of selectivity is dishonest. This is an affliction of gun control fanatics, they ignore any data which does not suit them, and hope not to be caught out.
The only dishonesty that I see here would be all yours my friend. ;)

Your argument up to this point is totally lost.

Your argument up to this point is totally lost.

Considering both of you've done nowt but BS, what's there to lose?

Let's get a few things straight about gun control:

1. If we take away guns nobody will have them.
Do you really think that crimminals will obey that law? How many criminals have illegal guns anyway? If the guns are taken away from the criminals do you really think that they won't just make guns? All you need is a barrel, a combustion chamber, a projectile and propelant.

2.Taking away guns would lower crime rates.
Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%, while gun owner ship has increased. So it seems that 39 states have Conceal and carry laws and crime has decreased.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif


I was doing some thinking on this the other day. Or perhaps it is truer to say that I was pondering on the differance in culture between America and Britian that would cause to be two differant and opposing POV.

I realsied it is simple a culture thing, and with that realisation come an another one, it is fuckin' hard if not impossible to throw of the shackles that culture brings to ones thought process. For if you express a POV that is differant, then people assume that you are knocking their culture, or thier way of life. The only efect this seems to have is one of hardening their POV, and angering them against you.

So, and I don't mean to thread nap here, but I honestly do belive it may be at the heart of most disagreements(between people of differant countries) to be proud of ones county of origin, or proud of ones culture seems like one of the bigest sins we as human can commit, as it brings nowt but trouble between us.

Back on track though, I wonder what America would feel about gun ownership, if their county, like mine never realy had them avaliable for their citersens? Would the gang crime be differant, would the music be differant, would American culture be differant? I belive it would.

Incidently, if you love Honest Johnny's gun laws so much, perhaps you can explain how they can prevent smuggling from outside Australia, and theft from the Army.

Considering that the theft of weapons (the main things stolen were some 7 or eight RPGs) was more due to incompetant/lazy private storage contractors and long periods between inventory keeping.

If we are discussing the implications of easily buying weapons then some incidents can turn out far worse. E.g: A couple of days ago a student at my uni stabbed another student because she (stabber) was a bit unstable. Imagine how much worse it could have been if she could have easily gotten a firearm?

It's also the failsafe on our Constitution. Many have referred to the 2nd Amendment as the 'reboot button' for the populace if faced with a tyrannical goverment. It is not just about hunting, sport, or self defense.

When the millitary has far better training and equipment?

A far more effective way of halting State abuses of power is through non-violent non-compliance. If no one did anything then how long could any state survive?

It's about the people having real power and not just paper power. Don't believe it? Read the Federalist Papers then come back to the debate.

It seems like false power considering that they are equipped with low capacity or low power small arms.

When the millitary has far better training and equipment?

A far more effective way of halting State abuses of power is through non-violent non-compliance. If no one did anything then how long could any state survive?



It seems like false power considering that they are equipped with low capacity or low power small arms.

It's not the capacity, or the power, but the ability and willingness to use.

Iraq?

The pro gun-control people? Are you talking about the people that want more laws, more firearms restricted/banned? Or did you mean to say, "the pro gun people" (the people that feel we have enough/too many firearms laws)?

The only reason I ask is, many people think that the pro-firearms crowd is paranoid, so I wanted clarification.

yea oops...I meant the pro gun people NOT pro gun-control....sorry, didn't pay attention to what I was typing

I'll rephrase my question

why are the pro gun people so paranoid?...

i mean seriously you guys sound like you live in a Iraq or Something, with roving death squads everywhere....

When the millitary has far better training and equipment?

Do you really think they would be stupid enough to just mow down rows and rows of civilians? And, of course, all of the military would just do as they are told.


A far more effective way of halting State abuses of power is through non-violent non-compliance. If no one did anything then how long could any state survive?

Some in the military, however, wouldn't mind mowing down civilians.

It seems like false power considering that they are equipped with low capacity or low power small arms.

And thus, the right to own rocket launchers.

yea oops...I meant the pro gun people NOT pro gun-control....sorry, didn't pay attention to what I was typing

I'll rephrase my question


I'm not paranoid. I have a rifle for target shooting. Well, it's only for target shooting until the paper targets revolt, then I'll be using it to put those uppity paper targets in their place. :D

Pics of my rifle, again: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

"A far more effective way of halting State abuses of power is through non-violent non-compliance. If no one did anything then how long could any state survive?"---Soleichunn

You clearly haven't yet studied much of world history. try looking up a little about the history of germany, cambodia, rwanda, china, japan, russia, the united states, etc. they show just how effective 'non-violent non-compliance' is

I'm not paranoid. I have a rifle for target shooting. Well, it's only for target shooting until the paper targets revolt, then I'll be using it to put those uppity paper targets in their place. :D

Pics of my rifle, again: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

see....I don't get why a person would NEED one of those for shooting PAPER...judging by the number of clips you have I'm guessing it isn't part of an assault rifle collection or something

"A far more effective way of halting State abuses of power is through non-violent non-compliance. If no one did anything then how long could any state survive?"---Soleichunn

You clearly haven't yet studied much of world history. try looking up a little about the history of germany, cambodia, rwanda, china, japan, russia, the united states, etc. they show just how effective 'non-violent non-compliance' is

um...I don't think the United States is going to: erupt into Civil War/be invaded/commit genocide/fall into complete anarchy etc...any time soon

"um...I don't think the United States is going to: erupt into Civil War/be invaded/commit genocide/fall into complete anarchy etc...any time soon"---New Manvir

That's really not the point of the discussion. I don't think there's going to be any sort of civil war here in the near future either. The point is that there are only two things that can halt abuse of power: force and the desire on their own part to stop. You can non-violently not comply and hope that they change their mind or it makes it no longer worth it for them in some way....but if they decide to ignore you, then the only option left is force

"A far more effective way of halting State abuses of power is through non-violent non-compliance. If no one did anything then how long could any state survive?"---

It depends on the state, if we were talking about most Western countries, I would be inclined to agree with you.

If you tried it in Communist China, you might feel a certain crushing sensation. I can only imagine how North Korea would respond.

Considering that the theft of weapons (the main things stolen were some 7 or eight RPGs) was more due to incompetant/lazy private storage contractors and long periods between inventory keeping.

We were sold on the idea that these gun laws would make us safer, and we are, 11 years later, not safer. And the case shows how the gun control freaks misplace the emphasis of their efforts. The government chose to neglect security of its own weapons, and confiscate those owned by law abiding civilians.

But why? The reason is that while strengthening military security is essential, it is not a highly visible thing, it doesn't get many votes. On the other hand, Howard's confiscations found wide popularity among most Australians.

You made a statement that you cannot prove and post selective data and then accuse me of the same. You are grasping at straws.

No, you are. You are selective with your data, the fact that you mentioned Florida, and ignored the District of Columbia shows that.

Secondly, you've not addressed the implications of having concealed carry in Florida, nor the fact that having concealed carry does not make Florida exceptionally liberal in its gun laws.

I was not making the case that you are presenting, just refuting your statement as being untrue.

You've not refuted it. You have simply claimed victory after posting a single piece of data. I posted a single piece of data that showed the complete opposite, the most extreme gun laws, and the worst violent crime.

Gun-free zones don't seem to reduce gun crime in them, as we all have undoubtedly seen.

On average, US states with more strict gun laws suffer higher rates of violent crime.

Outside the US, the evidence runs against you, in Russia for example.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

*pokes thread with long stick, afraid to jump right in*

On average, US states with more strict gun laws suffer higher rates of violent crime.
Proof please. :D

*pokes thread with long stick, afraid to jump right in*

*pokes thread with even LONNNGGGGERRRR stick*

Is it... is it dangerous?

Most major US cities.

Especially DC. Perhaps the toughest on guns, definitely the worse murder rate.

Besides, as it was mentioned earlier, it's not about crime rates, it's about policing the government. Recall, the colonists of America were creating the consitution having just fought and won a war against a tyrannical government.

Gun-free zones don't seem to reduce gun crime in them, as we all have undoubtedly seen.
A major part of the problem is that 97% of crime guns in DC come from outside of that jurisdiction???

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/washingtondc.pdf

I'll just re-post what I said.

Here's the thing:

I keep a mosin-nagant in my room, with the ammo right next to it. I keep the bolt hidden though, so I don't need to hear from you guys how much of an irresponsible idiot I am, because I know I'm not.

Banning guns in the United States of American would do no gun because they are heavily intigrated into our society, and dispelling them is not realistically possible.

However, if my guns are taken away, it's much harder for me to do the following:

Shoot cops
Shoot neighbors
Rob banks
Accidentally kill family members

So if guns are taken away from people who wish to do anything in the above list, then it would seem that things would be safer from everyone.

There's also the idea of actually wanting to own guns and/or kill people, which I must say America is full of in comparison to other developed nations.

All I use my rifle for is target practice and shooting up cacti when I get the chance.

I know I have absolutley no intention of killing anyone, but that's not the case for everyone.

Unfortunatly, these gun control threads are stupid, and the "WE HAVE TO OWN GUNS TO PROTECT FREEDOM!" people are never going to listen to logic, while the, "GUNS KILL EVERYONE! PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE EVIL!" are also not willing to listen to a well placed argument.

Of course, the people who actually deal with firearms (A small minority here) probably know that gun control is useless when I can get AK47s, AR15s and other assault rifles designed soley for the purpose of killing people at a gunshow with no backround check and no questions asked.

I'd have a problem if G-Men came and took my guns away, but that's only because as I said, guns are intergrated into my society.

If I lived in Scandinavia or Japan or something, I'd have no problem what so ever with not owning a gun.

Whatever though, I'll just let you guys keep bickering.

A major part of the problem is that 97% of crime guns in DC come from outside of that jurisdiction???

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/cityreports/washingtondc.pdf

And where do half of them come from? From Maryland w/ some of the strictest laws in the country and violent crime in the top five of the nation. What's Viginia? Oh, right 35th.

However, if my guns are taken away, it's much harder for me to do the following:

Shoot cops
Shoot neighbors
Rob banks
Accidentally kill family members

So if guns are taken away from people who wish to do anything in the above list, then it would seem that things would be safer from everyone

That is a very large if.

It is an ...

IF

The fact is that the people who do such things tend to neglect legal niceties. They use illegal, or stolen weapons, they don't bother with licenses, they steal their getaway cars, and they speed, and generally drive dangerously while they are evading the police. Should they be caught, they frequently commit purjury, or attempt to pervert the course of justice, and they of course attempt to escape lawful custody if possible.

The laws are not disarming the criminals. They are using already illegal means to get already illegal weapons.

Of course, the people who actually deal with firearms (A small minority here) probably know that gun control is useless when I can get AK47s, AR15s and other assault rifles designed soley for the purpose of killing people at a gunshow with no backround check and no questions asked.

You can buy fully automatic weapons at gun shows?

More seriously, you wouldn't go to a gun show (for the simple reason that most of the sellers are Federally licensed dealers who do background checks before the sale is completed), you go somewhere else.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/14/jackson.guns/

"Even the Justice Department says that guns that are sold at gun shows, less than two percent find themselves in illegal activities," said Craig.

That's almost right. In fact, a Justice Department study asked persons who had been arrested where they got their guns; 35 percent said from the street, 23 percent said from family or friends, 20 percent said from shops, and only two percent said from gun shows.

You would go to the street.

A major part of the problem is that 97% of crime guns in DC come from outside of that jurisdiction???

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/20...shingtondc.pdf

Only recently, 32 people were murdered en masse in a gun-free zone. Every school shooting in recent memory has occured in a gun-free zone.

That is one of the main problems with gun laws, thieves, murderers, robbers, and rapists tend not to follow the law.

Why, some of them even exceed the speed limit during their getaway.

*pokes thread with long stick, afraid to jump right in*

Come on in, it's toasty warm here!

Do you really think they would be stupid enough to just mow down rows and rows of civilians? And, of course, all of the military would just do as they are told.

If whomever was in control thought that making an example of a large amount of civilians would make the rest more compliant then they may do so.

Most of the millitary would if proper steps were taken in training and selective recruitment.

And thus, the right to own rocket launchers.

If you go to that extent then they would have to be provided with virtually every type of weapon available. If the majority of the population cannot afford it you would either have a private army that probably doesn't have the best intentions for the whole population or you would have to subsidise the sale of the weapons, tanking your economy.

Come on in, it's toasty warm here!

I think that's because someone pee'ed in the pool.

:eek:

It depends on the state, if we were talking about most Western countries, I would be inclined to agree with you.

If you tried it in Communist China, you might feel a certain crushing sensation. I can only imagine how North Korea would respond.

I admit that it is far easier to do that in 'western' countries.

It relies mainly on the entire civilian population refusing to do anything. Non compliance of only a single sector (such as all transport people, etc) could work but it take longer and need to rely on no one else having the skills required to perform that position.

We were sold on the idea that these gun laws would make us safer, and we are, 11 years later, not safer. And the case shows how the gun control freaks misplace the emphasis of their efforts. The government chose to neglect security of its own weapons, and confiscate those owned by law abiding civilians.

This is Howard we are talking about.

Well I am part of the gun control group. Oversight and heavy regulation of all firearms, including millitary weapons, is the way to go. It will serve as a reminder for the government to not rely on private storage groups and have better inventory keeping practices.

But why? The reason is that while strengthening military security is essential, it is not a highly visible thing, it doesn't get many votes. On the other hand, Howard's confiscations found wide popularity among most Australians.


At least he didn't rely on 'children overboard' that time. Anyway we don't have much need in expanding the millitary, only replacing aging equipment. Unfortunately we seem to be expanding a bit.

I think that's because someone pee'ed in the pool.

:eek:

I thought it was the jets of flammable petrol being sprayed above.