Give me a gun!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I've answered your question, now please answer mine. Why don't we ban cars to save people?

Cars are generally useful and not an inherent danger to the public. And the danger that is there, is mitigated as much as possible by laws and regulations.

I am still not convinced guns and cars are an equal comparison. I would hate to find out what the insurance rate would be on a policy protecting you from wrongful use of a firearm.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Quote

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre infringes on the expectations of those in the theatre to be safe, it creates a dangerous environment. Allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in public does not infringe on my right safety, or yours. It wouldn't be difficult to make the case that it actually makes us both safer.

Could you honestly explain that to the parents of that 16 year old boy. I think an argument can be made that guns can create a dangerous environment.

Guns can't (they are, after all, inanimate objects), people can though, there's no question about that. But yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre WILL create a dangerous environment. There's no question about that. Putting guns into the hands of law abiding citizens, what's the problem with that?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Cars are generally useful and not an inherent danger to the public. And the danger that is there, is mitigated as much as possible by laws and regulations.

Guns are generally useful and not an inherent danger to the public. And the danger that is there, is mitigated as much as possible by laws and regulations.

Quote

I am still not convinced guns and cars are an equal comparison.

They're not. Cars kill an order of magnitude more people than guns do.

Quote

I would hate to find out what the insurance rate would be on a policy protecting you from wrongful use of a firearm.

There's no such thing. Auto insurance won't cover you for wrongful use of a car either. If you drive drunk, guess what, your auto policy is invalidated. As far as accidents go, I have liability built into my renters insurance. I have guns on my policy. It's a few hundred a year for the policy.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"The number of crimes recorded by the police decreased by 5 per cent between 2002 and 2003"
Source....http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00338-03.asp

We're talking about guns here, and you're posting stats for *all* crimes, the majority of which have nothing at all to do with guns. Confiscating guns does not correlate to things like "crimes of dishonesty", as shown in your web site reference.

Here is the more specific info related to guns:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00276-03.asp

Note that 1997 was the year guns were confiscated. Gun crimes were already on a downward trend at that time, which continued downward briefly after the confiscation, then flattened out and went up and down a bit since.

It's not exactly rock solid proof of the efficacy of gun confiscation.

The chart from the web site is attached.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Cars are generally useful and not an inherent danger to the public. And the danger that is there, is mitigated as much as possible by laws and regulations.

Replace the word "Cars" in your above statement with the word "Guns", and it remains true.

Car accidents killed 41,000 people last year.

The number of people murdered with guns is only about one-fourth of that.

More facts on how deadly cars are:

- Three million people have died in auto accidents since the

first fatality in 1899 in New York City.

- This is three times more dead than have died in combat in

all wars during the entire history of the United States. 

- One million people have died in auto accidents in the last

20 years, an average of 50,000 per year.

- The comprehensive cost per death is $2,890,000.

- In addition to the current 43,000 deaths per year, there are

an additional two million disabling injuries per year.

- Total cost for 1994 was 176 billion dollars.

- The death rate is 16.5 per 100,000 people. 

If there is something that we should all be most scared of in our daily lives, it is this: getting in our car to drive somewhere.

[Kerr 0]

Quote

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00276-03.asp

Quote

The number of offences involving the alleged use of a pistol/revolver was at its lowest since 1990, halving from 64 in 2001 to 32 in 2002.

I'm not sure you can use these figures to demonstrate that gun crime is rising since the ban. All the numbers are pretty low and the variance is all within reasonable variance. If you take out the Dunblane killings it all looks pretty flat over the whole period.

Please also remember that previous to the handgun ban it would be very difficult for any person that had a licence to own a handgun to use it for any for of self defence. You would have to have someone break into your house and for you to be trapped, unable to escape the house and be able to show that you were in immediate danger of serious physical injury, e.g. the other party was armed and was preparing to fire upon the homeowner. Even then, the homeowner wound be in for a hell of a ride from the police with possible charges being brought and very probably loss of firearms licences.

Any claim that the handgun ban has made anyone less able to defend themselves is incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of UK law in this area.

Of course you are more than welcome to comment on how ridiculus you feel that situation is, but don't confuse it with the ban on handguns.

--
Kerr

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Why don't we ban cars to save people?

Playing devil's advocate on this point, but I'd guess that the answer to that one would be that guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to transport people.

--
Kerr

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Any claim that the handgun ban has made anyone less able to defend themselves is incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of UK law in this area.

Defense of one's self, like criminals in possession of handguns, is an issue unrelated to law.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Quote

Why don't we ban cars to save people?

Playing devil's advocate on this point, but I'd guess that the answer to that one would be that guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to transport people.

Funny then, that when under the control of civilians, one kills significantly more people, isn't it?

Edited to add the reference to civilians with guns. It's not fair to include the military forces of the world, this thread isn't about them.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Funny then that one kills significantly more people, isn't it?

Erm... hilarious.

--
Kerr

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

That's so true, especially since all of those countries are 1st world countries that have no problems with violent factions, coups or anything, a nice solid stable society and a solid stable government...

I agree with you, that is what would make the experiment even better. To see what would happen to the US if John Rich was making the laws.

Well I'm certainly glad I've made sure to flatter him now and then!

Quote

I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understand this fixation with guns.

"I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understands this fixation with freedom of speech."

That's just a minor twist on what you said, even though you probably don't realize it. You're probably thinking, "Where the hell did he come up with that?" and you'll continue to wonder until you make the realization that we don't have a fixation with guns, necessarily, but a fixation with being able todefend both ourselves and our liberty. Just as most would not yield to encroachments against their right to free speech, we value our right to be armed as well. You are not yet thinking of this issue in the correct terms. The fight for gun rights equates to the fight to remain free and independent, and not under the thumb of oppressors, be they common criminals or government criminals.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Quote

I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understand this fixation with guns.

"I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understands this fixation with freedom of speech."

I think this is the crux of the cultural difference between many americans and many non-americans with respect to guns. You clearly see gun ownership as a right, just like free speech. To you the analogy is very clear. To many non-americans gun ownership is not seen as a right, rather it is seen as privilege. In that case your analogy does not fit, given that most people do see free speech as a right.

--
Kerr

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understand this fixation with guns.

"I know this is all hypothetical and probably will never happen. People will have to try and remember that not everybody, specially myself, understands this fixation with freedom of speech."

I think this is the crux of the cultural difference between many americans and many non-americans with respect to guns. You clearly see gun ownership as a right, just like free speech. To you the analogy is very clear. To many non-americans gun ownership is not seen as a right, rather it is seen as privilege. In that case your analogy does not fit, given that most people do see free speech as a right.

Once again, I think I see that we need to clarify a cultural difference or two. The main difference is not in the belief in a right to own guns, but in the right to protect oneself, one's loved-ones, and one's country. The non-American cultures have been for the most part indoctrinated against the concept of SELF-defense, instead relying on government to defend the individual on a day-to-day basis, which obviously it cannot deliver. (If it did, there wouldn't be crime and victimization, now, would there? Crime existing at all in places where government is in charge of keeping the people safe, i.e. England, is proof that the government can't do it.)

It's not a right to GUNS that we're really on about here; it's a right to the best means of self defense, which happens at the present time to BE guns.

Question: If you retain the right to free speech, and give up your guns, and then your government becomes tyrannical, shuts down presses, television and news stations (leaving only those pirates who can manage to keep under detection, I guess), how can use of your now-imaginary "freedom of speech" get you your freedom back? We know that if we lost our right to free speech but kept our guns, we could use those guns in the fight to get back our lost freedom of speech... See, this doesn't work in both directions too well. What do you think of this example?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Once again, I think I see that we need to clarify a cultural difference or two. The main difference is not in the belief in a right to own guns, but in the right to protect oneself, one's loved-ones, and one's country. The non-American cultures have been for the most part indoctrinated against the concept of SELF-defense, instead relying on government to defend the individual on a day-to-day basis, which obviously it cannot deliver.

OK, an interesting distinction. I'd agree with you that in broad terms that that is correct.

I think that it is interesting that often the right that is expressed is the right to bare arms, not the right to defend yourself.

Quote

Question: If you retain the right to free speech, and give up your guns, and then your government becomes tyrannical, shuts down presses, television and news stations (leaving only those pirates who can manage to keep under detection, I guess), how can use of your now-imaginary "freedom of speech" get you your freedom back? We know that if we lost our right to free speech but kept our guns, we could use those guns in the fight to get back our lost freedom of speech... See, this doesn't work in both directions too well. What do you think of this example?

In the case of a tyrannical government then you'll end up with civil war. Given the scenario where a large part of the population decides that it is going to try and overthrow the standing government you are going to have massive widespread civil disruption and violence. I think the number of legally held firearms before the emergence of the tyrannical government would be of little importance. Military class firearms would be flooding into the country in huge numbers, dwarfing anything that would have been available before. This scenario is, of course, a war, with all that entails.

I also don't think that the having widespread gun ownership would make any difference to the establishment of the tyrannical government in the first place.

Do you believe that private firearm ownership would prevent a tyrannical government coming to power? Do you believe that private firearm ownership would significantly help during the outbreak of a civil war?

Of course I don't believe that any UK government would be able to get into the position where it was able to impose the kind of restrictions that would classify it as tyrannical, regardless of private firearm ownership.

--
Kerr

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"It's not exactly rock solid proof of the efficacy of gun confiscation."

No John, its not solid, I agree with you there, but it is a reference point to begin, or in this case continue, the debate based on something solid, as opposed to bouncing unsupported (by that I mean unsubstantiated) opinions around, as witnessed in your statement that I quoted, ie
"That smugness lasts only until the crime reports keep coming out, showing continuing increases in murder and gun crime."
Well there are the reports, or as good data as I can locate for my country, and lo, I can't see continuing crime increases as you describe.

Until we have something solid to debate, all we are doomed to do is staunchly defend a (right or wrong) viewpoint. That won't get us anywhere, as both sides of this debate are too entrenched in opinion, and may be blind, or ignorant to available facts or stats surrounding the issue.

I'd much rather discuss facts, or statistics from reputable sources, with you guys than opinions.
Once again I would urge people who might advocate that we change our gun laws to find out how big an issue this is over here... A clue might be to find out which parties support such a change by examining their manifestos and policies.
web links to our major parties below....
http://www.labour.org.uk/ our left
http://www.conservatives.com/ our right
http://www.libdems.org.uk/ our centre
http://www.snp.org/index_hires.php?pageName=home_content.php our nationalists

As far as I am aware, nobody from the main parties is formally advocating changing the status quo. That would indicate (to me anyways) a low level of interest in this subject, despite your valiant and admirable efforts to change our ways.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"If there is something that we should all be most scared of in our daily lives, it is this: getting in our car to drive somewhere."

[chucks a wry smile at Peacefuldude]
Y'see, whats you guys are doing is driving on the wrong side of the road....
[/wry smile]

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

In the case of a tyrannical government then you'll end up with civil war. I think the number of legally held firearms before the emergence of the tyrannical government would be of little importance. Military class firearms would be flooding into the country in huge numbers, dwarfing anything that would have been available before. This scenario is, of course, a war, with all that entails.

There are many reasons to believe that widespread civilian gun ownership would be a major aid in the battle between civilians and a tyrannical government.

For one thing, many civilians are extremely adept in the use of their weapons. Many of them have military training and experience, and cherish freedom.

This would be a guerrilla war. We wouldn't have to be meeting on a battlefield to be cut down by S.A.W.s or mortars. We would be sniping convoys, capturing additional military ordnance (a big factor), and using it against them.

There would be quick erosion of support for the government if and when they used the big formidable weapons that naysayers claim would make opposition to the tyranny impossible. Who would support the government laying waste to homes, streets, towns, using F-15s, F-22s, B-1s, tanks, TOWs, etc.?? When people saw their neighbors slaughtered and their towns reduced to rubble by such heavy-handed tactics, support for guerrillas would blossom.

So that leaves the government waging this war on a person-to-person, urban and suburban level, with small arms -- and a SEVERE personnel disadvantage. There would be military desertions for sure, since it would hardly appeal to many in the armed forces to fire on their countrymen on their own soil. Those deserters might well take purloined ordnance with them to aid the cause. But the major factor would be 80,000,000 gun owners, and even if 1% of them joined the fight, 800,000 guerrilla forces could give the military a hell of a run for its money -- just one lousy percent.

Unable to use 500 lb. bombs, unable to use nukes, what could the U.S. military do but lose a war of attrition in which they do not outnumber the rebels?

Quote

I also don't think that the having widespread gun ownership would make any difference to the establishment of the tyrannical government in the first place.
Do you believe that private firearm ownership would prevent a tyrannical government coming to power? Do you believe that private firearm ownership would significantly help during the outbreak of a civil war?

Absolutely, for the reasons I specified above. And I note that there are examples of pitifully armed civil rebel forces have held large mighty militaries at bay for years and years (Afghanistan and the Soviets, Vietnam and the U.S.). We are currently better-armed than they were, and better able.

There is the fact that the only places where genocide has truly been able to take place around the globe have been where there are large numbers of disarmed civilians -- the unilateral disarmament is a key factor to being unable to fight and resist. And armed populace, it seems, can have tremendous deterrent effect against a government that may wish to erode and eventually trash individual liberty.

Quote

Of course I don't believe that any UK government would be able to get into the position where it was able to impose the kind of restrictions that would classify it as tyrannical, regardless of private firearm ownership.

May I ask why you believe it would not be possible for them to do so -- barring help from any outside nation? (In other words, don't say, "The world community would step in when things got out of hand and slap the U.K. gov't. down.)

What is it that you think your government fears in its largely unarmed populace that makes it wary and keeps it wary of ever becoming tyrannical? I mean, you can't say you'd VOTE OUT a tyrannical government, because um, they'd have put a stop to voting. Use your freedom of speech (such as it is in U.K.)? They'd have outlawed that. What, besides force, would stand against them?

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Well there are the reports, or as good data as I can locate for my country, and lo, I can't see continuing crime increases as you describe.

When it comes to eradicating a right held by the people, I hold the government to this standard:

Provide a reallllly compelling reason why our giving up this right is going to make some situation that is bad a LOT better. In the case of the U.K., gun crime was not bad to begin with -- big strike against taking away a right, to deal with what is essentially a non-problem. It's not enough to show that taking away the right did not make things worse -- it sure as hell better have made things better, or it wasn't worth the trade.

That said, I don't, actually, think it is EVER worthy to give up a right in order to try to cure some perceived social problem. The rights stay sacrosanct, and you find OTHER ways to solve the problem.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"When it comes to eradicating a right held by the people, I hold the government to this standard:"

Gun ownership in this country is not a right, it never was!

"Provide a reallllly compelling reason why our giving up this right is going to make some situation that is bad a LOT better."

No, the onus is on those who would advocate a change in our laws to provide justification for that change.
Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........
Victoria Elizabeth Clydesdale
Emma Elizabeth Crozier
Melissa Helen Currie
Charlotte Louise Dunn
Kevin Allan Hasell
Ross William Irvine
David Charles Kerr
Mhairi Isabel MacBeath
Gwen Hodson or Mayor (schoolteacher)
Brett McKinnon
Abigail Joanne McLennan
Emily Morton
Sophie Jane Lockwood North
John Petrie
Joanna Caroline Ross
Hannah Louise Scott
Megan Turner

Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"There are many reasons to believe that widespread civilian gun ownership would be a major aid in the battle between civilians and a tyrannical government. "

They are also good to defend oneself against attacks from wolves. However like wolves (last one shot in 1743, ironically around the last time we went to war with a repressive government), we haven't had anything even remotely resembling a tyrannical government since the Thatcher years.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I don't want to go into it again, since I've done it quite a few times in the past, but CCW and such has been proven to reduce violent crime drastically, basically with no ill effects."
Hey Dave, all that demonstrates is that CCW laws work in your particular circumstances.
This is something I'm not challenging.
What I am taking issue with is the pro gunners advising us to change our laws based on your success. The point I'm arguing ad-nauseam, is that what works over there may not work over here, and its not such a burning issue with us Brits.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kerr 0]

Quote

There are many reasons to believe that widespread civilian gun ownership would be a major aid in the battle between civilians and a tyrannical government.

For one thing, many civilians are extremely adept in the use of their weapons. Many of them have military training and experience, and cherish freedom.

This would be a guerrilla war....

I absolutely agree with your description of the fighting that would be involved. By military class firearms, I was thinking of fully auto small arms and explosives. Not heavy battlefield tech. You would probably get some split in the military, with some factions remaining under government control and some taking up arms against it.

Quote

Quote

Do you believe that private firearm ownership would prevent a tyrannical government coming to power? Do you believe that private firearm ownership would significantly help during the outbreak of a civil war?

Absolutely,

And here's where we seem to disagree. My position is that an initially unarmed populace will get armed and trained very quickly if there was a need to do so.

Quote

There is the fact that the only places where genocide has truly been able to take place around the globe have been where there are large numbers of disarmed civilians -- the unilateral disarmament is a key factor to being unable to fight and resist.

I would argue that the overwhelming issue in those cases was a lack of information and education rather than a lack of firearms in the general population. People didn't understand what is going on untill it was too late. by that point, gun ownership would have been moot.

Quote

Quote

Of course I don't believe that any UK government would be able to get into the position where it was able to impose the kind of restrictions that would classify it as tyrannical, regardless of private firearm ownership.

May I ask why you believe it would not be possible for them to do so

Ultimately I believe that the government's power comes from the population at large. Any attempt to shift the basis for that power away from the people would be met with overwhelming civil unrest to the point that the country would grind to a halt. If the government continued to impose rule the stronger the backlash would be.

Although I would agree that if civil war was inevitable, then having guns at hand would help in the initial stages, in the grand scale of things they would have little impact on the outcome. People would get armed quickly anyway.

Quote

What is it that you think your government fears in its largely unarmed populace that makes it wary and keeps it wary of ever becoming tyrannical?

I don't think the government needs anything to fear in it's populace. What would it have to gain? What would it have to loose? How difficult would it be to achieve it's tyrannical powers?

Do you really believe that the only thing stopping your government from enslaving the populace is privately held firearms? I think that that consideration would be very far down the list of things they'd be worrying about.

Quote

Use your freedom of speech (such as it is in U.K.)?

Where did that one come from? "Chhhk! They're coming in too fast!", "Chhhk! Stay on Topic, Stay on Topic, Chhhk!"

--
Kerr

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Here are 17 reasons why we changed our laws originally........
Victoria Elizabeth Clydesdale
Emma Elizabeth Crozier
Melissa Helen Currie
Charlotte Louise Dunn
Kevin Allan Hasell
Ross William Irvine
David Charles Kerr
Mhairi Isabel MacBeath
Gwen Hodson or Mayor (schoolteacher)
Brett McKinnon
Abigail Joanne McLennan
Emily Morton
Sophie Jane Lockwood North
John Petrie
Joanna Caroline Ross
Hannah Louise Scott
Megan Turner

Everyone listed above, apart from the teacher was between 4 and 6 years old, the weapons used to end their all too short lives were held legally.

Well, if all it takes to make something illegal is proof that 17 people were killed when someone abused either a right or a privilege, something is wrong. And a whole lot of other things would also be illegal. You have the exceptions making the rules there, now.

It's tragic that people can be killed by people with guns. It's also tragic when people who are denied guns are killed because they had no means to fight back against an attacker. If we produced the names of 18 such people, would that be enough to get the law changed back?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"There are many reasons to believe that widespread civilian gun ownership would be a major aid in the battle between civilians and a tyrannical government. "

They are also good to defend oneself against attacks from wolves. However like wolves (last one shot in 1743, ironically around the last time we went to war with a repressive government), we haven't had anything even remotely resembling a tyrannical government since the Thatcher years.

Why you're absolutely right; and it never could ever happen again in a million zillion years, so let's make damned sure we don't waste effort by remaining prepared for that possibility!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Why don't we ban cars to save people?

Playing devil's advocate on this point, but I'd guess that the answer to that one would be that guns are designed to kill people, cars are designed to transport people.

Take your thinking a couple steps further and you'll be there:

Guns are designed to kill people.
Cops have guns.
Cops have guns so that they can kill people.
Why and when would a cop kill a person?
When doing so is morally and legally justified; when it will save either the cop's life, or the life of someone endangered by that person.

Do you see that just because you can show that guns' purpose is to enable a person to kill, it does not follow that all killing is bad; therefore you haven't shown that guns are inherently bad. Some killing actually is done to save more innocents by dispatching a dangerous bad person.

You might as well try to argue for banning gasoline by saying something as simplistic as, "Gasoline is made to cause explosions."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"