Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

[Dr Grump]

Automobile" connotes a four-wheeled vehicle. So your space shuttle example doesn't fly (no pun intended .

Which doesn't really answer the question as to what they meant.

You're the one who implied that that 2A only gives us the right own muskets. Sounds pretty specific to me.Have you been paying attention? My point throughout this entire exchange has been that they were intentionally un-specific.

I implied no such thing. I was pointing out that the 2A wasn't that specific, which means maybe you haven't been paying attention (or we both haven't) because I agree - they weren't specific. Yet it appears to me that you are arguing they were...

Uh, can you drive a firearm?

But a tank can fire a round of ammunition from a machine gun.

I find your assertion that the constitution confers privileges, and not rights, to be laughable.

Wrong.By the way, your comment about hunting with an automatic weapon was absurd.

I find your assertion that the constitution confers privileges, and not rights, to be laughable.

I am asserting no such thing. I have not mentioned the 2nd with regard to privileges, which is why I think Loki has made the parameters a little more clearer at the end of his last post.

Wrong. We gun owners are not like the libtarded pod people. We disagree with eachother all the time, whether we're talking about the scope of the 2A, or if 9mm is an acceptable personal protection round, or if the Springfield XD is as reliable as the Glock, etc, etc, etc..

If that is the case (disagreeing all the time), then why keep on having a go at me about it, yet not address the person who first brought it up. Seems to be a complete contridiction of hte above statement.

To put it simply, if a state wants to grant its citizens the right to own tanks and nukes, fine. However I don't think the constitution grants these rights.

You can think what you like. What it actually DOES do is open to interpretation. If it wasn't, 10s of millions of words would not have been written on that sentence since it was first written.

Really? Reading your sig I think it does.

My sig?? Want to clarify that a bit more? Nope, the US constitution rarely affects me, if at all...

By the way, your comment about hunting with an automatic weapon was absurd.

It's so absurd I've read about such cases....go figure.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It sure is a good thing they have such stringent anti-gun laws in England. These prostitutes might have been able to defend themselves and this good samaritin that is doing such a good job with his hands might have been stopped. When are we going to adopt the ways of Europe and get rid of all those messy guns and get back to clean strangulations or a quiet knife or machete.

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

British police issue TV image of dead prostitute
Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:14am ET

By John Joseph

LONDON (Reuters) - British police released surveillance television footage of one of five murdered prostitutes on Saturday as they stepped up their hunt for a possible serial killer.

The image of Anneli Alderton, 24, who was three months pregnant when she was murdered, shows her traveling on a train between the towns of Harwich and Colchester in eastern England on December 3, a week before her body was found.

All five prostitutes were naked when their bodies were discovered and police said the images were important for forensic evidence purposes, as well as trying to determine Alderton's movements in the final hours before her death.


The top news, photos, and videos of 2006. Full Coverage

"I would ask people to look carefully at the images," Chief Superintendent Stewart Gull told a news conference on Saturday. "If anyone saw Anneli after the evening of Sunday 3 December, we want to hear from them."

Alderton was pictured wearing a black jacket with a fur-lined hood, a gray top and blue jeans.

The case has echoes of those involving the 19th century prostitute killer Jack the Ripper, who was never found, and Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, who killed 13 women, mainly prostitutes, in northern England between 1975 and 1980.

The murderer has been dubbed the Suffolk Strangler, although the precise way all the women died is yet to be established. [-] Text [+]

Prostitutes in the region are being offered financial help to stay off the streets but some have ignored police warnings and carried on working, many to feed drug habits, despite the discovery of the five bodies in less than two weeks.

Prostitution in Britain is legal but there are laws that make providing sex for money difficult. For example, a woman can sell sex in an apartment, but advertising sexual services, streetwalking, brothels and kerb crawling are all illegal.

BETTER PROTECTION

The case has sparked calls for better protection for prostitutes, or the creation of legalized brothels so women don't have to solicit for sex on the street.


The top news, photos, and videos of 2006. Full Coverage

About 350 officers are working on the inquiry and staff from more than 30 forces -- including Northern Ireland -- are trying to find the killer. Police said they were making progress.

"We are feeling confident about the inquiry," assistant Chief Constable Jacqui Cheer told the BBC on Saturday. "We're getting lots and lots of information in."

No one has been arrested or questioned as a suspect, but police were seeking a number of people, between 50 and 100.

As well as poring over 10,000 hours of surveillance television (CCTV) footage, police have received 9,000 calls following a public appeal for information.

The police inquiry began on December 2 when the body of Gemma Adams, 25, was found in a stream near Ipswich. Police found 19-year-old Tania Nicol's body in the same stream on December 8.

Police on Friday confirmed prostitute Annette Nicholls as the fifth victim. Nicholls, 29, was last seen on December 5, a week before her naked body was found dumped in countryside.

Alderton was strangled and Paula Clennell, 24, was killed by "compression to the neck".

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

How many prostitutes do you know with permits to carry a concealed weapon?

 

[LOki]

I'd include hunting vermin too. That IS my rationale. Whether you like that or not is another matter.

I can only hope this confused gibberish is the result of the beating you've been taking.

I'm still waiting for some rational criteria for restricting people from owning arms outside of those useful for target shooting and hunting.

Why is it weak? I think the 2nd itself is intrinsically weak because it doesn't spell out clearly enough 1) What the militia is supposed to do 2) Exactly what types of arms come under the definition. You and I having the debate is proof enough IMO..

1) It doesn't have to, because it's irrelevent to the right to keep and bear arms;
2) It doesn't have to be specific if the point is the right to keep and bear any arms, as opposed to specific arms.

I wouldn't bother re registering any type of firearm. Waste of time.

Wise.

How often is a baseball bat used in a murder?

Not relevent, as I continue to assert, and you continue to forget you agree with.

Ditto a firearm?

Not relevent, as I continue to assert, and you continue to forget you agree with.

Unless of course your point is to steer me towards "How often are people involved in the murder of other people?"

I agree re your moral superiority analogy, what I do disagree with - strongly - is that you are giving both the baseball bat and firearm equal billing as a means for killing, which is disingenuous to say the least.

But I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying a gun, used for murder is no more a murder weapon than a baseball bat used for murder. It is disingenuous to assert otherwise.

You'll argue dead is dead.

Of course.

I'll argue how many military personal are given a baseball bat and how many are given a firearm after basic training?

Irrelevent.

That alone confers the superiority of a firearm as a weapon of distruction.

It does, but such superiority does not make guns any more responsible for murders than baseball bats are.

That is totally untrue. Registration (if there could be some way of doing it in a cost-effective way - there isn't as far as I can see) would be a way of keeping tabs on firearms.

Correct, for the purposes of confiscation, and no other.

However, where I'm from licensing is in NO way any type of confiscation list. Somebody with a firearms license doesn't necessarily mean they have a firearm.

But it's an efficient place to start looking for guns.

The sole purpose of having a license is sitting a test that lets the police know you have at least a minimal proficiency wokring knowledge of firearms,...

Which can easily be accomplished better without lists of licensees through our public and compulsory education system. A strategy not implemented, IMO, because it does not create a list likely to identify gun owners.

...and they'll do a background check to make sure you're not a loony tune.

Which can be accomplished without a list of potential gun owners--for such a bachgroyund check, they need only the much smaller list of those who have demonstrated their disqualification for gun ownership. A strategy not implemented, IMO, because it does not create a list likely to identify gun owners.

There might be a side effect of creating a list, but that is definitely not the main reason, and to my mind only the "govt are out to get me" conspiracy theorists hold your POV in that regard.

Since, assurance of proficiency is not really the reason for licensing, and since those not mentally or moraly competent for gun ownership can be listed without listing licensees, the remaing reason for licensing remains the creation of a list of (likely) gun owners. The question then is: To what purpose? I continue to assert that purpose is confiscation.

And just because "govt are out to get me" conspiracy theorists hold my point of view doesn't make me (or them) wrong.

I don't fear decent, civilised folks with guns, it's the loony tunes that are the problem.

Then limit you gun control laws to these "loony tunes" of yours--actually, limit your control to these loony tunes" of yours--and leave everyone else, and their guns, alone.

You don't have to be disarmed. Just licensed and limited to the types of firearms.

By what rational criteria is a license required?

If you are so decent and civilised, why would you want a fully automatic weapon similar to say an AK47?

Being decent and civilized, the question is irrelevent, and the answer is none of your business.

I agree re a murderer being a murderer. As for the rest, you are purposefully muddying the waters.

If so, I'm muddying to your favor.

What is wrong with my initial assertion?

Murderers are murderers regardless of the weapon they use, guns are not responsible for ANY murders, geting rid of guns will prevent no murderer from murdering, because guns ARE NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN the cause of murders. Your treatment of guns as the cause of murders is what is wrong with your assertion.

It is the honest thing to do no?

It is not honest, no.

I wouldn't have a clue what the risks are dying from under the knife as opposed to a firearm.

You should look it up then.

Iraq under Saddam, Iran, Soviet Union, Congo, Uganda - any place with a true tyrant seems to rule with an iron fist. How many of those countries had insurgencies, and if they did, did we ever hear of any "rebels" in the Soviet Union having success against Stalin? All those countries were either 1) awash with arms 2) or people had the means of getting them.

Really now? How well did Stalin and Saddam provide for the arming of their citizenry? How liberal were their gun control laws? Exactly how well were these citizens armed against their oppressors?

Cool, so now all we need to do is decide what an arm is...

Not really. But if you must, please do post a sensible one for discussion--I'm sure we can agree upon something.

I have never read the writings of your founding fathers.

Maybe then you ought to before you question the appertenant assertions of those who have.

What I do know is what I have picked up from messageboards. And what I have seen, like the 2nd, are furious arguments from both sides trying to interpret what your FF's said. It's a freaking minefield, because both sides are adament - beyond a reasonable doubt - that their interpretation is the correct one. So, no Loki, not hysterical. I've seen it happen many times...

Yet you never thought to look into these writings youself? You never thought to see if there was a reason one side or the other were being genuine in their interpretations? They are readily available, easily searched, hardly too arcane for an 8th grade reading level. Your insistence on face to face confirmation remains hysterical.

Nor I, every pro one...

Not a single disingenuous argument from me, sir.

No, but that was not the intent. It was intended to stop a certain type of violence from occuring in England.

Ok. A very special kind of violence--the kind of violence that is only committed with guns--and it matters not one bit that there is no corralary reduction in total violence--it matters not one bit that total violence increased--what does matter is that guns were taken away, and that's the only thing that matters. Yes? Have I fully grasped your point?

How do you know? In order for you to know this, you would need to now how many murders WOULD have occurred via a firearm, but since there are restrictions since the new laws were in place, you'll/we'll never know how many lives have/have not been saved due to those restrictions.

Can I use this same argumentative strategy? Is it equally valiud to say that no conclusion regarding gun control and murder rates can be made since you need to know the future? That therefore your very own gun control proposals, whose nominal purpose is the reduction in murders, are by the same argument invalidated? May i make this argument? I suspect not. This Dr Grump is what I mean by disingenuous argument.

I cannot reiterate enough the lack of firearms in the country pre the legislation.

And you refuse to reiterate the long pre-existing lower (than the US) murder rate prior to the legislation.

I went to school over there for three years. I reckon I had an immediate circle of about 30-40 friends, but knew about 150-200 plus others. None of their parents had a gun as far as I knew and I lived on the periphery of a large city - almost rural (this was in the late 70s/early 80s when these restrictions were not even close to be in place).

So what? I've owned guns since I was 10. Never murdered anyone. Without exaception, all of my extended family, and all of my friends, and their immediate families have guns in their homes--NOT A SINGLE MURDER, OR MURDER AMONG THEM.

Yet, so what? Are you attempting to make some point with this?

I would also love you to prove how the gun control laws have had a detrimental affect on violent crime rates in England.

Ignoring the data I've already posted as proof of this assertion, does not make it non-existent.

Really? In what way. Seems their homicide rate is dropping.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

It looks to me like the murder rate remains higher than it was in 1996 when the legislation was adopted. I see the decline over the last three years, that has yet failed to bring the murder rate below the 1996 level, and refute my assertion.

Is that due to their laws? Actually, you'll notice in the notes that the worst year was 2002/3, which was when Harold Shipton was caught. He killed at least 200+ people over a long period of time. He was a doctor, who for want of a better term, put old people to sleep without their consent. He was a murderer who didn't have a gun. No amount of guns would have saved those people. It was only his greed that got him caught.

I never said guns would save anybody, and I agree (as I must) that guns did not save any of Mr. Shipton's victims--what you are refusing to point out, is that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering
200+ people.

Gun conrol laws are not about controlling the actions of criminals--they are about taking weapons away from law abiding people. Exactly as you have been arguing.

Sounds fine to me.

Ok then.

 

[glockmail]

You'd be wrong.

I'd ask you to back that up but based on your long winded posts and childish behaivior I won't bother.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm still waiting for some rational criteria for restricting people from owning arms outside of those useful for target shooting and hunting.

People don't need hand guns or fully automatic guns to live in a civilised society. Sounds rational to me...

Not relevent, as I continue to assert, and you continue to forget you agree with.

I am not agreeing with you with what you think I am. I am agreeing a baseball bat can kill somebody. I disagree that treating them the same with regard to causing harm to people. Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows a gun is far more destructive, and has a much better capability, to carry out harm. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

But I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying a gun, used for murder is no more a murder weapon than a baseball bat used for murder. It is disingenuous to assert otherwise.

See above.

It does, but such superiority does not make guns any more responsible for murders than baseball bats are.

I'm not looking at responsibility, but ability. How many people were killed by baseball bats last year? How many by firearms?

Correct, for the purposes of confiscation, and no other.

In your opinion.

But it's an efficient place to start looking for guns.

If that was the intent of the govt, possibly. That would mean you would have a huge distrust of the govt. I don't.

Which can easily be accomplished better without lists of licensees through our public and compulsory education system. A strategy not implemented, IMO, because it does not create a list likely to identify gun owners.

Possibly, but I prefer licensing like we have here. It allows firearm store owners to see if they should be selling the arms to somebody proficient in their use, the person is of the right age, and also gives the person some ID in their proficiency.

Since, assurance of proficiency is not really the reason for licensing, and since those not mentally or moraly competent for gun ownership can be listed without listing licensees, the remaing reason for licensing remains the creation of a list of (likely) gun owners. The question then is: To what purpose? I continue to assert that purpose is confiscation.

No, I disagree. Assurance of proficiency is necessary in licensing, which makes your assertion redundant IMO. For such a thing to work (the purpose being confiscation), there would have to those who want to confiscate. That means there would be people upon people in various govt depts working in tandem to want to do such a thing. Dunno about your govt, but mine - although reasonably good - is still a bureaucracy - IOW, not the most efficient body in the world.

And just because "govt are out to get me" conspiracy theorists hold my point of view doesn't make me (or them) wrong.

Doesn't make them right either.

Then limit you gun control laws to these "loony tunes" of yours--actually, limit your control to these loony tunes" of yours--and leave everyone else, and their guns, alone.

That's what licensing helps achieve...

Being decent and civilized, the question is irrelevent, and the answer is none of your business.

Cool. So you are happy for people to walking around with AK47 and similar? That's fine. When I think of societies that have that sort of scenario I'm thinking Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, civil war era Angola etc. You want to live in that type of society? More power to you.

Murderers are murderers regardless of the weapon they use, guns are not responsible for ANY murders, geting rid of guns will prevent no murderer from murdering, because guns ARE NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN the cause of murders. Your treatment of guns as the cause of murders is what is wrong with your assertion.

Actually, I disagree with you. A lack of a firearm certainly limits the type of murder that might be carried out, and in fact, might prevent the murder from taking place. A firearm is a nice, easy way to commit a murder - a baseball bat is a tad more messy - not to mention if you are a 120 pound woman wanting to take out a 280 pound man. I have never stipulated guns do cause murder, they just make the act a tad more easier to carry out.

You should look it up then.

It was your assertion, so you should look it up. Your link just tells me what it is, not the number of instances. That aside, intent is important to me, so therefore it would only be relevent to compare homicides with firearms against homicides caused by doctors a la Mr Shipton.

Really now? How well did Stalin and Saddam provide for the arming of their citizenry? How liberal were their gun control laws? Exactly how well were these citizens armed against their oppressors?

We have no idea because they were closed societies. But those countries had porous borders, so I think you can draw a conclusion there were arms available. If there were insurgencies during Soviet times you can be guaranteed we'd never have found out about it. Hell, we only found out about Chernobyl due to a radioactive cloud floating over Europe.

Not a single disingenuous argument from me, sir.

Nor me (shrug)

Ok. A very special kind of violence--the kind of violence that is only committed with guns--and it matters not one bit that there is no corralary reduction in total violence--it matters not one bit that total violence increased--what does matter is that guns were taken away, and that's the only thing that matters. Yes? Have I fully grasped your point?

I personally don't think the gun laws had anything to do with the increase in violence...

Can I use this same argumentative strategy? Is it equally valiud to say that no conclusion regarding gun control and murder rates can be made since you need to know the future? That therefore your very own gun control proposals, whose nominal purpose is the reduction in murders, are by the same argument invalidated? May i make this argument? I suspect not. This Dr Grump is what I mean by disingenuous argument.

If I was arguing that guns cause violence, you'd be right. I'm not, so not being disingenuous from this end. YOu are the one who keeps on asserting that is my position, and I keep on asserting it is not. You seem to think that is the only plank people who are against firearms being in society is the violence aspect. While the weapon itself is a means of inflicting violence, mine is a more philosophical argument of firearms' role in society.

And you refuse to reiterate the long pre-existing lower (than the US) murder rate prior to the legislation..

Why do I need to reiterate it? The murder rate is still lower even after the legislation, and is in fact almost down to pre-legislation levels.

So what? I've owned guns since I was 10. Never murdered anyone. Without exaception, all of my extended family, and all of my friends, and their immediate families have guns in their homes--NOT A SINGLE MURDER, OR MURDER AMONG THEM.

Wasn't my point. My example was meant to illustrate that the laws had little or no affect on English society because there were hardly any guns there to begin with. People did/do not have guns as a means of protection like the US. That is not the type of society it is. How more simply can I put it to you?

Ignoring the data I've already posted as proof of this assertion, does not make it non-existent.

Neither is it proof. There could be a 101 reasons why violent crime has gone up. More could be reported. Criminals that were inside on long stretches of time could now be up, maybe people have inherently become more violent when settling disputes. You have not shown ONE single correlation between the 1996 laws and the increases in violent crimes.

It looks to me like the murder rate remains higher than it was in 1996 when the legislation was adopted. I see the decline over the last three years, that has yet failed to bring the murder rate below the 1996 level, and refute my assertion.

You talk about me arguing semantics and being disingenuous and then post the above.hhhhmmm... That decline is almost at 1996 levels. Are you going to argue that decline is due to the legislation? Thought not....

I never said guns would save anybody, and I agree (as I must) that guns did not save any of Mr. Shipton's victims--what you are refusing to point out, is that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering 200+ people.

You said guns would save your from a tyrannical govt. So you have said that. Those gun control laws didn't stop Shipton murdering, neither would having a gun.

Gun conrol laws are not about controlling the actions of criminals--they are about taking weapons away from law abiding people. Exactly as you have been arguing.

You see it that way, which is fine. I see them as making for a more civilised society by taking away an extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'd ask you to back that up but based on your long winded posts and childish behaivior I won't bother.

If you're here to debate, do so. If you're here to troll, piss off...

 

[glockmail]

If you're here to debate, do so. If you're here to troll, piss off...

As I said earlier: childish behavior.

 

[jillian]

As I said earlier: childish behavior.

Yours? Absolutely.

 

[glockmail]

Yours? Absolutely.

I know you are but what am I?

 

[LOki]

People don't need hand guns or fully automatic guns to live in a civilised society. Sounds rational to me...

People don't need a free press to live in a civilised society.

People don't need an education to live in a civilised society.

People don't need a hospital to live in a civilised society.

People don't need a potato to live in a civilised society.

Lack of need for a thing is not a rational criteria for restricting access to that thing. I'm still waiting for that rational criteria of yours.

I am not agreeing with you with what you think I am. I am agreeing a baseball bat can kill somebody. I disagree that treating them the same with regard to causing harm to people. Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows a gun is far more destructive, and has a much better capability, to carry out harm. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

You are agreeing with me that guns do not cause murder. You are agreeing with me that guns do not cause violent crime. You have agreed, and agreed, while completely ignoring the the neccessary consequence of such agreement--that since guns DO NOT cause violent crime or murder, getting rid of them CAN NOT get rid of violent crime or murder; that guns are but incidental to the incidence of violent crime or murder, not effective of the incidence of violent crime or murder.

I'm not looking at responsibility, but ability.

Oh? Ability is it now? Fine. Guns are better self-defense weapons than baseball bats. Even when someone is defending themselves against another who has a gun.

You advocate for resricting of a persons natural right to defend themselves?

How many people were killed by baseball bats last year? How many by firearms?

None, and none. What is your point?

Possibly, but I prefer licensing like we have here. It allows firearm store owners to see if they should be selling the arms to somebody proficient in their use, the person is of the right age, and also gives the person some ID in their proficiency.

I'm not surpised you prefer licensing, as it serves better as a substitute for proficiency than as an assurance of proficiency, and is better than education at putting gun owners on a list.

No, I disagree. Assurance of proficiency is necessary in licensing, which makes your assertion redundant IMO.

Assurance of proficiency is not neccessary in licensing. Licesnsing is not neccessary to assure proficiency, is the more important point.

Also, just so you can be extra careful, this argument--that gun owners need to demonstrate proficiency with arms--argues against the assertion that guns are especially easy to use...as a murder weapon.

Since, assurance of proficiency is not really the reason for licensing, and since those not mentally or moraly competent for gun ownership can be listed without listing licensees, the remaing reason for licensing remains the creation of a list of (likely) gun owners. The question then is: To what purpose? I continue to assert that purpose is confiscation.

For such a thing to work (the purpose being confiscation), there would have to those who want to confiscate. That means there would be people upon people in various govt depts working in tandem to want to do such a thing. Dunno about your govt, but mine - although reasonably good - is still a bureaucracy - IOW, not the most efficient body in the world.

Right.

First, there ARE those who wish to confiscate guns;

Second, there ARE people who wish to confiscate guns in various government departments;

Third, they DO NOT have to work in tandem to create confiscation lists--unless, of course, the creation of such lists are not already mandated by regulation; such mandate that you are advocating for;

Finally once the existence of such lists become a pre-existing condition , bureaucracy can be rather effective support to those who wish to use those lists for confiscation purposes--particularly if gun confiscation becomes a bureaucratic function.

Then limit you gun control laws to these "loony tunes" of yours--actually, limit your control to these loony tunes" of yours--and leave everyone else, and their guns, alone.

That's what licensing helps achieve...

Licensing of gun owners does not control these "loony tunes" of yours, nor is licensing of gun owners you hope for, at all limited to these "loony tunes" of yours--but that is of no consequence when making lists of gun owners is the actual point of licensing.

Cool. So you are happy for people to walking around with AK47 and similar? That's fine.

Good. Leave other people, and their guns, alone then, ok?

When I think of societies that have that sort of scenario I'm thinking Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, civil war era Angola etc. You want to live in that type of society?

Fortunately my choices for a society to live in--even those that include the right to keep and bear arms--are not limited to those few your thinking limits you to.

More power to you.

Yes. Power more power to me; in particular, that power to defend myself--that precise power that gun grabbers are afraid that other should possess. Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

Actually, I disagree with you. A lack of a firearm certainly limits the type of murder that might be carried out, and in fact, might prevent the murder from taking place. A firearm is a nice, easy way to commit a murder - a baseball bat is a tad more messy - not to mention if you are a 120 pound woman wanting to take out a 280 pound man. I have never stipulated guns do cause murder, they just make the act a tad more easier to carry out.

Firstly, if the kind of murder you think no guns results in is the type of murder where no-one gets killed, then I honestly can't imagine why you think murders not committed with guns are so preferrable you'd make such a distinction regarding "type of murder." Secondly, considering how much longer murder has been around than guns, and how much much murder occurred before guns arrived, I think it's fair to conclude that murder--even baseball bat murder--is already, and always has been, an easy enterprise to engage in. If there is anything that might make muder more difficult, it's not disarming victims, but rather allowing them to use the most effective self defense tools available--that means letting a 120 pound woman bring a gun to a knife (or baseball bat) fight when she's facing a 280 pound menace. The gun makes the task of self defense against the menace...how did you put it?...Oh yes! "...a tad more easier to carry out."

You should look it up then.

It was your assertion, so you should look it up. Your link just tells me what it is, not the number of instances. That aside, intent is important to me, so therefore it would only be relevent to compare homicides with firearms against homicides caused by doctors a la Mr Shipton.

As it turns out Grump, one has to actually READ the article to gather information from it. The number of incidences are there, and your refusal to view that data does not invalidate it, or its support of the argument I make.

We have no idea because they were closed societies. But those countries had porous borders, so I think you can draw a conclusion there were arms available.

More like:<blockquote>Dr Grump: If I really stop to think about it, looking into this just a little bit will only result in me getting my ass handed to me...again.</blockquote>

Nor me (shrug)

Except for each of those premised upon the notion that guns cause murders.

I personally don't think the gun laws had anything to do with the increase in violence...

Unless those gun were to restrict guns less, in which case, I'm feeling rather sure you'd assert a causal link. Face it pal, your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period. You'll grasp at any staw to limit them. Yes?

If I was arguing that guns cause violence, you'd be right. I'm not, so not being disingenuous from this end.

If you're not, them you'll just have to stop arguing from the premise that they do--at that point, and not before, you'll stop appearing disingenuous.

YOu are the one who keeps on asserting that is my position, and I keep on asserting it is not.

Because you keep arguing from the premise that they cause crime. You return to it after each denial.

You seem to think that is the only plank people who are against firearms being in society is the violence aspect.

I do not. I also think another favored plank is that guns are inherently evil. Another is that guns are nothing but killing machines.

While the weapon itself is a means of inflicting violence, mine is a more philosophical argument of firearms' role in society.

Bullshit. You've made no such philisophical argument. NONE. Switching to this unsubmitted gun philosophy argument of yours appears more to be a hopeful escape from the point by point beating you're taking.

I hope you share your philosophy, I really do.

Why do I need to reiterate it? The murder rate is still lower even after the legislation, and is in fact almost down to pre-legislation levels.

You need to reiterate it to remain genuine--you have no problem comparing England to the US in an attempt to make some correllation between gun ownership and murder, yet you refust to compare England to England--primarily, I suspect, because it's a better comparison that fails to support your assertions.

This is becoming a theme for you.

Wasn't my point. My example was meant to illustrate that the laws had little or no affect on English society because there were hardly any guns there to begin with. People did/do not have guns as a means of protection like the US. That is not the type of society it is. How more simply can I put it to you?

Well, allow me to pull a little taste of your own bullshit reversal on you: You have not stated how many guns the English had prior to the 1996 gun legislation. Until you do, you can't make the claim that "there were hardly any guns there to begin with." Without that claim, your further assertion that "People did/do not have guns as a means of protection like the US" is meaningless--even if I concede there are/were more guns in the US, and more guns per person in the US.

I could extend the taste of your own bullshit by demanding you know what the English WOULD have done with those guns if they were allowed to keep them, to validate your assertion. I won't go so far.

Neither is it proof.

This is particularly disingenuous of you as I'm using the same standaed of proof to support my assertions that you are. Mine are in fact better for not being self-contradictory. Most likely reason this is not proof for you, is that no data contradicting your assertions can be considered "proof" in your measurement of such.

There could be a 101 reasons why violent crime has gone up. More could be reported. Criminals that were inside on long stretches of time could now be up, maybe people have inherently become more violent when settling disputes.

Yes, yet if none of those reasons were the availability of guns, I think you would still refuse the notion that guns aren't the problem--and if the reason was the disamament of the victims, you'd discount it as lacking of "proof."

You have not shown ONE single correlation between the 1996 laws and the increases in violent crimes.

I can one-up you: You have not shown ONE correlation between the 1996 laws and a decrease in violent crime.

Really? In what way. Seems their homicide rate is dropping.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

It looks to me like the murder rate remains higher than it was in 1996 when the legislation was adopted. I see the decline over the last three years, that has yet failed to bring the murder rate below the 1996 level, and refute my assertion.

You talk about me arguing semantics and being disingenuous and then post the above.hhhhmmm... That decline is almost at 1996 levels. Are you going to argue that decline is due to the legislation? Thought not....

Semantics? What? As there were no additional gun contol measure adopted (that I'm aware of) at the begining (2002/03) of the decline you cite, so you can't claim gun control measures are resposible for that decline. It is not disingenuous to argue, based upon the correlation that you deny exists, that the dramatic rise in violent crime rate (that you deny is a higher violent crime rate than that of the US) after adoption of the 1996 legislation is, at least, one result of that legislation. I won't try to mimic your argumentative strategy by asserting that the post 2002/03 decrease is due to the relaxation of gun laws pertaining to the Olympic shooting teams--I'll just say it's likely due to something like England's adoption of harsher punishment and deterrence strategies in response to the dramatic spike in violent crime resultant of legislation disarming the civilized folks of England.

I never said guns would save anybody, and I agree (as I must) that guns did not save any of Mr. Shipton's victims--what you are refusing to point out, is that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering 200+ people.

You said guns would save your from a tyrannical govt. So you have said that. Those gun control laws didn't stop Shipton murdering, neither would having a gun.

Allow me to demand you show me where in this thread, I said "...guns would save [me] from a tyrannical govt."

You are still refusing to point out that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering 200+ people.

I am willing to argue that if Mr. Shipton's victims had the capacity to defend themselves, a gun would have enhanced that capacity--your gun control proposals unneccessarily inhibit that enhanced capacity.

You see it that way, which is fine. I see them as making for a more civilised society by taking away an extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act.

And people beating each other to bloody pulps with baseball bats is somehow less violent than shooting each other? If this "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" is the primary test for resricting guns, why aren't you first demanding the restricting chainsaw use? Are you about to assert that using chainsaws is more civilized, and not such an "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act."

I doubt you will. I'll repeat my suspicion: I think your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period.

 

[Bern80]

People don't need hand guns or fully automatic guns to live in a civilised society. Sounds rational to me...

The need ship sailed long ago. Haveing freedom means being able to exercise wants, not listening to what someone says you need.

I am not agreeing with you with what you think I am. I am agreeing a baseball bat can kill somebody. I disagree that treating them the same with regard to causing harm to people. Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows a gun is far more destructive, and has a much better capability, to carry out harm. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Which is exactley why the are used. Killers know they are efficient killing tools and thus used more often then other tools. That is not a good rationale however for getting rid of them.

I'm not looking at responsibility, but ability. How many people were killed by baseball bats last year? How many by firearms?

Irrelevant. Life is about choice, nothing more. More people chose to kill with guns than bats because guns are easier to kill with, but you can not blame guns because someone chose it as their means to carry out a choice.

If that was the intent of the govt, possibly. That would mean you would have a huge distrust of the govt. I don't.

Wether rightist or leftist, most people in the U.S. distrust government. Especially in terms of legislating what is good for them or what they "need". Further more that you do trust your gov't implies that you don't think your smart enough to figure out what you "need" yourself.

Cool. So you are happy for people to walking around with AK47 and similar? That's fine. When I think of societies that have that sort of scenario I'm thinking Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, civil war era Angola etc. You want to live in that type of society? More power to you.

This is an excellent illustration of where your disconnect is. You have a negative perception of AK-47s because of your exposure, or lack of, to them. And because of the uses have seen you seem to believe that your above examples will be the same no matter what society Ak-47s are introduced to. That is incorrect. As with everything it comes down to choice. These people CHOSE to commit genocide. They CHOSE to use a certain tool as a means to carry it out. THIS IS THE POINT YOUR DISCONNECT OCCURS. You are more afraid of the tool used then the person who made the CHOICE to use it.

You see it that way, which is fine. I see them as making for a more civilised society by taking away an extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act.

You seem to contradict yourself here (or maybe not). In a reply to me you said you don't believe all guns should be banned. Yet here you say (again) no guns would make for a more civilized society. The only thing then I can deduce then is that you think no guns would make a more civilized society, but you don't WANT a more civilized society?

 

[eots]

hold on to your guns kids your going to be needing them

 

[Dr Grump]

People don't need a free press to live in a civilised society. People don't need an education to live in a civilised society. People don't need a hospital to live in a civilised society. People don't need a potato to live in a civilised society. Lack of need for a thing is not a rational criteria for restricting access to that thing. I'm still waiting for that rational criteria of yours.

Some people believe you do need those things. I don't have to explain my rationale, no more than you have to explain you having guns other than you "want them". That is my rationale, and where I come from, a pretty normal one.

You are agreeing with me that guns do not cause murder. You are agreeing with me that guns do not cause violent crime. You have agreed, and agreed, while completely ignoring the the neccessary consequence of such agreement--that since guns DO NOT cause violent crime or murder, getting rid of them CAN NOT get rid of violent crime or murder.

Of course it can't, but it can certainly limit the means by which those things can occur as I illustrated by the road rage example.

.You advocate for resricting of a persons natural right to defend themselves?

No. Where I'm from most incidents are settled with fists. Have a brawl, shake hands afterwards, and go home. Let's pretend those instances involved guns instead. You think they'd be shaking hands at the end?

None, and none. What is your point?

You see, this is where I see cracks starting to appear. You offer a smart arse answer, when you know EXACTLY what I meant, and then ask What is your point? This does nothing constructive to the argument. You know I am comparing deaths where a baseball bat or a gun were the weapons of choice.

I'm not surpised you prefer licensing, as it serves better as a substitute for proficiency than as an assurance of proficiency, and is better than education at putting gun owners on a list. Assurance of proficiency is not neccessary in licensing. Licesnsing is not neccessary to assure proficiency, is the more important point.

But that is not the reason for licensing. You can put a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, all I'm seeing is "conspiracy theory". We've had licensing since I can remember. It has never been as issue here (shrug)...

Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?

Or why some are so afraid of society they need to be armed to the teeth. I'm not afraid. If I was, I'd have a firearms' license and a firearm. I don't...(shrug)

Face it pal, your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period. You'll grasp at any staw to limit them. Yes?

Of course my problem is with guns. Why do you think we are having this conversation? I grasp at no straws. I live in a society, that for the most part, agrees with me. Your thoughts would probably be echoed by about 5&#37; of our population, or even less. We do not fear our govt, and have enough belief in our police that, generally, they'll get the bad guy. We have a choice - every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a gun, or we limit their availability. We do the latter. Nobody but diehard gunnies are upset. They are a negligible minority. I am for limiting 1) How guns are obtained 2) And types of guns. Not ALL guns.

Because you keep arguing from the premise that they cause crime. You return to it after each denial.

You're reading far too much into my posts. They do not cause crime, I have said so from the get-go. What I am saying, is they make it easier for perps to commit crimes, and generally, I don't trust even law-abiding citizens to have certain types of weapons. I make no apology for that mistrust.

Bullshit. You've made no such philisophical argument. NONE. Switching to this unsubmitted gun philosophy argument of yours appears more to be a hopeful escape from the point by point beating you're taking.

Of course it is philosophical. You have the 2nd, which is set in stone. What else is our debate? We have done nothing but talk about the merits (in your case) or lack thereof (in mine) of an armed society. As for beating? Really? My, you are easily pleased...

You need to reiterate it to remain genuine--you have no problem comparing England to the US in an attempt to make some correllation between gun ownership and murder.

Actaully I'm not. This link http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html shows that there are 3.72 guns murders per 100,000 people in the US. In the UK it is 0.11. Why is that? More guns available? Yanks are more trigger happy? Who knows...

yet you refust to compare England to England--primarily, I suspect, because it's a better comparison that fails to support your assertions. This is becoming a theme for you.

If the link posted showing the upsurge, then decline, in murders rates in England - and England only - ISN'T comparing England with England, then I don't know what it is doing. Comparing England with Norway??

Well, allow me to pull a little taste of your own bullshit reversal on you: You have not stated how many guns the English had prior to the 1996 gun legislation. Until you do, you can't make the claim that "there were hardly any guns there to begin with.".

Hey, you're the one who said that you had no doubt there was a tonne of people around you that had firearms - without backing it up. I believe you. You live there. I lived in England for three years. Nobody had firearms that I knew. They were hardly mentioned. Not even an issue. You can believe me or not.

This is particularly disingenuous of you as I'm using the same standaed of proof to support my assertions that you are. Mine are in fact better for not being self-contradictory.

No you are not. You are defining things and giving answers to questions without proof. I am not. You are assuming/inferring violent crime has increased since the new gun laws in England took place. I am not. I am saying I have no idea why there was an increase in violence. So no, not disingenuous and certainly not the same standard. How are mine self-contradictory?

Most likely reason this is not proof for you, is that no data contradicting your assertions can be considered "proof" in your measurement of such.

You have inferred that violence in England has increased since the gun ban, and it is the ban that is the reason for the increase. If you are NOT saying that, then I stand corrected. If you are, pony up the evidence, that that is the reason. And if it is the reason, how come since 2002, the number of homicides are almost down to pre-1996 levels?

I can one-up you: You have not shown ONE correlation between the 1996 laws and a decrease in violent crime.

Err, that's because I'm not trying to. I think there is no correlation between the laws and any crime. I think the laws have had negligable or no affect on crime, period.

Semantics? What? As there were no additional gun contol measure adopted (that I'm aware of) at the begining (2002/03) of the decline you cite, so you can't claim gun control measures are resposible for that decline.

Show me where I have claimed that? I was asking YOU if you were going to use that as a reason for the decreases....I absolutely think it is semantics (just like when I talked about baseball bat used in murders vs gun murders, you said neither of them killed anything - you knew what I meant but decided to be a smartarse about it). The homicide trend in England is falling, but because it is not quite at 1996 levels you think that still validates your (incorrect IMO) argument that the new laws were somehow responsible or the crime rise...

It is not disingenuous to argue, based upon the correlation that you deny exists, that the dramatic rise in violent crime rate (that you deny is a higher violent crime rate than that of the US) after adoption of the 1996 legislation is, at least, one result of that legislation. I won't try to mimic your argumentative strategy by asserting that the post 2002/03 decrease is due to the relaxation of gun laws pertaining to the Olympic shooting teams--I'll just say it's likely due to something like England's adoption of harsher punishment and deterrence strategies in response to the dramatic spike in violent crime resultant of legislation disarming the civilized folks of England .

Per head of population the US DOES have a higher rate of violence than England. You have not proved (and I have never seen ANY pro-gunnie prove) that the higher crime rates in England were due to the new legislation. You DON'T have to believe me re the number of guns, or lackthereof, previous to the legisation. Remember the legislation was introduced due to the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents and was aimed at particular types of firearms. I reiterate, you are still allowed to get a firearm in England if you wish to do so as long as you meet certain criteria. You do know that general constables in England are not armed, right? There's a reason for that.

Allow me to demand you show me where in this thread, I said "...guns would save [me] from a tyrannical govt.

You didn't, Bern80 did, but you answered on his behalf (post 78)...Also, if you are not afraid of a tyrannical govt, why do you give a shit about licensing being another form of a confiscation list.

You are still refusing to point out that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering 200+ people.

Not trying to. I was pointing out that having guns wouldn't have stopped him.

I am willing to argue that if Mr. Shipton's victims had the capacity to defend themselves, a gun would have enhanced that capacity--your gun control proposals unneccessarily inhibit that enhanced capacity.

You don't know about the case do you? I said he put them to sleep. They didn't even know they were being murdered. It was only after he tried to get one of his victim's wills changed, her daughter became suspicious, and the whole house of cards came flying down. They reckon there were 243 victims and least.....So, no, a gun would not have been of use.

If this "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" is the primary test for resricting guns, why aren't you first demanding the restricting chainsaw use?

Again, pony up the stats were a chainsaw is the murder weapon vs a gun. To me, that's all that matters (shrug)..

I doubt you will. I'll repeat my suspicion: I think your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period.

As already stated in this post. You've just clicked?

By the way, you'll notice I ignored/didn't answer some of your post. These posts are becoming unweildy to a degree that they are taking up large amounts of time to answer, so the aspects I didn't answer I thought either 1) it had been covered already 2) wasn't any point in answering. However, if there is one point you made that you thought deserved an answer, tell me which part, and I'll do the best I can...

 

[Bern80]

Some people believe you do need those things. I don't have to explain my rationale, no more than you have to explain you having guns other than you "want them". That is my rationale, and where I come from, a pretty normal one.

What constitutes the majority opinion, is just that, an opinion.

Of course it can't, but it can certainly limit the means by which those things can occur as I illustrated by the road rage example.

And again limiting that occurrance (i.e. guns are taken away) is to cut down the apple orchard to get rid of the bad apples, because you don't want to take the time to focus on the real problem (the bad apples). You want a quick. easy solution.

No. Where I'm from most incidents are settled with fists. Have a brawl, shake hands afterwards, and go home. Let's pretend those instances involved guns instead. You think they'd be shaking hands at the end?

Which would seem to contradict your argument that not haveing a gun will make people more civilized.

But that is not the reason for licensing. You can put a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, all I'm seeing is "conspiracy theory". We've had licensing since I can remember. It has never been as issue here (shrug)...

what is the point of licensing? IMO opinion it is to track who owns guns. Why? the rationale being that if a gun is used in a crime it can be traced to the owner. Most guns used in violent crime are come by illegally in the first place. Making tracing through licensing an unneccessary goose chase the majority of the time.

Or why some are so afraid of society they need to be armed to the teeth. I'm not afraid. If I was, I'd have a firearms' license and a firearm. I don't...(shrug)

then again I have to ask, why you maintain guns need to be done away with.

Of course my problem is with guns. Why do you think we are having this conversation? I grasp at no straws. I live in a society, that for the most part, agrees with me. Your thoughts would probably be echoed by about 5&#37; of our population, or even less. We do not fear our govt, and have enough belief in our police that, generally, they'll get the bad guy. We have a choice - every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a gun, or we limit their availability. We do the latter. Nobody but diehard gunnies are upset. They are a negligible minority. I am for limiting 1) How guns are obtained 2) And types of guns. Not ALL guns.

This would be the second time you have said one thing and stated exactley the opposite later. This is why some of us are getting frustrated. You have stated to me you don't have a problem with guns then here you again state you do. As for what you believe your society as a whole thinks, see first respons at top of post. It also isn't about the police catching the bad guy it's about the police getting to the badguy. The pt of haveing a gun, as you have said, is because they kill or possibly wound efficiently. If my home is broken into, assuming I'm actually there, It would take about 10 minutes for th cops to get here. Depending on wher you live it could be much more than that. There are literally millions of people in this country that live under such a circumstance. Haveing to wait 10 minutes or longer for the police to (hopefully) stop te assailant/brugrlar could be 9 minutes and 55 seconds to long to wait.

This isn't even the point either, as I have stated earlier if I want a tank for no other reason than to mind my own business blowing up piles of dirt, what's the problem? Answer: It depends on the CHOICES I make while using it and whether said choice will effect others. That is my stance on banning pretty much anything. Drunk driving is a CHOICE made illegal because it effects others. Smoking is being banned in many parts of our country because the CHOICE to light up effects others. I don't on the other hand believe most drugs should be illegal, because if they were legal your CHOCIE to use them would only effect you.

The amount of trust you have of your gov't is quite frightening. You don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a gun because you are afraid of the CHOICES they might make with them. That is the only reasonable explanation as to why you feel the way you do. And yet in feeling that way you feel it is better to get rid of the guns then to try and confront the problem of the person who made the CHOICE again because it's the easy way out.

You're reading far too much into my posts. They do not cause crime, I have said so from the get-go. What I am saying, is they make it easier for perps to commit crimes, and generally, I don't trust even law-abiding citizens to have certain types of weapons. I make no apology for that mistrust.

Also scary that you trust your gov't more than you trust your citizenry. All i can say unfortunately is your mistrust is misplaced.

Hey, you're the one who said that you had no doubt there was a tonne of people around you that had firearms - without backing it up. I believe you. You live there. I lived in England for three years. Nobody had firearms that I knew. They were hardly mentioned. Not even an issue. You can believe me or not.

Again the number people around you, Loki or me that have guns is irrelevant. It is the CHOICES that those people make that is.

Err, that's because I'm not trying to. I think there is no correlation between the laws and any crime. I think the laws have had negligable or no affect on crime, period.

Then again the question needs to be asked, if there is no correlation why would be necessary to not only eliminate SOME guns or even restrict some types or license them if it serves no purpose?

 

[Little-Acorn]

We have a choice - every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a gun, or we limit their availability.

It's a common tactic for those who can't defend their agendas, to try to limit the discussion to either "their way", or some other silly extreme no one wants.

There is, of course, another alternative. One that even works. Get rid of all the laws that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning or carrrying guns. Then let each person decide whether he/she will get one.

You'll find that most people won't bother getting one, even if they are free to if they want. A few will, of course. And someone contemplating stealing an old lady's purse, or raping a pretty girl somewhere, will know that a few of the people nearby are probably carrying... but he won't know which one(s). Maybe his intended victim is packing, maybe not - he doesn't know. And so he'll be more reluctant to commit his crime - the whole reason for having laws in the first place.

If the law forbids everyone from carrying weapons, then he DOES know that no one will be able to defend themselves, and his risk is far less.

The oldest solution in the world - and the wisest. Let the people themselves decide if they will carry a gun. Crime goes down, not up, every time.

Freedom of choice. What a concept. Abhorred by govt-uber-alles types the world over... but, as somebody said in this thread, they are a negligible minority.

 

[Dr Grump]

The need ship sailed long ago. Haveing freedom means being able to exercise wants, not listening to what someone says you need.

Where do your freedoms start and mine end?

Irrelevant. Life is about choice, nothing more. More people chose to kill with guns than bats because guns are easier to kill with, but you can not blame guns because someone chose it as their means to carry out a choice.

Life is also about compromise. That is why we both live in societies where the people vote in politicians that supposedly enact the will of the people. If the will of the people is to ban certain types of guns or have licensing, then que sera sera, no?

Wether rightist or leftist, most people in the U.S. distrust government. Especially in terms of legislating what is good for them or what they "need". Further more that you do trust your gov't implies that you don't think your smart enough to figure out what you "need" yourself.

I know most people in the US distrust their govt, which probably says more about the US system than anything. You are wrong re govt. I see the govt as a tool of keeping a society civilised. Do they get nanny statish on occasion? Yup. They then get voted out. If we were all smart enough to figure out our needs, why have govt at all?

This is an excellent illustration of where your disconnect is. You have a negative perception of AK-47s because of your exposure, or lack of, to them. And because of the uses have seen you seem to believe that your above examples will be the same no matter what society Ak-47s are introduced to. That is incorrect. As with everything it comes down to choice. These people CHOSE to commit genocide. They CHOSE to use a certain tool as a means to carry it out. THIS IS THE POINT YOUR DISCONNECT OCCURS. You are more afraid of the tool used then the person who made the CHOICE to use it.

You are wrong. IT is the person I don't trust, not the tool. As I said, the only times a see fully automatic weapons being bandied around are in third world countries. I'd rather live in my society than theirs...

You seem to contradict yourself here (or maybe not). In a reply to me you said you don't believe all guns should be banned. Yet here you say (again) no guns would make for a more civilized society. The only thing then I can deduce then is that you think no guns would make a more civilized society, but you don't WANT a more civilized society?

This is where we get philosophical (although Loki would probably say not). I think there are many ways to settle disputes.At the barrel of a gun is not such a way. I think the odds of that happening are dramatically increased with the number of guns available in society.

 

[Dr Grump]

What constitutes the majority opinion, is just that, an opinion

Absolutely, but one that encourages robust debate...

And again limiting that occurrance (i.e. guns are taken away) is to cut down the apple orchard to get rid of the bad apples, because you don't want to take the time to focus on the real problem (the bad apples). You want a quick. easy solution

It also limits the availability of a mechanism solely designed to kill. Look at the chart I posted re the number of firearms deaths per 100,000 in the US compared to similar societies.

what is the point of licensing? IMO opinion it is to track who owns guns. Why? the rationale being that if a gun is used in a crime it can be traced to the owner. Most guns used in violent crime are come by illegally in the first place. Making tracing through licensing an unneccessary goose chase the majority of the time.

No, I have already stated that licensing here is for the sole reason of making sure people are proficient in firearms laws and how to use a firearm. It is the person who is licensed, not the firearm.

This would be the second time you have said one thing and stated exactley the opposite later. This is why some of us are getting frustrated. You have stated to me you don't have a problem with guns then here you again state you do. legal your CHOCIE to use them would only effect you.

Probably because i have not been clear enough. Overall, I don't like guns. Loki has said that is the case, and I thought that was obvious. However, I realise some people have a need for them. To me those needs include hunting and target shooting. So therefore, having those types of guns available are fine (IMO). Other types (hand guns and full autos) are unnecessary. Most pro-gunnies seem to think you either like guns or hate them, and there is nothign in the middle. It's all shades of grey..

Drunk driving is a CHOICE made illegal because it effects others. Smoking is being banned in many parts of our country because the CHOICE to light up effects others.

Good point. So how many Columbines do you need? Have those instances affected others?

.The amount of trust you have of your gov't is quite frightening. You don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to have a gun because you are afraid of the CHOICES they might make with them. That is the only reasonable explanation as to why you feel the way you do. And yet in feeling that way you feel it is better to get rid of the guns then to try and confront the problem of the person who made the CHOICE again because it's the easy way out.

Why re the govt? My govt has never committed any mass killings. How many mass killings post WWII has your govt committed? And absolutely re the choices Tom, Dick and Harry. Not so much scared as total mistrust. As I said, I make no apology for said mistrust.

Also scary that you trust your gov't more than you trust your citizenry. All i can say unfortunately is your mistrust is misplaced.

I trust the citizenry generally. But when it comes to firearms - especially societies awash with them - it has been proven over and over again that the citizenry cannot be trusted. Do I have to become a statistic jsut so you can have your gun?

Again the number people around you, Loki or me that have guns is irrelevant. It is the CHOICES that those people make that is

Unfortunately for every Loki or yourself (who both seem trustworthy), there is a Klebold or Harris. What would be interestign, and probably improve your stats, is take out the drug and gang related killings with firearms. Probably give a more honest picture of US society re guns.

Then again the question needs to be asked, if there is no correlation why would be necessary to not only eliminate SOME guns or even restrict some types or license them if it serves no purpose?

Of course it serves a purpose. If you have a single shot rifle, you have your gun. You don't need a fully automatic weapon other than to satiate your own desire to have a weapon that fires multiple projectiles. One has to ask WHY you want that and if it has a negative impact on society, then why not take steps to limit their availability.?

 

[Dr Grump]

Freedom of choice. What a concept. Abhorred by govt-uber-alles types the world over...

True, just ask gay people...

 

[Bern80]

Absolutely, but one that encourages robust debate...

agreed

It also limits the availability of a mechanism solely designed to kill. Look at the chart I posted re the number of firearms deaths per 100,000 in the US compared to similar societies.

I have agreed that the purpose of guns is to kill. That's why people use them. Wether it be for hunting or whatever. However, the number of deaths they cause is irrelevant. Mainly because think of all the other things you would have to ban on that basis. The first coming to mind would be cigarettes. And even though I don't smoke I would be 100&#37; opposed to banning them entirely. Because no gov't should be in the business of telling anyone what is good for them or what they "need" or don't "need". All of us can come with quite a few things that we have that we don't need.

No, I have already stated that licensing here is for the sole reason of making sure people are proficient in firearms laws and how to use a firearm. It is the person who is licensed, not the firearm.

That is where some in the U.S. have a problem. (I haven't really decided). The 2nd ammendment says it my right to have a gun. Meaning the gov't shouldn not make me take a test to exercise said right. I don't have to take an IQ test to exercise my right to free speech for example. How our system works, in the state of Minnesota anyway, is at the age of 12 if you want to hunt with a firearm you must enroll in firearm safety. Upon completion you get an orange card saying you've passed and the card needs to be presented when you buy a hunting license. As for purchasing you have to fill out a questionaire with questions such as are you a drug user, have you been convicted of felonies etc. So we do have a system in place that at least attempts to keep firearms out of the hands of the people shouldn't have them

Probably because i have not been clear enough. Overall, I don't like guns. Loki has said that is the case, and I thought that was obvious.

and some people do. I don't know if this applies to you or not , but the type of opposition I normally come across is that of someone likes guns they must like killing. This is not the case. Lot's of people collect knives too, it doesn't mean they enjoy cutting things.

However, I realise some people have a need for them. To me those needs include hunting and target shooting. So therefore, having those types of guns available are fine (IMO).

These are not needs. Our family CHOOSES to hunt for our meat, but if we had to we could buy it too. Nor do I NEED to target shoot, but I like too.

Other types (hand guns and full autos) are unnecessary. Most pro-gunnies seem to think you either like guns or hate them, and there is nothign in the middle. It's all shades of grey..

You have to be able to make the argument that an automatic is somehow less safe, in of itself <--that's important, than a semi-auto or pump or single. That is not the case. Any firearm is only as safe as the person using it. And if the person has been properly licensed(deemed safe to use one), per your argument, what difference does it make?

the gun argument simply can not be about the neccessity or lack form them. Because that is a terribly slipery slope. Again there are lots of things none of us need some possibly even more dangerous than guns if certain choices are exerted on them.

Good point. So how many Columbines do you need? Have those instances affected others?

What was the cause of Columbine? IMO to solve any problem you need to get to the root of it to stop it. Guns were not the root of this problem.

Why re the govt? My govt has never committed any mass killings. How many mass killings post WWII has your govt committed? And absolutely re the choices Tom, Dick and Harry. Not so much scared as total mistrust. As I said, I make no apology for said mistrust.

Wether you apologize or not should be based on wether your mistrust is legitimately placed.

I trust the citizenry generally. But when it comes to firearms - especially societies awash with them - it has been proven over and over again that the citizenry cannot be trusted.

That one I will make you find evidence for. In what societies has it been proven that where citizens had guns it lead to the downfall of the society? You are implying that by the simple addition of firearms it somehow makes people to crazy things.

Do I have to become a statistic jsut so you can have your gun?

If, god forbid, you became a statistic the cause of said statistic would not be a gun. It would be a CHOICE.

Unfortunately for every Loki or yourself (who both seem trustworthy), there is a Klebold or Harris. What would be interestign, and probably improve your stats, is take out the drug and gang related killings with firearms. Probably give a more honest picture of US society re guns.

That stat simply would not pan out. It would mean our society is split 50-50 for law abbidding gun users and non-law abidding. That is not the case. Why do you assume there are the same or fewer of us then them? Right now you say you know at least 2 trustworthy, law abidding gun owners. How many non-law abidding guns owners do you really know?

Of course it serves a purpose. If you have a single shot rifle, you have your gun. You don't need a fully automatic weapon other than to satiate your own desire to have a weapon that fires multiple projectiles. One has to ask WHY you want that and if it has a negative impact on society, then why not take steps to limit their availability.?

Again your assumption in the WHY seems to be that I must like killing. It would have to be for you to have a problem with it. Since that is not the case (you'll just have to take my word for it). Why should I be limited?

 

[trobinett]

Can't believe how long this thread has gone on.

There is NO comparison between England and the United States, none.

The Magna Carta, and the Constitution are different documents.

American citizens aren't giving up their guns, aren't going to apply for a license, aren't going to line up like little sheep, and turn their guns in, it ain't happening, period.

Just as this thread under scores, your pissing in the wind, when you think Americans are giving up their guns, and laying down to GUN CONTROL.

Lets see, how about GLOBAL WARMING, and compairing the English to Americans, and giving up their cars?