[Baff]

Is it really better that in the UK people are stabbed rather than shot?

= All that needs to be said here.

Beaten to death with a teapot FTW.




The key to this one for me is the ease of the action.

The path of least resistance, precipitates it use.
The easier it is to do something, the more likely someone is to do it.
The more they will consider doing it.

It's easier for me to climb a hill than it is a mountain. Hence it is no coincidence that more people climb hills than climb mountains.
It is easier for me to drive to Cambridge than it is to walk to Cambridge.
So while I would readily consider driving to Cambridge I pretty much wouldn't consider walking there at all.
The improvement in my technological capability facilitates that action.

Even when I owned a push bike, an effective method of transportation for the job, I still did not travel to Cambridge as much as since I have owned a car. In fact I have never cycled there.


It is harder to knife someone to death than it is shoot them to death.
So if everyone in the UK who had a kinfe, had a gun instead, more people would be killed.

If we take that to the extreme examples, say a school massacre, you will see that there are no school massacres in the UK involving knives. (Or guns).
Even if there is the odd school killing, the capability to have a mass killing is completely removed from the equation by the lack of availability of a facilitating toolset.

It can't happen here, so it doesn't.

[Fasces]

That line of reasoning doesn't reflect reality. The UK has a violent crime rate 400% higher than the United States, when according to you, it should be the other way around.

[Baff]

The UK does not have school massacres.

Produce whatever spurious statistics you prefer. We all know this to be true, we all know why this is true.

[Repeat to Fade]

Produce whatever spurious statistics you prefer. We all know this to be true, we all know why this is true.

More fucked up logic from our second worst poster (rankings are set to change)

Why are you so obsessed with school massacres? Why does it matter that Derrick Bird didn't walk into a school? The only reason we don't have school shootings is because people like Derrick Bird just didn't want to. Thomas Hamilton did want to though. So the reason we don't have school massacres is not what you postulate, it's the choice of nutters.

[Drlee]

The UK does not have school massacres.

Really? Did you post this? What is a "massacre"? Shall we say more than three dead? In the past 12 years there have been exactly 6.

[Baff]

Lets say 12 dead 21 wounded.

And then you can see the difference in killing capacity between an American schoolkid with a gun and a British schoolkid with only a knife.

LMAO @ 3 = massacre. That might count as a "massacre" by UK standards but it certainly doesn't by American ones.


The difference between life in your country and life in mine.
In your country when a child goes ballistic he can score 33 victims and in my country he can't.

It's not that your people have anymore inherant crankiness than my people, it's that the weapons they have access to give them a greater capacity to do harm.
It emboldens them and it facilitates them.

I understand that you may not wish to admit this. That you may feel it does not advance your case of shooters rights to recognise it.
But as one shooter to another, respect the gun.
If it didn't enhance your capability to kill people, I doubt you wouldn't even want one.

If knifes were as badass as guns, no one would buy guns in America or naywhere else. They would all have the cheaper knives instead.
But they don't.

The very purpose of a gun is to kill. Killers are attracted to them like bees to honey.

[Repeat to Fade]

In your country when a child goes ballistic he can score 33 victims and in my country he can't.

Actually as Ryan, Hamilton and Bird showed actually they can. You are rather foolishly limiting to schools for some weird reason like where people get shot makes a big deal of difference rather than the choice of the nutter.

Are you going to be so dumb as to claim that the reason the other two (excluding Hamilton) didn't go mental in a school was because of the gun laws at the time?

[Drlee]

I understand that you may not wish to admit this. That you may feel it does not advance your case of shooters rights to recognise it.
But as one shooter to another, respect the gun.
If it didn't enhance your capability to kill people, I doubt you wouldn't even want one.

Do you understand that? I am pretty familiar with guns having spent 20 years in the Army. I think you may be, as we used to say, eat-up-with-the-obvious. Very true. If guns did not kill people better than golf clubs people would not want to own them. Except for one thing. There are 12.5 million licensed hunters in the US and who knows how many unlicensed. (A license is not always required.)

Hunters not being what this thread is about I will agree that we do like the protection a firearm gives us. I live in a state where no license is required to carry a concealed weapon. I do not routinely carry one. As I said before. If I do not carry one the chances that I will get into a gun fight are pretty slim.

[Xbow]

Gun deaths in the USA (2000-2001)

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides ~ 30,000 (if a crazy wants to end it other options are easily available a gun makes it easier...so what!)

Down to cases, there were ~12,500 gun homicides in the USA in the year stated.

Conclusion: Gun homicides in the USA are a statistically insignificant cause of death and account for just 0.0046 of the 2.7 million deaths in the USA per year. Not bad when you consider that there are 200 million privately-owned firearms in the USA. We hardly live in a shooting gallery on this side of the pond.

I live in a state where no license is required to carry a concealed weapon. I do not routinely carry one. As I said before. If I do not carry one the chances that I will get into a gun fight are pretty slim.

Gentlemen, I must agree with DrLee that the chances of getting into a gunfight where a death results for the average citizen are very, very slim here in the USA.

[Xbow]

In your country when a child goes ballistic he can score 33 victims and in my country he can't.

Baff are you trying to tell me that British school kids are too dumb to construct a pipe bomb, or a Molotov cocktail with the gasoline filler laced with iron dust, aluminium oxide and styrofoam? I don't believe it.

Then there is this, according to The Guardian illegal guns aren't all that hard to get in the UK if you've got the cash. The bottom line is that if a shithead really wants to hurt some people he/she/it can do it in a variety of ways. Perhaps because of the large population in the USA which is about 5 times the population of the UK there are simply a greater number of mentally defective dweebs in the USA that feel the need to act out their violent fantasies. But I agree that the availability of guns in the USA is a factor in these statistically insignificant events...but I am also glad that the people of the United States don't appear to want a government that plays 'Nanny Knows Best' like your's does.

Reality: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." Franklin (I think)

[redcarpet]

Like with drugs, the black market would explode. It is an unenforceable idea hat would fail, same with other like social life laws.

People should not be forced to live a particular way, be it by governments or private business.

[Section Leader]

Handguns are easier to get hold of now than when they were legal, if you know where to look you can have almost any pistol or rifle within 24 hours. Just because illegal weapons are not visible to polite society doesn't mean they're not out there. The average angsty teenager is unlikely to be able to afford one, but if you've got the money you can have anything you like, up to and including military-grade assault rifles.

I believe certain people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but I don't believe in regulation of types of guns apart from full-automatics.

[Repeat to Fade]

Well that is horseshit. Are you even able to comprehend when you contradict yourself?

Handguns are easier to get hold of now than when they were legal, if you know where to look you can have almost any pistol or rifle within 24 hours.

So everyone knew where to get them before, but now don't but they are easier to get hold of? And the princess kates private nudey photos are available "if you know where to look"

Just because illegal weapons are not visible to polite society doesn't mean they're not out there.

Oh they are but they exist on a markey alot of people cannot obtain them, unlike before.

The average angsty teenager is unlikely to be able to afford one

So not only are they harder to find they are more expensive. And yet you claim they are easier to get hold of?

but if you've got the money you can have anything you like, up to and including military-grade assault rifles.

Yeah cos that kind of equipment turns up alot on these shores now does it? Used alot are they? Plenty of news stories about them being used are seized are they? Well then you know what to do.....

I believe certain people shouldn't be allowed to have guns

Idiots for a start. On a totally unrelated note are you able to obtain a licence?

So go on then SL master of the dark arts, the "man who knows how to get things" tell us how would go about obtaining even a cheap handgun. They are easy to get hold of right?

[Rainbow Crow]

In my opinion, the problem isn't the right to bear arms, it's how rabidly people defend any attempt at regulation at all upon it. Complete maniacs with well documented histories of mental illness can get guns. It's a problem.

I highly doubt the founding fathers wanted raving lunatics or those in insane asylums to have the same access to firearms as everyone else.

[nucklepunche]

I agree with Blue Puppy. I support the right of an adult who is not a violent felon or mentally ill to own a gun BUT I do believe you need to keep it out of the hands of the latter two groups. Whatever regulations necessary to do so are necessary. YES I believe the second amendment protects the right to own a gun individually, not collectively. In the same way I think the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression. I tend to be pretty firm in my commitment to the First Amendment but even I draw the line somewhere. Do you want a pornographic billboard in front of a school? No. Does it mean I want to ban swearing on TV and radio? No. Apples to oranges. Somewhere there is a line in the sand though. If somebody stands with a bullhorn in front of a private home for five hours at night and gets a noise citation I don't see it as a violation of the First Amendment. However if they were speaking in a public square and in daytime and got cited it would be a different matter. The same thing with guns. Are background checks a violation of the Second Amendment? Absolutely not.

[Drlee]

^^

The notion that the founders saw the keeping of arms as some universal right is absurd. In is telling that Jefferson in his draft constitution for Virginia put it this way, "“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].”

This clearly imagines a limit to the carrying of arms. He deliberately said "within his own lands and tenements". So there is proof that one founder saw limits. We need not even go into what "freeman" means. Suffice it to say there are plenty of folks today who Jefferson would not have seen as empowered to own arms.

I agree with your reasonable limits theory. In my own state I can carry a concealed firearm if I like but there are limits. I have the right to forbid the carrying of arms on my land and business for example. I am certain the founders would have agreed with this. I assert that government has this right on property under its control too. Certainly the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to carrying a concealed pistol on a military reservation or courthouse.

Clearly the founders understood the responsibilities of owning firearms. They would not have allowed the villiage idiot or a convicted felon to have a musket. Yet there are those today who would. They are, of course, idiots.

[nucklepunche]

The NRA here in Michigan actually wanted to make a law requiring employers to allow guns at work. Guns at work! The right wing was all for it. You know if they ever place any other regulation on business they raise a big shit about "violating property rights" and here they wanted to make a law that said that if I went into work with an uzi strapped to my back and my boss told me to take it off I could go tell him to stick it up his ass and if he fired me I could sue him, maybe for small dick discrimination or something.

[KlassWar]

[sarc]Conservatives are murdering Leftists... Let's disarm the working class![/sarc]

Left-wingers who propose gun control are class traitors. No left-winger worth his salt should ever call for disarming the working classes: In fact, they should argue for arming the working classes to the teeth.

Gun Control=Class Suicide.

[Eran]

In my opinion, the problem isn't the right to bear arms, it's how rabidly people defend any attempt at regulation at all upon it.

Rabid defence against regulation goes hand in hand with shameless use of regulation to effectively prohibit gun ownership and use.

Do I need to dig up examples of ridiculous regulations?

The notion that the founders saw the keeping of arms as some universal right is absurd.

Are you keeping in mind that the founders saw the federal constitution as only applying to the federal government? Application to state government action was a much later innovation. I think it is perfectly reasonable to see that the founders wanted the federal government to stay out of the business of prohibiting gun ownership while, at the same time, leaving the question of state regulations to the several states.

I have the right to forbid the carrying of arms on my land and business for example. I am certain the founders would have agreed with this. I assert that government has this right on property under its control too.

This is a dangerous analogy. You also have the right to forbid somebody standing on your land from criticising you. Would you suggest government should have the same right as regards property under its control?

Left-wingers who propose gun control are class traitors. No left-winger worth his salt should ever call for disarming the working classes: In fact, they should argue for arming the working classes to the teeth.

Gun Control=Class Suicide.

Unbelievably, you are onto something. Your only problem is in misidentifying the relevant classes. The oppressors are not capitalists per-se, but rather the political class (which includes crony-capitalists, of course). The oppressed are not the proletariat per-se, but rather peace-loving productive people, from day-labourers to entrepreneurs.

[KlassWar]

[quote="Lexington"The oppressors are not capitalists per-se, but rather the political class (which includes crony-capitalists, of course). The oppressed are not the proletariat per-se, but rather peace-loving productive people, from day-labourers to entrepreneurs.

Partially true: The capitalists have collaborators, allies and agents.... And it's not just the proletariat per se that's oppressed, it's the working classes as a whole (lumpenproletarians, proletarians, rural laborers, semiproletarians like students and intellectuals, even 'toiling-masses petty bourgeois'.)

Still, the proletariat's own class nature makes them the only one of the working classes capable of annihilating the old order: The proletariat is a huge class without any socioeconomic privileges, who relies on nothing but their own labor for their survival and eventual prosperity. As proletarians do not exploit anybody, their class interests are wholly compatible with the emancipation of humankind from the shackles of exploitation and repression.

But that's off-topic. Let's take it to PM if you want.