Why no resurge in gun control advocacy?

[Haezed]

None of which is realistic in the least. This isn't a TV shoot out show. Intruders don't want to mess with an armed person. They want absolute control. They're not going to risk any of their lives trying to figure out how to "get you" when you're holed up with a gun. They're going to say, "screw this" and leave. Their guns are only effective when you don't have one. When you pump a shotgun it is distinctive and loud and they don't stay around.

 

Lol. D*mn you Para, you steal all my best lines before I have a chance to think them!

 

What I had said, Skeptic, is that in my last house, it was configured so I might be able to gather my family into one room if I heard an intrusion from the most likely points. We had just three bedrooms going down a hall. From that point, I had said, I would train a shotgun at the door while the rest of the family hid in the bathroom (all of which after we called 911 hopefully). Even if I couldn't gather the kids, I could have moved into the hall and defended it from there. I wouldn't go marching to find trouble but I would be ready if it came to me.

 

As Para so aptly put it, all it would take is the sound of a shotgun being pumped to make this point to anyone considering opening door #3.

 

None of this works in my current house where my kids are now upstairs and we are down. As I said, there is no one size fits all solution.

[waitforufo]

SkepticLance,

 

You speak ill of the dead. A man who gave his life for others.

[ParanoiA]

SkepticLance,

 

You speak ill of the dead. A man who gave his life for others.

 

I guess some reach the point of intellect where pride and heroism has no value. Playing the numbers is a statistical superiority - like machines. And it would be accurate to consider that trading emotions and individual thought would result in purely logic driven behavior. So what's the point of life, then? Any machine does that...

[Sayonara]

As I understand it, gun violence has risen in the UK since the laws passed in the wake of Dunblane. That point would seem to stand in response to a number of posts above, and I'm surprised nobody has raised it in this thread. Have I heard incorrectly on this? I'm almost positive I've even heard it reported on these boards before, not just in the news.

It's up and down like a yo-yo over here. From the Home Office:

 

In the year ending 31 March 2005 provisional figures show a:

 

* 16% reduction in the use of handguns

* 9% reduction in robberies involving firearms

* 6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences

 

Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year. (Source: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005)

 

...which is the latest data that is easily available.

 

 

It doesn't help that while the number of serious offences (like murder, robberies) involving a firearm are dropping, the number of types of crime recorded as a firearms offence has gone up, which clouds the issue.

 

Our gun crime really is peanuts in the UK though, compared to other countries. To make the statement "gun control does not prevent gun crime" just because gun crime has gone up since gun control was introduced, you have to factor in everything from population expansion to crime recording, otherwise you are basically just correlating.

 

 

 

Everyone,

If both the criminal and the house holder have a gun there is a chance that either of them could be shot....

etc.

 

We already had a thread that dealt with this issue exhaustively. It was long, boring, and violent. It was closed when we all got sick of it. Let's not duplicate it here.

[Pangloss]

That was interesting, Sayonara, thanks.

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA said :

 

None of which is realistic in the least. This isn't a TV shoot out show. Intruders don't want to mess with an armed person.

 

You cannot calculate the motives of a home invader as if that person was normal. They might be on drugs, or simply nuts. Such people will respond in unpredictable ways. If you pointed a shotgun in my direction, I would call you 'Sir'; apologise for any inconvenience, and get the hell out of it. A home invader on methamphetamine? Hey.

 

Waitforufo said :

 

You speak ill of the dead. A man who gave his life for others.

 

The whole point is that he didn't. Peter Blake was a great guy, as I have said several times. But his death was utterly pointless and stupid. Trying to make his death heroic is not going to help anyone. And if you want to emulate his actions, just remember the consequences.

[Dak]

another thing to bear in mind with the UK is that if someone holds up a shop with a replica firearm, or shoots at someone with an air gun, its considered a firearms offence iirc. in addition, it's not as if most people were armed with guns before the ban, so any increase is somewhat irrelevent to the current discussion.

 

If you look throughout the world, and within america, it's quite easy to see that those places where guns are outlawed (uk, for example) or tightly controlled (for eg, california requires licences to carry) there seems to be less gun crime. places like switzerland, often sited as the place that has more guns than america and much less crime, only allows (obligates, actually) its civillians to own guns after they've done their military training.

 

it seems the most gun crimes are in countries/states where people can get guns without training, and don't have to lock them down, thus allowing them to get stolen and find their way into the hands of criminals.

 

http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf (pdf)(note the amount of guns used to murder or accidentally shoot v those used in self-defence)

 

seems like the best option in america (given how many guns allready exist) is to have tightly controlled gun ownership, for the trained, non-criminal and sane.

 

I don't particularly see (barring appeals to the 2nd amendment) why legislation isn't in place to require that personal-defence guns have a double safety (normal safety + glock-type safety trigger) and double-action (allowing you to keep it chambered by with the hammer forward), and other safety features such as a chamber indicator (tells you if theres a bullet chambered).

 

so yeah: what would be the problem with requiring training pre-ownership, requiring licencing and registering, requiring that guns be locked down when not in use, and requiring that they have certain safety features? that'd allow for gun ownership, whilst making everything safer imo.

[ParanoiA]

You cannot calculate the motives of a home invader as if that person was normal. They might be on drugs, or simply nuts. Such people will respond in unpredictable ways.

 

But you just said that I could predict their behavior. You said that a loud noise would likely run them off. You said that acting all subservient will likely not get me shot.

 

Which is it?

 

I'll tell you which it is. They are unpredictable. Which is why we need guns in our homes to help us save ourselves until the paid help arrives. We don't know what to expect. You cannot calculate they're only a burglar, or are only looking for quick money - a trip to the ATM - nor that they're going to terrorize your family for fun. Or just kill everyone like that video game they've been spacing out on.

 

In our violent culture, we need protection from those who don't appreciate other's lives and death. And the only thing you can calculate or count on, with an intruder, is that they'll respect the force of a shotgun.

[Haezed]

Everyone,

 

etc.

 

We already had a thread that dealt with this issue exhaustively. It was long, boring, and violent. It was closed when we all got sick of it. Let's not duplicate it here.

 

A violent thread? Can you link to it??

[SkepticLance]

To Dak.

 

Well done. Your last post was more sensible than I have seen for a long time. I just wish the US authorities would take note.

 

ParanoiA, please read Dak's post, and learn.

[ParanoiA]

If you look throughout the world, and within america, it's quite easy to see that those places where guns are outlawed (uk, for example) or tightly controlled (for eg, california requires licences to carry)

 

Dak, 39 states are conceal and carry that require licenses. California is not special. And only 2 states are unrestricted. You are not allowed to run around here with your gun like dirty harold...

 

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

 

places like switzerland, often sited as the place that has more guns than america and much less crime, only allows (obligates, actually) its civillians to own guns after they've done their military training.

 

Is corrollation your only argument anymore? Switzerland also doesn't have a culture of violence that is worshiped and emulated by a huge percentage of the population - particularly teens, which notoriously have less respect for life and other's rights. You and SkepticLance keep ignoring this point over and over - no matter who posts it.

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/f...s/pdf/home.pdf (pdf)(note the amount of guns used to murder or accidentally shoot v those used in self-defence)

 

Since when do we get our facts from activists? This would be like getting WMD facts from George Bush, would it not?

 

I only wish I could find that site that listed home defense events in the US. Guns are used, quite frequently, to protect people's homes and families. Enough so that the ones who murder are a concern, and you can't get police to my house in time to stop them...only to process our bodies.

 

I don't particularly see (barring appeals to the 2nd amendment) why legislation isn't in place to require that personal-defence guns have a double safety (normal safety + glock-type safety trigger) and double-action (allowing you to keep it chambered by with the hammer forward), and other safety features such as a chamber indicator (tells you if theres a bullet chambered).

 

Double this and double that will solve it huh? Sure, whatever, but it's more symbolism over substance. I prefer the thumb print safety, where the gun holder has to be identified by thumb print, and approved, before the gun will operate. This is quite sensible.

 

Oh, and Dak...a gun is always loaded. My kids know this. My wife knows this. Anyone else who goes to the trouble to learn and teach about firearms, knows this. If you want a little light, ok, but everyone is supposed to understand that every gun is loaded and should be handled as such. That way you don't have accidental shootings. You simply don't allow the possibility of an "unloaded" weapon to discharge accidentally.

[Saryctos]

another thing to bear in mind with the UK is that if someone holds up a shop with a replica firearm, or shoots at someone with an air gun, its considered a firearms offence iirc. in addition, it's not as if most people were armed with guns before the ban, so any increase is somewhat irrelevent to the current discussion.

How are illegally obtained fire arms irrelevant to this discussion?

 

If you look throughout the world, and within america, it's quite easy to see that those places where guns are outlawed (uk, for example) or tightly controlled (for eg, california requires licences to carry) there seems to be less gun crime.

Places like, LA, Chicago, Washington D.C....they have pretty low gun crime for outlawing handguns right?

 

it seems the most gun crimes are in countries/states where people can get guns without training, and don't have to lock them down, thus allowing them to get stolen and find their way into the hands of criminals.

Training is most certainly encouraged, but we aren't about to have the gun control gastapo* go home to home checking if the owners keep their guns locked. Now, I most certainly agree that some sort of training course be required prior to owning guns. I'm sure the NRA would love to help out in that reguard, as sited in the link. I'm quite sure it IS required for most conceal carry liscenses aswell(it is in Michigan).

http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

This is an amazing link you've got here, it'll help me so much when telling off other gun control advocates.

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf (pdf)(note the amount of guns used to murder or accidentally shoot v those used in self-defence)

Also, note the wording, injure or kill, in self defence. Says nothing about scaring off an intruder, or just keeping them subdued untill police can show up. The whole suicide thing really does skew their numbers greatly aswell. It's over half of their figures, and that just shouts shady numbers game.

 

seems like the best option in america (given how many guns allready exist) is to have tightly controlled gun ownership, for the trained, non-criminal and sane.

Please refrence a few lines up where you said the same thing.

 

I don't particularly see (barring appeals to the 2nd amendment) why legislation isn't in place to require that personal-defence guns have a double safety (normal safety + glock-type safety trigger) and double-action (allowing you to keep it chambered by with the hammer forward), and other safety features such as a chamber indicator (tells you if theres a bullet chambered).

Why exactly would legislation tell me what needs to be on the gun I'm using to defend myself?

 

so yeah: what would be the problem with requiring training pre-ownership, requiring licencing and registering, requiring that guns be locked down when not in use, and requiring that they have certain safety features? that'd allow for gun ownership, whilst making everything safer imo.

Well almost everything you said there is already in place. The only things you'd like to add, are the training(which is highly encouraged, plus what democrat would sign a bill that gives the NRA money?), and the mandatory safety features(which is a terrible idea, not to have them, but to force them onto every gun. There's a reason those without safety features are selling).

 

 

 

 

To Dak.

 

Well done. Your last post was more sensible than I have seen for a long time. I just wish the US authorities would take note.

Take note of the things they're already doing? You must have a sensless sense of sensibility.

 

ParanoiA, please read Dak's post, and learn.

Learn how nothing he said realisticly supports you?

[SkepticLance]

Dak,

We are butting our heads against a brick wall. When people are living, inside their heads, their own personal Clint Eastwood 'Dirty Harry' fantasies, nothing we can say will budge them.

 

Throughout the OECD, as you know, sensible gun laws keep the murder rate well down compared to the USA. Multiple deaths have not affected American thinking, so your arguments and mine are not going to do it either.

[ParanoiA]

Dak,

We are butting our heads against a brick wall. When people are living, inside their heads, their own personal Clint Eastwood 'Dirty Harry' fantasies, nothing we can say will budge them.

 

Throughout the OECD, as you know, sensible gun laws keep the murder rate well down compared to the USA. Multiple deaths have not affected American thinking, so your arguments and mine are not going to do it either.

 

You are correct. We'll require more than correllation and armchair psychological assessments that ignore all the facts except the ones that seem to validate their agenda.

 

Two facts you still haven't addressed:

 

1) The violent american culture (which is responsible for the desire to murder and assault)

 

2) The balance of the system of government requires it

 

You also have ignored that many of the gun laws you and Dak have presented are in place. Licenses are required for conceal and carry in 39 states, which also requires training. 2 states don't require it. The rest don't allow it.

 

By the way, the same could be said of yourself, living in your head, fantasizing about americans emulating dirty harold...

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

 

I have addressed both of the alternative issues you raise. However, repeating myself ....

 

1. Violent American culture. This is something that I cannot change, or even suggest a cure for. I do not even know for sure what its cause is. I suspect it is a combination of history - the 2nd amendment etc,; plus Hollywood. Of course, in America Hollywood often rewrites history. (I bet you cannot correctly tell me how Davy Crockett really died).

 

Much of the rest of the world views Hollywood productions, but are less affected. That may be because Hollywood glorifies the violent American, and non Americans do not so closely identify personally?

 

2. Balancing government. This is a rationalisation for those bound in their own gun-violent fantasies. Very few Western governments have required removal by their citizens, and the few that did, had the support of those citizens. eg. Adolf Hitler.

 

If it ever happens, guns can be obtained by a sufficiently large group of sufficiently determined freedom fighters. I used the example earlier of the IRA. However, there are lots of groups who consider themselves, rightly or wrongly, as freedom fighters, and they all seem to manage to get hold of weapons. What an individual may be prevented from getting, a large group with more resources, can do.

 

I could even work out a way, myself, for smuggling weapons into the USA if needed, with the resources of a large group. If I can think of it, so can others.

[Dak]

Is corrollation your only argument anymore? Switzerland also doesn't have a culture of violence that is worshiped and emulated by a huge percentage of the population - particularly teens, which notoriously have less respect for life and other's rights. You and SkepticLance keep ignoring this point over and over - no matter who posts it.

 

ok, fair enough, that's also a problem. I don't remember seeing it mentioned in this thread (just saying i wasn't ignoring it, not saying it wasn't said). but that doesn't stop the level of training that you're required before owning also being relevent.

 

imo, allowing people to have a weapon designed for killing without requiring training is a reckless and immature attetude; the american 'gun/violence' culture is also immature. so, maybe, both social and govournmental immature attetueds lead to high levels of gun crime? and/or maybe the govournments attetude aggrivates/promotes the social one?

 

Since when do we get our facts from activists? This would be like getting WMD facts from George Bush, would it not?

 

no. it represents one side of the story. you're free, as the person arguing the other side, to find stats that argue the other side of the story. as long as the report isn't lying, it's useful.

 

I only wish I could find that site that listed home defense events in the US. Guns are used, quite frequently, to protect people's homes and families. Enough so that the ones who murder are a concern, and you can't get police to my house in time to stop them...only to process our bodies.

 

iirc, that stat is mentioned in one of my citations.

 

 

Double this and double that will solve it huh? Sure, whatever, but it's more symbolism over substance. I prefer the thumb print safety, where the gun holder has to be identified by thumb print, and approved, before the gun will operate. This is quite sensible.

 

that was just one specific example, not an overall solution.

 

my point was that it would make them safer; however, anti-gun-regulation people tend to argue against any gun control, even regulations making guns safer.

 

double-safetys obviously wouldn't eliminate gun crime, but why not have them? other that the american aversion to gun regulation?

 

I didn't mention biometric guns as, from our previous discussion about them, i believe it was apparent that they're not consumer-ready yet (could be wrong).

 

Oh, and Dak...a gun is always loaded. My kids know this. My wife knows this. Anyone else who goes to the trouble to learn and teach about firearms, knows this. If you want a little light, ok, but everyone is supposed to understand that every gun is loaded and should be handled as such. That way you don't have accidental shootings. You simply don't allow the possibility of an "unloaded" weapon to discharge accidentally.

 

yes, i'm fully aware of that. i'm also fully aware that you make sure a gun is unloaded unless it actually needs to be loaded.

 

that way, a gun is safe 'cos it's unloaded, and safe because the user keeps it pointed in a safe direction anyway; that way, both steps have to fail (it has to be loaded and pointed at someone for an accidental discharge to occour).

 

the fact that people aren't required to know this is what concerns me about unregulated gun ownership.

 

How are illegally obtained fire arms irrelevant to this discussion?

 

sorry, i should have been clearer.

 

1/ iirc, recently airguns have been classified as firearms, so any crimes with airguns now contribute to firearms statistics, possibly (falsly) increasing the frequency of firearms laws

 

2/ britain has never been into gun ownership for self-defence, so the argument that once we'd had our right to own guns removed, criminal use of guns went up is unrelated to civillian firearm ownership, which was virtually nill before guns were outlawed anyway.

 

minor point: guns aren't illegal in the UK, you just need a (rarely granted) firearms licence.

 

Places like, LA, Chicago, Washington D.C....they have pretty low gun crime for outlawing handguns right?

 

may i assume that they have high firearms crime rates?

 

i already said that, given the prevalence of guns in the us, outright banning would not work, and that regulation would be better.

 

Training is most certainly encouraged, but we aren't about to have the gun control gastapo* go home to home checking if the owners keep their guns locked. Now, I most certainly agree that some sort of training course be required prior to owning guns. I'm sure the NRA would love to help out in that reguard, as sited in the link. I'm quite sure it IS required for most conceal carry liscenses aswell(it is in Michigan).

This is an amazing link you've got here, it'll help me so much when telling off other gun control advocates.

 

if they're arguing for an outright ban in the us, then id agree. but gun regulation (including strick enforsment of lockdown rules) certainly wouldn't do any harm.

 

Also, note the wording, injure or kill, in self defence. Says nothing about scaring off an intruder, or just keeping them subdued untill police can show up. The whole suicide thing really does skew their numbers greatly aswell. It's over half of their figures, and that just shouts shady numbers game.

 

yes, i was assuming people would ignore that bit tbh.

 

'people kill themselves with guns, so we shouldn't let people have guns' is roughly equivelent to arguing that we should illegalise bridges because people jump off of them.

 

Why exactly would legislation tell me what needs to be on the gun I'm using to defend myself?

 

same reason that cars must meet minimum safety requirements.

 

to make them safe. i assume a gun that's fireing mechanism slips too often would be forsed, by the govournment, to be withdrawn from the market? this is just an extention of that idea.

 

Well almost everything you said there is already in place. The only things you'd like to add, are the training(which is highly encouraged, plus what democrat would sign a bill that gives the NRA money?), and the mandatory safety features(which is a terrible idea, not to have them, but to force them onto every gun. There's a reason those without safety features are selling).

 

then maybe a compromise, with a 'basic gun licence' that allows you to have 'safe' guns, and an 'extended gun licence', that trains you better, and allows you to have the 'unsafe' guns.

 

re: balancing govournment:

 

as already said, protests and strikes can work, and arguably work better.

 

otherwize, gun regulation wouldn't actually stop people owning guns.

[SkepticLance]

Just a reference for everyone's perusal. Seems like the Swiss are having

problems requiring more gun control.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10437279

[SkepticLance]

Things always happen together. Just came across another pertinent reference. This time the New Scientist editorial (Australian printed edition) 28 April page 3.

 

I quote :

 

"Events in Australia, meanwhile, illustrate the power of gun control. In 1996, after a gunman in Tasmania killed 35 people, semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns were banned. (Access to semi-automatic handguns was already controlled). Since then, gun deaths have dropped, and most striking are the figures for mass shootings. In the 18 years prior to 1996, there were 13; in the past decade, none. (Injury Prevention, vol 12. p 365.)"

 

This editorial ends with the following comment :

 

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that fewer families would be mourning if Cho had been limited to a revolver with six shots per reload."

 

That because semi-automatic handguns are available in the US. This editorial certainly supports the idea that tighter gun control saves lives.