Do you think guns should be completely outlawed?

[bascule]

I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual.

 

 

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? Stabbing them in the chest? Poisoning them? Hell, just suffocate them while they're lying on the ground in shock.

 

You can't wield it at a safe distance as you can a gun, and throwing disarms you as a result.

 

See above.

 

What about flamethrowers? You can build one using parts obtained from a hardware store.

 

And again, crossbows. What about crossbows?

 

The point is making guns illegal isn't going to get rid of murder. Even if you could get rid of every single gun in the entire world there will still be murder. People will find alternative means.

 

However, you aren't ever going to get rid of every gun in the world. Criminals already have lots of guns. Buying automatic weapons is generally illegal in the US, but that doesn't stop people from getting them. Arms smugglers will still bring them in from other countries.

[The Bear's Key]

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? Stabbing them in the chest? Poisoning them? Hell, just suffocate them while they're lying on the ground in shock.

Hmm, you missed the point somewhere. I was referring to alternatives for home protection, and not a recipe for a safe nation.

 

What about flamethrowers? You can build one using parts obtained from a hardware store.

 

And again, crossbows. What about crossbows?

How well are people going to conceal those? The point is with concealed weaponry you have no idea the person nearby is dangerous. The reverse applies too with the people the mugger targets, but with one critical difference: the mugger is almost certainly going to draw first.

[SH3RL0CK]

Yes, but that is due to drugs being illegal and expensive. Our local police chief wants to legalize heroin and give it to drug addicts for free on the NHS. Apparently the crime that accompanies a single heroin hit costs society around £500 a time on average, but a dose of heroin on the NHS would cost only 50p! Plus it negates the need for addicts to mug people and spread misery, or become prostitutes etc.

 

Anyway, a bit off topic there...

 

I've avoided responding to these posts until now because they are off topic. However, I can't help but point out that the problem with drug addiction isn't the legality or the cost of the drugs. Some of the worst drug users are simply huffing perfectly legal (and cheap) products.

 

Its the fact that an addict's behavior is very often self-destructive. Who knowingly hires drug users (most places test for drugs as a condition of employment these days)? When drug abuse affects their work performance (and this is almost a certainty for addicts) they lose their jobs. Then the state removes their children, if they have any, (for the protection of said children). Their spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend leaves them. They lose their normal friends. and so on as their lives spiral downward to destruction. It doesn't happen with all drug users. But it certainly happens with many drug users.

 

But I digress...mods, perhaps this should be in a separate thread?

[bascule]

Hmm, you missed the point somewhere.

 

Hmm, you missed the point somewhere. Let me rearrange the conversation so it makes sense:

 

How well are people going to conceal those? The point is with concealed weaponry you have no idea the person nearby is dangerous. The reverse applies too with the people the mugger targets, but with one critical difference: the mugger is almost certainly going to draw first.

 

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? Stabbing them in the chest? Poisoning them? Hell, just suffocate them while they're lying on the ground in shock.

[ecoli]

bascule - I agree with you in theory, but there is an important question we haven't answered... is there something inherently different about a gun that makes violent and deadly crime more likely (as compared to the taser-knife situation you described). And, can we, by outlawing guns, actually and legitimately reduce crime without violating civil liberties?

 

Another important point, if we outlaw guns, do we run the risk of losing our best protection of "end-of-the-world" type scenarios? For example, tyrannical goverts, robot uprisings, alien invasions (and of course) zombie swarms.

 

I believe the right to bear arms was intended by the founding fathers for two reasons, to protect land from theft (police forces were not very good then, and still aren't in many places) and to distribute force among the people in order to prevent the absolute centralization of military power.

Ok, so back then a group of hunters was probably just as credible a threat as the government-backed military. These days, modern street weapons wouldn't stand a chance against a good old military suppression, however as we're seeing in Iran, being able and empowered to fight and die for what's "right" might be worth protecting, even in the face of a david vs goliath type scenario.

[bascule]

bascule - I agree with you in theory, but there is an important question we haven't answered... is there something inherently different about a gun that makes violent and deadly crime more likely (as compared to the taser-knife situation you described). And, can we, by outlawing guns, actually and legitimately reduce crime without violating civil liberties?

 

I think the UK has pretty clearly demonstrated that banning offensive weapons causes increases in violent crime.

[ecoli]

Ah. I had read somewhere that they where having a serious problem with knives there, but I haven't seen the data on that.

[D H]

The talk about Iranians with guns is stupid.

 

Some of the talk in this thread about Iranians with guns is very stupid.

 

My father (now deceased) worked in the middle east for a while in the 80's. He once told me that arabs have AK47's like westerners have golf clubs.

 

Anyway, I would bet that a relatively high proportion of Iranians do have an AK47 in the cupboard.

Iranians are not Arabs.

 

According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia's list of gun ownership by country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Country -- Guns per 100 residents

United States -- 90.0

Yemen -- 61.0

Switzerland -- 46.0

Iraq -- 39.0

Serbia -- 37.5

...

<scroll down>

...

United Kingdom -- 5.6

Iran -- 5.3

 

 

Thanks, DJBruce, for confirming my instinct that this "if only Iranians had guns" idea was created and is generally being propagated through the right-wing ideological networks.

Last I read, Daily Kos is not a right-wing ideological network. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/21/17948/1073

 

That said, the lack of violence on the demonstrators part and the absolute thuggishness of the dictatorial regime has made it clear to people from many political leanings that this is not a legitimate regime. Use of guns by the demonstrators would have made legitimized the response.

 

Forty days from now when the martyrs are mourned I predict another one-sided response. After that, the protestors are screwed because they have no guns.

[bascule]

Ah. I had read somewhere that they where having a serious problem with knives there, but I haven't seen the data on that.

 

Ever heard of happy slapping?

 

I live in a nice, upper class, crime free area, however if I lived in a REAL city with millions of people (and I'm considering moving to one) I could see myself carrying a knife regularly.

[The Bear's Key]

Hmm, you missed the point somewhere. Let me rearrange the conversation so it makes sense:

Nope.

 

I wonder if by "someone" you're referring to the intruder. Obviously I was talking about the home owner using non-lethal alternatives. So this whole time you might've been countering against your misinterpretation of my statement. Look again.

 

I think the UK has pretty clearly demonstrated that banning offensive weapons causes increases in violent crime.

Not clearly whatsoever.

 

The UK's ban isn't entirely new and it's progressed in steps.

 

But compare to the U.S., which in two years had 18,985 gun homicides (pg. 11 of 252, table 2.9) in 2003-04 -- averaging 9,492 per year.

• At least 50% of all homicides in the U.S. were by guns.
  

 

England in two years had 50 gun homicides in 2005-06 (pg. 7) -- averaging 25 per year.

• Nearly only 7% of all homicides in England/Wales were by guns.
  

 

I'd say other variables might be at work. First let's pick something that's often a root of violence in the world: religion trespass into government.

 

Now let's examine what's been happening in England since 2001...

 

 

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Politicians_Talk_God_Because_Faith_Works.aspx?ArticleID=2478&PageID=96&RefPageID=96

New research published by Theos reveals a growing use of religious rhetoric by party leaders in their conference speeches.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631819/Believers-are-away-with-the-fairies.html

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

 

Might just be coincidence, a pattern that means nothing. But I would say the guns ban causing violence is a far weaker connection.

 

I'll state again: I'm usually for U.S gun rights. I will however point out the flaws in the usually weak reasonings being fronted to keep and bear arms. Why not just stick with the valid reasons which suffice enough?

 

 

My father (now deceased) worked in the middle east for a while in the 80's. He once told me that arabs have AK47's like westerners have golf clubs.

 

Anyway' date=' I would bet that a relatively high proportion of Iranians do have an AK47 in the cupboard. [/quote']

Iranians are not Arabs.

 

According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia's list of gun ownership by country...

Yeah, and I know very few people with golf clubs. So that image doesn't seem bad in reality.

 

Heck, U.S. citizens probably have more guns on average.

 

 

Forty days from now when the martyrs are mourned I predict another one-sided response. After that, the protestors are screwed because they have no guns.

Easy solution: the Iranians need to become criminals, so they'll magically acquire guns.

 

 

On an unrelated note (but on topic)...

 

Finland supplies gun permits only for approved purposes, which self-defense isn't listed as one.

 

http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/C72E58A5707DBF7CC2256C45003923A1?opendocument

 

A permit may only be granted for a firearm or firearm component that is well suited for the purpose given by the applicant and is not excessively powerful or destructive.

 

 

Switzerland grants permits...also without mentioning self-defense.

 

http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/514_54/a8.html

This part's in French so I used

Google Translate

and below is a quote from it

 

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.admin.ch%2Fch%2Ff%2Frs%2F514_54%2Fa8.html&sl=fr&tl=en

Any person requesting a permit to acquire a firearm for a purpose other than sport, hunting or collection must justify its request.

 

If anyone familiar with that neighborhood can shed light on whether they do allow for self-defense uses.

[John Cuthber]

 

He's a criminal right? If he had wanted a gun, are you saying he couldn't have gotten one due to the UK's omnipotent ban on guns? In that situation(one where the criminal buys a gun), it would have been favorable to you to have a gun as well, yes.

 

"Favourable" in the sense that someone would probably have ended up dead.

[bombus]

Some of the talk in this thread about Iranians with guns is very stupid.

 

Iranians are not Arabs.

 

Yes you are correct. My father was talking of people in the middle-east in general - it was my mistake to call Iranians arabs. (In fact the word Iran has the same roots as Aryan - Iranians are an Aryan people)

[bascule]

Nope.

 

I wonder if by "someone" you're referring to the intruder. Obviously I was talking about the home owner using non-lethal alternatives. So this whole time you might've been countering against your misinterpretation of my statement. Look again.

 

I looked again, you're still wrong, sorry:

 

How well are people going to conceal those? The point is with concealed weaponry you have no idea the person nearby is dangerous. The reverse applies too with the people the mugger targets, but with one critical difference: the mugger is almost certainly going to draw first.

 

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? Stabbing them in the chest? Poisoning them? Hell, just suffocate them while they're lying on the ground in shock.

 

I'm not misinterpreting that statement. You're wrong, sorry.

 

Not clearly whatsoever.

 

The UK's ban isn't entirely new and it's progressed in steps.

 

But compare to the U.S.' date=' which in two years had 18,985 gun homicides (pg. 11 of 252, table 2.9) in 2003-04 -- averaging 9,492 per year. [/quote']

 

Yes, and London's violent crime rate is 7 times that of New York

 

I'd say other variables might be at work. First let's pick something that's often a root of violence in the world: religion trespass into government.

 

Yes blah blah blah correlation vs causation. The difference is in New York you can carry mace or pepper spray (among other nonlethal weapons). In London that's classified as an offensive weapon, and there you're seven times as likely to be attacked as you are in New York.

 

Or you could carry a knife or a gun...

[The Bear's Key]

I.

 

I looked again, you're still wrong, sorry:

Originally Posted by The Bear's Key

 

How well are people going to conceal those? The point is with concealed weaponry you have no idea the person nearby is dangerous. The reverse applies too with the people the mugger targets, but with one critical difference: the mugger is almost certainly going to draw first.

Originally Posted by bascule

 

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal? Stabbing them in the chest? Poisoning them? Hell, just suffocate them while they're lying on the ground in shock.

You'll notice I din't bring up tasers once in the quote above.

 

Now cross-reference that with my reply to A Tripolation, and how you misplaced its context.

Around when I was 15, someone broke into our house...My father keeps a shotgun in his room...The thief had a hunting knife, but saw the shotgun and gave up...With restristive ownership, how should my dad have confronted this guy?

.....

So yes, I do believe that if guns were banned completely, criminals would become much more brazen knowing that they don't face a sawed-off, double-barrel 12-gauge.

I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual.

 

.....

However, often the best weapon is defensive in nature, such as a quality -- and piercingly loud -- alarm system. You hardly need a gun if the would-be intruder flees with the cops automatically on the way.

 

I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual.

 

What's to keep someone from using a taser and following it up with something lethal?

.....

The point is making guns illegal isn't going to get rid of murder. Even if you could get rid of every single gun in the entire world there will still be murder. People will find alternative means.

.....

However, you aren't ever going to get rid of every gun in the world. Criminals already have lots of guns.

 

Are we settled?

 

. . .

 

 

II.

And now back to the present...sort of.

I think the UK has pretty clearly demonstrated that banning offensive weapons causes increases in violent crime.

Not clearly whatsoever.

 

The UK's ban isn't entirely new and it's progressed in steps.

 

[actual stats from both governments' date=' revealing far more U.S. homicides with guns than occurs in England[/i']]

 

Yes, and London's violent crime rate is 7 times that of New York

 

 

A political tabloid lacking references isn't necessarily proof.

 

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik

The big drop in virtually all types of crime in New York has generally been attributed to the zero-tolerance policy associated with Mayor Guiliani. Now Britain, far from adopting zero-tolerance, looks like it's adopting a policy of not prosecuting many serious crimes at all.

First off, it's not even about gun rights.

 

 

 

This is the subject of an official Home Office directive to all British police forces. British police have now been told that instead of arresting a range of serious criminals, they can be let off with a caution.

 

The Home Office says offenses that may now be dealt with by a caution include burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine if police decide a caution would be the best approach.

 

Other crimes including common assault, threatening behavior, sex with an underage girl or boy, and car theft should normally be dealt with by a caution, if the offenders admit their guilt but have no criminal record.

Secondly: if all true, it would be heinously stupid of lawmakers to make such policies. However, you defintely need to supply facts instead of tabloid articles.

 

Better yet, I'm sure plenty of members (here from the UK) can verify or dispute this. Although, it's besides the point: lack of gun rights wasn't even highlighted. Furthermore, my references already showed (indirectly) that homicide criminals in England might not really have the easy access to guns implied previously in the thread.

 

 

 

"This is part of the wider problem that the Home Office has an anti-prison bias. But while they regard prison as uncivilized, they don't seem to care whether the alternatives work or not."

 

As Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair ("tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime") succeeded in watering down the previous

Conservative government's

proposals

(emphasis mine)

 

I'd wager that's the crucial angle/impression to leave readers with: "vote conservative...otherwise bad'll happen"

 

 

III.

 

Originally Posted by You

Originally Posted by Me

 

I'd say other variables might be at work. First let's pick something that's often a root of violence in the world: religion trespass into government.

Yes blah blah blah correlation vs causation. The difference is in New York you can carry mace or pepper spray (among other nonlethal weapons). In London that's classified as an offensive weapon, and there you're seven times as likely to be attacked as you are in New York.

Aren't you too hanging onto correlation vs causation? Yet the difference between ours is that I added the following...

 

"Might just be coincidence, a pattern that means nothing."

 

Did you acknowledge (or even hint at) the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong?

 

 

(Now...on the point of gun rights as a mugging deterrent, I've countered that elsewhere and you didn't reply)

[Sisyphus]

I don't know what effect Britain's highly restrictive gun laws have on crime. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they contributed to a high crime rate, but comparing London and New York doesn't really work. For one thing, there are many U.S. cities with violent crime rates several times that of New York. What are the relative levels of gun ownership, status of laws, etc. between those cities? What about between neighborhoods in NY? Do you think the safest neighborhoods are the most heavily armed? I don't, but I can't find statistics on gun ownership at that level. That would be a correlation, not causation, anyway, but it might be interesting. Here's the murder map, anyway:

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map?ref=nyregion

 

(Anecdotally, I live in Astoria, and I don't know anyone who lives in the city and owns a gun except for cops.)

[Lance]

Indeed. I quite agree being a gun owner myself.

 

One thing with which I struggle, however, is that I don't feel anyone should have assault weapons like AKs and ARs. They only have one purpose, and that is the mowing down of other humans.

 

Define an assault weapon. This is a common belief among civilians but the problem is none of them can really define what exactly an "assault weapon" is.

 

I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual.

 

Plus there's also rubber bullets (or plastic ones)' date=' eventually they could design meaner versions of wax bullets. There are flexible baton rounds (see pics), they can make super soaker versions for adults heavily laced with Dave's Insanity Sauce or an equally good (pun) alternative.[/quote']

 

Do you have any experience with these weapons?

[The Bear's Key]

Originally Posted by The Bear's Key

 

I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual.

 

Plus there's also rubber bullets (or plastic ones), eventually they could design meaner versions of wax bullets. There are flexible baton rounds (see pics), they can make super soaker versions for adults heavily laced with Dave's Insanity Sauce or an equally good (pun) alternative.

Do you have any experience with these weapons?

On people? No. And obviously the last (Dave's Insanity Sauce laced) is fictional. The only experience I've had is with air guns/rifles, paintball (both of which I can aim fairly dead-on by quick draw) and a bit of archery.

 

But most of what I listed in your quote have been used by police successfuly. I don't see why not for citizens.

[Lance]

On people? No. And obviously the last (Dave's Insanity Sauce laced) is fictional. The only experience I've had is with air guns/rifles, paintball (both of which I can aim fairly dead-on by quick draw) and a bit of archery.

 

But most of what I listed in your quote have been used by police successfuly. I don't see why not for citizens.

 

 

No it's not fictional. Well yes, the name is. It's actually called OC spray. I have also had training with a paintball gun-like weapon that contained OC oil. A devastating weapon but I would think twice about using it on somebody holding even a pocket knife.

 

The irony is your last statement is that police still carry pistols. The escalation of force allows a police officer to use lethal force on somebody carrying a baseball bat if they feel life is threatened.

 

Have you ever been tazed? The neat immobilizing affect you see on TV wares off in about 0.05 seconds flat. Range is limited to about 15' with no real accuracy, and if you miss the first shot you're screwed. Movies are a poor base for scientific discussion. Tazors are almost always reserved for unarmed opponents.

[The Bear's Key]

The irony is your last statement is that police still carry pistols. The escalation of force allows a police officer to use lethal force on somebody carrying a baseball bat if they feel life is threatened.

I can agree in part, but it's not so ironic as you might think. Police in England generally don't carry firearms, so it's definitely a regional thing.

 

Also, we must not forget to observe the reality (that's directly in our eyes).

 

Claim: if mostly everyone has guns, that's supposed to deter crime. And really, it's an easy assumption (thus used by politicians): what robber is going to target someone potentially armed with deadliness?

 

Reality: police stations in the U.S. have a 24/7 small arsenal of deadliness, yet many of them feel a need to have bullet-proof glass. Why? Their having guns should be all the protection they need. I usually laugh when visiting one, because the above claim's weakness is laid bare.

 

 

Just so we're clear, here's my exact thoughts on the issue...

 

http://www.wfsa.net/pdf/Cross_Sectional_Study.pdf

The proposition that, "places with the highest rates of gun ownership and the most

virulent opposition to gun control are the very places with the highest rates of gun

deaths" is frequently advanced as if it were some immutable law of nature

........

If the proposition is valid it must hold good across many countries, and across time in

any single country. It must also work in reverse and places or times with the fewest

firearms must have the lowest level of gun deaths.

The second part is the most crucial to my philosophies.

 

And the first one works in regards to gun control too.

 

The proposition that, "areas with the lowest rates of gun ownership and the most

virulent opposition to guns are the very places with the highest rates of crime and/or gun

deaths" is frequently advanced as if it were some immutable law of nature

 

Even though it's just politician bread, I've agreed with the "guns don't kill people.....people do" mantra since I first heard it.

 

Well, the question I've constantly asked myself is, then what leads people to kill?

 

 

Have you ever been tazed? The neat immobilizing affect you see on TV wares off in about 0.05 seconds flat. Range is limited to about 15' with no real accuracy.

Curious, how would you know this? You are correct that one miss and you're screwed, but I'm sure that's easily fixable by technology.

[Lance]

Curious, how would you know this? You are correct that one miss and you're screwed, but I'm sure that's easily fixable by technology.

 

I have had a substantial amount of training in less lethal weapons. I have been on both sides of the weapon. I have also been exposed a Level 1 DoD OC contamination then passed a full combat course(with no firearm), so what makes you think OC spray would take down an armed attacker either?

[SH3RL0CK]

I can agree in part, but it's not so ironic as you might think. Police in England generally don't carry firearms, so it's definitely a regional thing.

 

Also, we must not forget to observe the reality (that's directly in our eyes).

 

Claim: if mostly everyone has guns, that's supposed to deter crime. And really, it's an easy assumption (thus used by politicians): what robber is going to target someone potentially armed with deadliness?

 

Reality: police stations in the U.S. have a 24/7 small arsenal of deadliness, yet many of them feel a need to have bullet-proof glass. Why? Their having guns should be all the protection they need. I usually laugh when visiting one, because the above claim's weakness is laid bare.

 

No question the bullet-proof glass protects against a "sniper" type of attack, which I am sure we are all agreed is a good idea. However, you are overlooking that it also protects the public against the police being required to respond with deadly force. This gives them the option of sitting tight and finding solutions other than a deadly response.

... Well, the question I've constantly asked myself is, then what leads people to kill?

I don't know, maybe it is because people are inherently evil?

 

 

 

Curious, how would you know this? You are correct that one miss and you're screwed, but I'm sure that's easily fixable by technology.

 

If this were easily fixable by technology, why wouldn't the taser manufacturers have already built the "new and improved" tasers? Perhaps they have not done so because for some reason this isn't easily fixable. Immobilizing, but not seriously injuring someone is a very difficult thing to do across the entire spectrum of people. What will immobilize an angry 20 year old athlete high on drugs could kill an angry 60 year old non-athlete high on drugs.

[A Tripolation]

Wow...this is such a great discussion. Id just like to thank all of you for participating and being so civil about it

 

Great posts! From both sides!!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Or perhaps because of restrictive ownership, that guy didn't have a gun as well. An overly restrictive law is what you're talking about, as it would've kept your household from possessing a gun.

 

 

I don't see why you can't stop a person with a taser gun or modern/advanced forms of subdual.

 

Thats a good point, but more than likely, the person didnt want to kill, just threaten and thats why he didnt have a gun.Living in the rural area we do, he could have EASILY gotten a gun form the weekly gun shows lol. And tasers dont take down everyone, especially of theyre hopped up on drugs. A gun takes down everyone, especially the shotgun my father used to stop him.

[bascule]

Now cross-reference that with my reply to A Tripolation, and how you misplaced its context.

 

Are we settled?

 

No, you disputed a statement of mine (given the context) then went on to make another statement which contradicted the first statement immediately thereafter.

 

I just put the statements in the proper order to expose this.

 

Just admit that there are other easily concealed lethal weapons which work at a distance and we can move on.

 

A political tabloid lacking references isn't necessarily proof.

 

Ad hominem... are you saying their figures are wrong, or are you just insulting them without actually disputing their information?

[John Cuthber]

It seems that the murder rate in the US is about 3 times that in the UK according to this data.

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

(and a lot of the UK's murder rate is due to one rather small part of it; Northern Ireland).

 

OK, I know there's more to "crime" than murder, but the one thing about homicide is that it's almost always reported (or discovered) and another thing is that there's not much variation in the definition so you can't say the statistics are not comparable from one country to the next. Also, let's face it, being killed is generally thought of as a worse thing than, for example, being mugged or burgled.

 

What's clear to me is that here in the UK I seem to be less likely to be the victim of a lethal, unlawful atack than I would be across the pond where there are a lot more guns. I can't help thinking that that correlation is actually due to causation in this case. It might be something else- there are differences in poverty levels for example or it might be that there are just more homicidal maniacs in the US.

 

If, however, those are the reasons for the higher murder rates, you might want to think about the question of giving those people guns.

Also, of course, not all of those murders will be gun crimes- but I'm willing to bet that a greater proportion of them are shootings in the US than in the UK so, again, that hardly looks like a point in favour of legal gun ownership.

 

You seem to have a lot of murderers, yet you decide to let them have guns. That's not what I'd do.

You say that this is so the rest of you can defend yourselves against these gun toting murderers. But the last set of stats I saw showed that many more people were accidentally shot than shot legally (ie by a householder defending their property or some such).

So, while your gun might save you or your family from an intruder, it's rather more likely to kill them.

I guess you will say "yes, but I'm responsible so my gun won't kill my family..."

You might be responsible but...

1) nobody's perfect- sooner or later you will slip up

2) these same laws let the idiots down the street have guns and it doesn't matter how careful you are in that case

3) it sounds like the arguments that were used against compusory seat belts "I'm not going to crash". Everyone says that until it's too late.

 

It seems to me that, as I said, gun ownership is " 'Favourable' in the sense that someone would probably have ended up dead."

 

BTW, if your police need a taser to control an angry, unfit 60 year old then either you need much better police, or you shouldn't have let the guy have a gun in the first place.

Edited June 29, 2009 by John Cuthber

[SH3RL0CK]

John,

 

Convicted felons are not really permitted to own firearms. Your statement that

You seem to have a lot of murderers, yet you decide to let them have guns.

is false.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128620083

 

While convicted felons generally are not permitted to own guns, a provision in the federal firearms laws allows someone who has served his time and been released to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for permission to own a weapon.

 

But the ATF hasn't green-lighted any felon's request for relief in a decade. It can't. In 1992, Congress eliminated the funds that enabled the bureau to do it and has refused to restore them ever since.

 

This article was regarding a lawsuit to the US Supreme court by a felon requesting permission to own a gun. He lost... 9-0. So now its been nearly 20 years since a felon could legally own a gun.

 

and http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2008/06/will-some-felon.html

 

Under current federal law, the vast majority of felons are prohibited from so much as touching a gun or ammunition, on pain of punishment of up to 10 years in prison...

 

The only felons who can lawfully retain a gun, according to exceptions written into the statute, are those convicted of anti-trust violations or crimes involving unfair trading practices.

 

 

That said, I think there is some merit to the idea that guns increase the lethality of criminal encounters (just as there is merit that guns reduce the amount of crime). Is that a fair trade for a fewer number of such encounters? Depends who you ask as this is purely a matter of opinion...

 

Regarding the police stopping a 60 year old, I never stated he had a gun. My point is that what is a force that will stop a very healthy individual can be fatal to someone less healthy. And should said 60 year old die, it is a good bet the lawsuits for excessive police force will be filed. But if you think someone high as a kite, older, and out of shape isn't a lethal threat, then lets give this guy a chainsaw and I'll let you be the first to try to physically subdue him with your bare hands (just to be sure he doesn't die from the taser ...

Edited June 29, 2009 by SH3RL0CK