Do you think guns should be completely outlawed?

[bascule]

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.

 

Yes, your country in particular seems to suck at reporting violent crime

 

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.

 

The US is also a widely varied country. The murder rate in my hometown is 0.5:100,000. London in comparison has a murder rate of 2.4:100,000 or in other words you're almost 5 times as likely to get murdered in London as you are here. Crime is virtually nonexistent here, especially violent crime, and I feel no compulsion to carry any sort of weapon to protect myself.

[John Cuthber]

"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. "

All people who commit murder with a gun had that gun in their possesion at the time. They were, in fact, if not in law, permited to have a gun.

Many of those people were not, at the time, convicted fellons and were, therefore, entitled to own a gun.

 

Let me see if I can make this clearer.

The people who kill people with guns are

1 generally murderers and

2 generally permitted to own the gun (at the time of the shooting).

 

I think it would be better if you forbade them guns before they killed someone, rather than waiting 'till afterwards.

 

Re "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..."

My opinion is that the option that kills fewer people is better- particularly since it isn't generally the criminals who get killed, I accept that your opinion may differ.

 

 

"Yes, your country in particular seems to suck at reporting violent crime"

I know that. That's why I used the murder stats. They are generally (as I said) more reliable.

"Crime is virtually nonexistent here"

Lucky you. Doesn't that mean that, were you to own a gun, the odds would be even more in favour of it killing someone by accident rather than legitimately?

[SH3RL0CK]

Let me see if I can make this clearer.

The people who kill people with guns are

1 generally murderers and

2 generally permitted to own the gun (at the time of the shooting).

 

I think it would be better if you forbade them guns before they killed someone, rather than waiting 'till afterwards.

 

Thanks for making your beliefs clear, allow me to re-word it to be sure I understand (and please feel free to correct me if it isn't correct). Before a person kills anyone, they are not a murderer. So how do you propose to forbid them having a gun before commiting the crime? You can't other than forbidding guns to all citizens.

 

I obviously disagree that an elimination of the right of the law-abiding citizen to possess guns is warranted by the current US crime and murder rates (as the crime rates do not correlate well to gun ownership and taking into consideration that guns have positive effects on these statistics as well as negative ones) and I'll leave my statement at that.

Edited June 30, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[bascule]

Let me see if I can make this clearer.

The people who kill people with guns are

1 generally murderers and

2 generally permitted to own the gun (at the time of the shooting).

 

I think it would be better if you forbade them guns before they killed someone, rather than waiting 'till afterwards.

 

Do you really think getting rid of guns will stop murders? There is more than one way to kill a man, you know.

 

The alternative is what the UK has done: ban all "offensive weapons". I'm sure it's great to be a diminutive woman wandering the streets of London at night, unable to legally carry a can of pepper spray or mace.

[John Cuthber]

"Do you really think getting rid of guns will stop murders? There is more than one way to kill a man, you know."

I already answered that.

 

"The alternative is what the UK has done: ban all "offensive weapons". I'm sure it's great to be a diminutive woman wandering the streets of London at night, unable to legally carry a can of pepper spray or mace."

At least she doesn't have a weapon lulling her into a false sense of security.

[Lance]

At least she doesn't have a weapon lulling her into a false sense of security.

 

Explain.

[John Cuthber]

People who carry weapons sometimes think they are, therefore, safe.

Then they do things that they would otherwise avoid like walking alone through "rough" areas at night.

Then they get attacked and discover that if you and your assailant have the same weaponry, but they have the advantage of surprise, they win.

 

Incidentally, Bascule

re."Do you really think getting rid of guns will stop murders? There is more than one way to kill a man, you know."

 

Yes, I know. I said so in the 12th post in this thread. Why mention it again?

I also said that I think that if you could take the guns away it would make it more difficult for people to kill each other. Is that a bad thing?

 

"The alternative is what the UK has done: ban all "offensive weapons". I'm sure it's great to be a diminutive woman wandering the streets of London at night, unable to legally carry a can of pepper spray or mace."

I used to live in London; I knew plenty of women of all shapes and sizes who walked about the place. Most of them were quite happy to do so. As far as I know none of them was armed; I don't recall any of tem being attacked or threatened.

 

Are you aware that it's generally men who get attacked, rather than women?

Edited July 1, 2009 by John Cuthber

[DrDNA]

Being a social libertarian and strong supporter of the second amendment, my inital instinct is to unholster my weapon, brandishly wave it about and shout ABSOLUTELY NOT.

 

Then I ran across this, which caused me to pause and ponder.......

 

SPLAIN IT!! Dating Profile

 

Name: Vinny P. Solo

 

Age: 34

 

Occupation: Marksman by day, level 60 Paladin by night.

 

Sex: Not yet, but soon I hope.

 

Self Description: Orgasmic to the eyes. Beastly. Deceptive good looks.

 

Attributes: Ninja like stealth. Flowing locks reminiscent of a Norwegian waterfall. Deadly accuracy with a multitude of weaponry. Uncanny knowledge of medieval torture. The strength of 18 midgets spinning a marry-go-round. I am the Hercules of virility. I have the burning loins of more than 300 pubescent teenagers and am loaded with sexual ferociousness.

 

Interests: I enjoy writing books, like ‘Trench coats are a way of life’, ‘Hun’s and Ammo’ (a story of my ancestors), ‘Why one eyebrow is better than two’ and ‘If you were me, you’d be awesome’. I enjoy roller blading in my Blue Blockers on the weekends. I also enjoy reading and knowing the Kama Sutra in hopes of putting my knowledge into practice.

 

Favorite Book: Hair: It’s a garden, let it grow.

 

CALL ME!!! OR COME FIND ME ON WORLD OF WARCRAFT - - SCREENNAME IS ‘HARRY HOTTER’

 

 

 

So, after much pondering and consideration, I agree that guns should be completely outlawed for this guy.

[Pangloss]

Pfft. The 60 paladins I know wouldn't be caught DEAD playing Guitar Hero.

[The Bear's Key]

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?

No offense, but I'd have to verify the spray's inability to take you down. Care to have me video it and show the results here?

 

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.

A sniper couldn't even attack in the first place. The bullet-proof glass is only inside the building, and the cops sit behind it. So the reality: police being armed is not reassuring deterrence.

 

Also, the fact that people might do crazy stuff once inside the station means it's not a crime deterrent.

 

Look at banks, too. They have armed guards, yet banks do get robbed.

 

And since my examples are perceptibly more dangerous than ordinary citizens....if robbers have that much balls with armed police and guards, I don't see armed citizens being seen as more of a threat.

 

Furthermore, even if you managed to defend yourself against a mugger, the crime still occured and gets reported (unless you simply walked away). Thus the crime stats won't be going down too noticeably anyway.

 

 

... Well, the question I've constantly asked myself is, then what leads people to kill?[/quote']I don't know, maybe it is because people are inherently evil?

Well, I don't know where you get your info. But that's why I mentioned how religious trespass into government is a likely root of crime.

 

For even if you're atheist, much of the sentiment that humanity's inherently evil originates from religious sources. Mankind is sinful, it will perish, blah blah blah.

 

However, to show how they're a root cause, let's go on to more concrete examples.

 

Who's responsible for the Prohibition of Alcohol -- increasing demand, lowering supply -- but religion's nose into government? From then it was just simple economics: prices shot through the roof, attracting mafia for the illegal sales and a floursishing enterprise of crime, murder, and gang shootings.

 

But ironically, considering how people then were armed, it didn't stop crime. See where I'm going yet?

 

Marijuana Prohibition -- same effect. And once again, by religion's nose into government.

 

Sometimes when I'm browing the market's produce isle, seeing the lettuces and herbs, I think wow, how incredible: the same bag of marijuana would cost 10,000 percent more, all because of its prohibition. And with such insanely lucrative prices (also they can't just open a store), the dealers resort to pushing kids to sell it. That would be impossible if marijuana's cost was say only 10% to 25% more than supermarket greens -- as would've been the case if the government had left it be.

 

All of the above is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

 

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

I'm saying they weren't even focused on gun control, but rather were saying that policy in England is to let most crimes slide. And yes, I was also insulting them a bit -- especially for not referencing the highly suspect claims.

 

Maybe john cuthber, who seems to live there, can help us out.

 

john, are you aware of the following happening in England? (obviously we'd be taking your word for it, but that still helps to further research later)

 

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.

 

 

 

btw, if your police need a taser to control an angry, unfit 60 year old...

What's new about that?

 

In the U.S. the police also tasered a 72 year old woman, and an 11 year old kid. I think a few of the cops involved are likely timid people and so resort to such measures.

 

 

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPab0oj_1B4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPab0oj_1B4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

 

 

I'm sure it's great to be a diminutive woman wandering the streets of london at night, unable to legally carry a can of pepper spray or mace.

 

i knew plenty of women of all shapes and sizes who walked about the place. Most of them were quite happy to do so. As far as i know none of them was armed; i don't recall any of tem being attacked or threatened.

Funny you brought it up. I was just thinking about a diminutive foreign lady (about 4'5") who'd stroll the Big City at night after making door-to-door sales. Her chin up, walking defiantly through *bad* areas, she was unarmed -- yet no one bothered her.

 

That's caused me to wonder ever since, if the people who look around a bit frightened or even unsure of themselves are the ones who appear most vulnerable -- and thus safer for the mugger to approach.

 

For if a person would appear to simply *belong*, there's less a chance of getting bothered.

 

 

so, after much pondering and consideration, i agree that guns should be completely outlawed for this guy.

lol :D

Edited July 2, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[Pangloss]

Not to get too far off subject, but I have no problem with that second video. An 11 year old actively attacking a female student? Only one security guard present? Hell yeah, those kids can put the smack down when they really want to. For what it's worth.

 

The old lady, though... that's just cold. Step away, take a deep breath, and call for some backup. Yeesh.

[John Cuthber]

"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."

 

Incidentally, I thought that the accepted rule for the use of a taser was "if we didn't have a taser we would have had to use a real gun".

Are the police in the habit of shooting 11 year olds?

If they are, then I'm going to have to revise my opinion on gun ownership.

I used to think that only the police should have guns. Now I'm not so sure about the police having them either.

[SH3RL0CK]

A lot of what is being said, isn't actually true in my experience.

A sniper couldn't even attack in the first place. The bullet-proof glass is only inside the building, and the cops sit behind it. So the reality: police being armed is not reassuring deterrence.

Not true. what is to prevent some angry, crazy guy from rushing in, guns blazing? or swinging a club for that matter?

Also, the fact that people might do crazy stuff once inside the station means it's not a crime deterrent.

?? Of course it is a deterent. Imagine the crime that would happen if there were no police at all.

Look at banks, too. They have armed guards, yet banks do get robbed.

I've actually never seen an armed guard at any of my banks; just a few tellers and managers - all unarmed. And usually they simply give the robber the money since he will go away after he gets it. He can be caught later. It isn't worth the risk of confronting him, unless someone is at immediate risk, at which point perhaps then he should be confronted.

And since my examples are perceptibly more dangerous than ordinary citizens....if robbers have that much balls with armed police and guards, I don't see armed citizens being seen as more of a threat.

 

Furthermore, even if you managed to defend yourself against a mugger, the crime still occured and gets reported (unless you simply walked away). Thus the crime stats won't be going down too noticeably anyway.

crime statistics suck, as bascule previously pointed out.

 

 

Well, I don't know where you get your info. But that's why I mentioned how religious trespass into government is a likely root of crime.

 

For even if you're atheist, much of the sentiment that humanity's inherently evil originates from religious sources. Mankind is sinful, it will perish, blah blah blah.

 

However, to show how they're a root cause, let's go on to more concrete examples.

...much bashing on religion deleted...

 

lets keep religion out of this shall we? My original comment was meant to avoid the complexities of the causation of crime. But to put blame for crime on religion doesn't belong in this thread on gun control

 

In the U.S. the police also tasered a 72 year old woman, and an 11 year old kid. I think a few of the cops involved are likely timid people and so resort to such measures.

 

 

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPab0oj_1B4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPab0oj_1B4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny you brought it up. I was just thinking about a diminutive foreign lady (about 4'5") who'd stroll the Big City at night after making door-to-door sales. Her chin up, walking defiantly through *bad* areas, she was unarmed -- yet no one bothered her.

 

A few anecdotal youtube vidoes and examples does not make good science or good policy.

 

That said, to reply to John Cuthber

"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."

Again, I never said he had to have a gun to be a serious problem for the police...

 

Lets put ourselves in the position of a police officer. Lets let this irate man have a running chainsaw and be threating people he has cornered; perhaps in an enclosed alleyway. Lets say he has already slashed some of the people. Sure, you (and the other police officers with you) are physically capable of beating him easily in a fair fight, but again he has hostages and a chainsaw. What should you do?

 

You can try to tackle him or otherwise physically subdue him (I hope you and/or the other people still have all fingers/arms/ heads properly attached). Or you could outright shoot him. Or you could tazer him. Or you could try to talk him into surrendering (while he is slashing the citizens?). None of these seem great to me. Any other ideas?

 

Life isn't always as clearcut as we would like. Simplistic answers generally are not feasible in our complex world.

[John Cuthber]

Re "Lets put ourselves in the position of a police officer. Lets let this irate man have a running chainsaw and be threating people he has cornered; perhaps in an enclosed alleyway. Lets say he has already slashed some of the people. Sure, you (and the other police officers with you) are physically capable of beating him easily in a fair fight, but again he has hostages and a chainsaw. What should you do? "

 

Did you not realise that I was joking with this bit

"I used to think that only the police should have guns. Now I'm not so sure about the police having them either." of my last post?

Anyway, as I already said "I thought that the accepted rule for the use of a taser was "if we didn't have a taser we would have had to use a real gun"."

I think a man run awry with a chainsaw would meet that criterion.

[SH3RL0CK]

Re "Lets put ourselves in the position of a police officer. Lets let this irate man have a running chainsaw and be threating people he has cornered; perhaps in an enclosed alleyway. Lets say he has already slashed some of the people. Sure, you (and the other police officers with you) are physically capable of beating him easily in a fair fight, but again he has hostages and a chainsaw. What should you do? "

 

Did you not realise that I was joking with this bit

"I used to think that only the police should have guns. Now I'm not so sure about the police having them either." of my last post?

Anyway, as I already said "I thought that the accepted rule for the use of a taser was "if we didn't have a taser we would have had to use a real gun"."

I think a man run awry with a chainsaw would meet that criterion.

 

 

Sorry, I did not catch the joking; maybe I need more sleep.

 

I do see and respect your viewpoint on this issue. Its certainly not an unreasonable view to take.

[Lance]

No offense, but I'd have to verify the spray's inability to take you down. Care to have me video it and show the results here?

 

First of all it's kind of hard to video tape myself going through a combat course after being peppersprayed. Second yes I do have videos of other people but it would be a breach in operation security for me to post videos of Army training publicly. I will post a photo of me immediately after having passed the combat course. Notice I'm not rolling around on the ground in pain. DoD grade OC spray is also around 4x as concentrated as what civilian police are allowed to carry.

[The Bear's Key]

what is to prevent some angry, crazy guy from rushing in, guns blazing? or swinging a club for that matter?

The potential of him facing guns would prevent it, according to others' logic.

 

?? Of course it is a deterent. Imagine the crime that would happen if there were no police at all.

I meant their guns weren't such an effective deterrent against your hypothesized scenario (of a crazy guy), not the police themselves. And so the need for bullet proof glass.

 

I've actually never seen an armed guard at any of my banks; just a few tellers and managers - all unarmed.

Funny, there's an armed guard where I bank. Stands outside usually, and even guards my bike when I use it as transport.

 

crime statistics suck, as bascule previously pointed out.

And so can news or magazine reports. First no one's shown that England indeed lets most crimes slide (as in bascule's first link). Plus even with the discrepancy accounted for in bascule's second link, England's murder rate by guns is still much lower than in the U.S.

 

And your reasoning only works for the last 10 years or so. For England's crime rate's been high for a way shorter period than its comprehensive gun ban. How do you account for the other (previous) years of lower crime?

 

My point is that gun control actually doesn't raise or lower crime, and neither do gun rights. I challenge both sides, and have pointed to a more solid root of crime.

 

If you don't think a supply/demand illegal gold mine(rush) created by legislation is as good a root of crime as let's say, most forms of gun control, then let's hear your arguments.

 

lets keep religion out of this shall we? My original comment was meant to avoid the complexities of the causation of crime. But to put blame for crime on religion doesn't belong in this thread on gun control

Fair enough. Though my comment was meant to avoid the simplicities of the causations of crime. It really is a bit more complex than politicians and media let on.

 

A few anecdotal youtube vidoes and examples does not make good science or good policy.

Where'd I say it did? You noticed the humor I responded to John with: he made a comment about one taser incident, and I showed him there were even more incidents. And I didn't follow it up with any point. In fact, I dismissed it as timid people in uniform. Obviously, not a common thing.

 

 

Lets put ourselves in the position of a police officer. Lets let this irate man have a running chainsaw and be threating people he has cornered; perhaps in an enclosed alleyway.

.....

Life isn't always as clearcut as we would like. Simplistic answers generally are not feasible in our complex world.

You're creating a fantasy situation to make a point that doesn't even fit John's original remark. The guy was unarmed, not wielding a chainsaw. That was the point. As it turns out, he was kidding us anyhow

 

 

First of all it's kind of hard to video tape myself going through a combat course after being peppersprayed.

I'd do the video taping

 

Second yes I do have videos of other people but it would be a breach in operation security for me to post videos of Army training publicly.

And you wouldn't be doing Army training, but simply preventing yourself from dropping to the floor in writhing agony.

 

 

(I'll bring the Dave's Insanity Sauce and we'll do business

And then we'll get a few beers, on me. In thanks for your service to the nation, and to science )

Edited July 3, 2009 by The Bear's Key
added

[Lance]

I'd do the video taping

 

 

And you wouldn't be doing Army training, but simply preventing yourself from dropping to the floor in writhing agony.

 

 

(I'll bring the Dave's Insanity Sauce and we'll do business

And then we'll get a few beers, on me. In thanks for your service to the nation, and to science )

 

Okay at first your post mildly irritated me, but I DO like beer. Let me think about it.

[Reaper]

And your reasoning only works for the last 10 years or so. For England's crime rate's been high for a way shorter period than its comprehensive gun ban.

 

[The Bear's Key]

niiiice...

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/RecordedCrimePer100k1950-2004.htm

 

I stand corrected, only a bit though. In England/Wales, crime's been lowish from the 50s until the mid-70s, and up through the 80s climbed to the middle, and it became high in the 90s and stayed that way.

 

So almost 20 years, instead of my guess of around 10.

 

Yet in Wales, it's peaked in the mid-90s but has dropped since.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/BCS1981-2004.htm

 

My point remains.