• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun controll?

Rolfe said:
Absolutely not.

Legitimate purposes for a gun include shooting at targets and murdering wildlife. They do not include shooting at people or intending to shoot at people, for any reason. Unless you are a member of the police or the armed forces. And even the police are not routinely armed, and not all police officers are trained or authorised to carry firearms.

What the US posters have to get their brains around is that we're happy about this. We do not want everyone, including the nutters, the disaffected teenagers and the boyfriend of the woman I asked to stop shouting outside my house at midnight last night to have guns. We consider the desire to keep a gun in the home or on the person for "self-defence" to be bordering on the psychopathic.

Whenever there is a shooting incident, the overwhelming outcry from the public is for even more gun control. If anyone suggests that perhaps legislation might be going a bit too far (Olympic target shooting teams for example), the retort is, you don't want this country to become like the USA, do you? And everyone shudders and backs off.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...



This is pretty much the case in New Zealand as well, although interestingly enough we actually have fairly gentle gun control laws. Guns simply are not a big issue here. I think if you asked the average kiwi what they thought about gun control they'd shrug their shoulders and look at you perplexed.
 
I had a quick look at the Iowa figures, the safest state (lowest homicide rate) in the US.

Overall the murder rate in Iowa is only slightly higher than the UK 15.5 per million against 12.5 per million.

Iowa has a population of around 3 million and the latest figures I saw had 22 people murdered with firearms. Around 7.5 per million.

The UK has a population of around 60 million and the latest figures have 50 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf. Around 0.8 per million.

In Iowa 47.5% of murders are with a gun.
In the UK is it 6.7%.

I think it is fairly safe to conclude that the comparative availability of guns accounts for this difference.

It is also, I think, fair to assume that it is far easier and far quicker to murder with a gun than without.

I would suggest that some of the gun related murders would not have happened has guns not been so easily available. That could be because the assailant was not physically able to murder by another means or in the extra time it takes to murder by another means the assailant ‘cools off’

Were guns not widely available I wonder if Iowa, would not only be the safest place in America but would also be safer then the UK?
 
The Painter said:
In all this mostly pointless babble no one has mentioned the association of the illegal drug trade, or even just drug use, in relation to gun deaths. Check the FBI records an overwhelming majority of gun shootings are drug related. These are generally not good law abiding people doing the shooting, they are bad people. I’ll bet your crank dealer has a gun, even in jolly old England.
Click to expand...


This would be an interesting subject to uncover information about!

I can't speak for the UK, because I don't know about it, but here in New Zealand (with one of the highest per capita number of guns in the world) criminals are seldom armed. I'm not sure what crank is but here the major problem drug is P (pure methamphetamine) and having lived next to a number of P labs in my time, and unfortunately having interacted with a number of dealers and manufacturers I can say with confidence that no, they are not armed.
 
The Painter said:
In the USA, Doctors kill more people than guns do. Ban the doctors!!!!
Click to expand...
Define 'kill'. And I truly hope nobody honestly thinks guns save as many lives as doctors do.

Just because it can't be stated too many times - Ocelot's post is worhty of being read, no matter which side you are on.
 
Rolfe said:
Legitimate purposes for a gun include shooting at targets and murdering wildlife. They do not include shooting at people or intending to shoot at people, for any reason. Unless you are a member of the police or the armed forces. And even the police are not routinely armed, and not all police officers are trained or authorized to carry firearms.

What the US posters have to get their brains around is that we're happy about this. We do not want everyone, including the nutters, the disaffected teenagers and the boyfriend of the woman I asked to stop shouting outside my house at midnight last night to have guns. We consider the desire to keep a gun in the home or on the person for "self-defense" to be bordering on the psychopathic.

Whenever there is a shooting incident, the overwhelming outcry from the public is for even more gun control. If anyone suggests that perhaps legislation might be going a bit too far (Olympic target shooting teams for example), the retort is, you don't want this country to become like the USA, do you? And everyone shudders and backs off.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Here in America, there seems to be almost a desire for there to be reasons to own lots of guns, that really DOES border on the psychopathic. The sort of fevered imagination that goes into the justifications for gun ownership can slip right into some sort of "gun fetish erotica", for lack of a better term. For most Americans, there's absolutely ZERO need for a gun... so the desire to own one must come from an irrational place.

And, as an American, I LOVE guns. LOVE. There's simply no practical reason for me to own one. I live in a safe neighborhood. I don't go into high-crime areas looking for trouble. Driving 40-50 miles to a range seems sort of a waste of gas. I'm not particularly concerned about street gangs trying to kill my wife and rape my cat. I doubt a zombie plague will break out this year or next. I'm satisfied with my penis size and social standing.

When I have an extra $500-700, sometimes I think "oh, let me gets me a gun!" And, usually, I follow that thought with "why?", and then drop the whole thing, because there's no logical reason. Others make up fantastical "reasons" to buy guys, but I just don't see the point.
 
Damien Evans said:
Thankfully, yes, we have banned almost all auto, semi auto and pistol style guns over .38 calibre here. It was a similar incident to the british incidents that precipitated our gun law changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

However, like in the UK, it is relatively simple to obtain a license and gun for competition shooting and hunting (which in Australia mostly means duck and other waterbird hunting, Kangaroo hunting (delicious eating, the Kangaroo) and vermin shooting, mostly of rabbits, foxes, goats, pigs and, in the northern territory, cape buffalo)
Click to expand...

I just want to clarify what Damien has said here - it is still possible to obtain a semi-automatic rifle in Australia, but the restrictions are tighter. As such, only people who actually need such a weapon will obtain one - farmers, for example.

littlehulkster said:
So a decrease in gun crime is good, even if it's not a decrease in total violent crime?

Is it somehow better to murder a man with a knife as opposed to a gun in your mind? Robberies, rapes, and assaults all must be ok too, just as long as one of those EVIL guns isn't involved!
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or is this a huge leap into the ridiculous?

You can't just go around looking for correlations, you actually have to explain how it supports your point. You would expect tighter gun laws to result in less gun crime - and indeed that is what happened. I can see no conceivable way in which tighter gun laws would result in less violent crime overall, so your point seems a bit moot.

It is my understanding that since the introduction of the tighter gun laws in 1996, the average global temperature has risen. Shall we blame the laws for that too - after all, it is another correlation?
 
Gagglegnash said:
GB's homicide rate hasn't gone down since the most recent gun ban.
Click to expand...


Sorry, this is getting close to dishonest arguing.

It has already been explained to you that the "gun ban" you refer to could at most have affected about 0.1% of the population, so low was gun ownership even before then. How on earth could this minor tinkering possibly have any effect on overall homicide statistics?

It has also been pointed out to you that this minor measure was never seriously expected to have any demonstrable effect, for pretty much the above reason, but was introduced as a way of appeasing overwhelming public demand for "more gun control" to be enforced after the Dunblane shooting, which was more a result of poor enforcement of existing law than of any actual deficiency in that law as such.

Any idea that anyone could seriously expect to see anything statistically as a result of that measure merely demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what you're talking about. To continue to make the assertion after the situation has been patiently explained to you is bordering on the intellectually dishonest.

Rolfe.
 
Mobyseven said:
I just want to clarify what Damien has said here - it is still possible to obtain a semi-automatic rifle in Australia, but the restrictions are tighter. As such, only people who actually need such a weapon will obtain one - farmers, for example.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't begrudge an Australian farmer installing a Phalanx CIWS to deal with infestations of Cane Toads.
 
The Painter said:
I heard you the first time.

I'm not him. However if you think all your neighbors are like that guy, YOU NEED A GUN to protect you form that nut job.
Click to expand...

If your all neighbours are like that, then you're screwed no matter what. But if a small minority might be, then surely there are two issues - better healthcare, and finding a way to ensure they can't get guns?
 
The Painter said:
I heard you the first time.
Click to expand...

Double-post already removed, smart-arse.

I'm not him. However if you think all your neighbors are like that guy, YOU NEED A GUN to protect you form that nut job.
Click to expand...

Not all neighbours are like that guy, but it only takes one. Good job he wouldn't have a gun nowadays, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom