Not relevant in the same way you refused to respond to Rolfe or myself regarding your cherry picking of UK gun crime statistics and your absurd claim that US states were different in some unclear manner from the UK home nations? Hmm........
2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue
- Thread starter Baylor
- Start date
Not relevant in the same way you refused to respond to Rolfe or myself regarding your cherry picking of UK gun crime statistics and your absurd claim that US states were different in some unclear manner from the UK home nations? Hmm........
Cosmic Roy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 261
UNLoVedRebel, I think many people will agree with your view that the widespread carriage of guns alone does not cause murder rates to rise significantly. But are you also saying that gun ownership in those "certain pockets of the U.S." somehow keeps the high murder rates from rising yet higher? I would appreciate clarification, because in your opening post you implied that greater availability of guns in the UK would lead to fewer murders. Do you maintain that claim?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Even if you could conclude that the freedom to own handguns does not in any way influence homicide statistics, you can not then use this as evidence that the UK desperately needs guns to lower the crime rate. If owning guns does not effect pockets of crime in certain states., then that suggests there is no benefit.
To dismiss the idea that the US is different from the UK out of hand is a little unfair. As I tried to suggest before there is a cultural difference. But again, this difference is more useful in a case for Americans keeping guns, and less useful for persuading the Brits they need guns. Yes, there are nations with less rigid gun control and lower crime figures out there. But that still does not prove a cause and effect.
To dismiss the idea that the US is different from the UK out of hand is a little unfair. As I tried to suggest before there is a cultural difference. But again, this difference is more useful in a case for Americans keeping guns, and less useful for persuading the Brits they need guns. Yes, there are nations with less rigid gun control and lower crime figures out there. But that still does not prove a cause and effect.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Sorry about that, doubt anybody wants to listen my banal witterings twice.
Last edited:
That must be why the world is littered with US military outposts...
richardm
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 9,248
This is part of the cultural difference as well though. Yes, they (this is a generic "they") want a semi automatic. They feel that they don't have to explain to you why they want it, they just do and it's none of your business why.
And it's none of the government's business either, so they shouldn't be legislating against a private individual's right to own whatever devices they want.
It's why, I think, many Americans look on the procedure for getting a shotgun certificate with genuine bafflement: "you must specify a reason for wanting a shotgun? I want to have a shotgun - that is the reason!"
(Also can be reversed in the old joke that you only need one question on the the licence form for automatic weapons, which is "Do you want to have a machine gun?" If you answer "Yes" then you're automatically deemed unsuitable.)
To tie in with what Fiona and you have said - I used to be an adamant "better off without guns" supporter, based on my reasoning that since we had so little gun crime here that was because we had such tight gun control laws. After threshing it out with many people in this Forum I changed my mind to what you say that the cause and effect is not that simple. It is apparent that culture and many other factors come into play.
It really does seem to be that the main difference has nothing to do with a lack of a "2nd amendment" but simply that we (although sharing many traits) are a different culture to the USA. One of the differences (and this is a purely speculative opinion and I know it is a gross simplification) is that violence is often seen as a solution in USA culture rather than a failing as it is in UK culture and society. I also think there is a difference in the value that is placed on other people's lives.
Her Dark Star
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2010
- Messages
- 120
The question of the 2nd amendment actual meaning/intention aside, as a British citizen I really don't want more guns in the country. If I get mugged or otherwise attacked I know that it is extremely unlikely that my assailant has a gun and I can choose whether or not to defend myself without wondering where I left my assault rifle. If I do defend myself it is far less likely that either of us will die and I'm quite happy with that idea. You are (roughly) 30 times more likely to be killed by a firearm in the USA than in the UK which definitely suggests to me that having more guns doesn't make anyone safer. Of course culture is the biggest influence on this, having guns around only increases opportunity to use them, I believe there are some countries where it isn't unusual for a rifle to be kept in the house (for defence against bears and such) but the rate of deaths by firearm aren't really any higher.
Last edited:
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
There have been defensive gun use studies done, but the results seem so inconsisitent with each other, and the method suffers from the subjective nature of the study, it is hard to argue either way
Where did you get that picture of me?
You had to bring it up didn't you?
Oh, Johnny... <cries>ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
"Littered?" We favor the world with our military outposts.
I think you are correct -- to an extent. Basically, our default position is not to demonstrate why we should have something, but for those opposed to demonstrate why we should not. We allow people to own cars that go 200 mph, not because anyone has demonstrated a need to go that fast, but because no one has adequately demonstrated a need to disallow those cars.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
You had to bring it up didn't you?
He's dead? Damn, I've been out of touch. It broke me up enough when Wulf Sternhammer died, but Johnny...
Dave
Yup, ''The Final Solution.'', about 1990/1 iirc, I'd have to trawl through the back issues to be definite though.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Where did you get that picture of me?
You had to bring it up didn't you?
But he got better....
Part of the explanation may lie in the reasons why people own firearms. In the US, a primary reason is self defense. Owning handguns is common and firearms are often kept loaded. Countries where the primary reasons for owning firearms are sport or hunting have lower rates of handgun ownership and lower firearms death rates.
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
I gun may not be required for self-defense, but it can make self-defense more effective.
Rolfe
Adult human female
What is the particular feature of US society not present in other first-world countries that makes its citizens see firearms as a desirable or essential self-defence provision?
I've asked before what's so particularly dangerous about the place, or are Americans just shaking in their shoes for no good reason, but I don't remember getting a coherent answer.
Rolfe.
I've asked before what's so particularly dangerous about the place, or are Americans just shaking in their shoes for no good reason, but I don't remember getting a coherent answer.
Rolfe.
One theory is the way the media covers crime in the US (if it bleeds, it leads) creates an exaggerated perception of risk.