Gun controll?

[fagin]

double post

 

[Rolfe]

And, you know, I don't think this is much of a derail at all. Americans as a whole live in a world completely out of their control, with a smaller and smaller safety net as the years go on. You can work a job for 30 years, and have someone come to your office Friday afternoon and let you know that you've got a half-hour to clear out your desk, and then the security guard will escort you to the parking lot. You can work all year, get to November, and find out that your company will no longer be insuring you(which is a PAY CUT) at the start of the next year. Your neighborhood can be bulldozed to put up high-price condos, and there's nothing you can do about it. And, there's little in the way of government assistance to make sure that you don't fall between the cracks... the system is almost all cracks.

So, what have people got left that can make them feel less small, less weak, less pathetic in a system that has little but contempt for them? Guns and violence and tough-talk.

Wait for it....


Any minute now....


It's totally predictable....


3....


2....


1....


WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?????

Rolfe.

 

[JoeEllison]

While in the UK we seem to be nannied more and more each day.
Surveilence is endemic, and the government is continually threatening to protect us from our vices.
It can be very annoying, but on the whole seems to drive people to drink rather than violence. (if i used smilies would insert here)

We have all that too... but only in ways that don't help us a bit, and keep us even more frustrated and powerless.

 

[Stout]

And, you know, I don't think this is much of a derail at all. Americans as a whole live in a world completely out of their control, with a smaller and smaller safety net as the years go on. You can work a job for 30 years, and have someone come to your office Friday afternoon and let you know that you've got a half-hour to clear out your desk, and then the security guard will escort you to the parking lot. You can work all year, get to November, and find out that your company will no longer be insuring you(which is a PAY CUT) at the start of the next year. Your neighborhood can be bulldozed to put up high-price condos, and there's nothing you can do about it. And, there's little in the way of government assistance to make sure that you don't fall between the cracks... the system is almost all cracks.

So, what have people got left that can make them feel less small, less weak, less pathetic in a system that has little but contempt for them? Guns and violence and tough-talk.

Damn..

JoeEllison...that's refreshing to hear that message from an actual American. only too often has been my experience that Americans are soooooo bombastic about what a great place America is while those of us in the rest of the world are simply shaking our heads. It is completely revalent to the gun topic as I've found the American anti-gun voice to be very small and weak.

I'd tend to label the 2nd Amendment as indoctrination. What do I mean by that? I'll give you an example. last year I was talking to a 21 year old American woman. She was living up here studying traditional Chinese medicine and making her living as an artist. She stood firmly behind the 2nd Amendment and when I questioned her as to why she did, it turned out that she'd never really given it much thought and merely accepted it as a right that "they" want to take away from "you" and as such, should be defended out of a sense of patriotism.

She is now anti gun.

Go me

 

[Gagglegnash]

Things get sticky in a revolution. So I take it you have no problem with civil disobedience. If the situation arises, I suggest you use it.

No problem. Guns are the last thing I would want to bear against my own government.

But, since 1776, they are on the list.

The law where I live does the same thing, and it's really nice, yes.

I don't know what you mean by "worked", but it would certainly have made an impact. The problem with Nazi Germany was not that people who opposed the regime didn't have enough guns, it was that not enough people opposed the regime in the first place.

The thing that made the impact was British sentiment, and the British interest in fair play was a powerful force in that sentiment.

The Nazi took pride in their lack of sentiment. They were the Arier Übermenschen and had no time or inclination for such frivolity.

...and the opposition to the Nazi did NOT have enough guns. One of the first things the Nationalsozialisten did was to disarm the civilian populace, which seemed to the people of the time to be a rational outgrowth to previous laws to keep them safer.

Which is why I'm a bit curious of if the people who feel they absolutely, posetively need to keep a gun for that purpose are working on every single one of those things on the list they should be doing first. Or doing to prevent such a government from becoming reality. Such as, I don't know, voting?

You'd be amazed at the percentage of law-abiding gun owners that vote. I'd like to point out the fact that Mr. Bush did get elected, right?

Which is why I clarified as simply put as it could possibly be that I DO NOT WANT THE LAWS IN THE U.S. TO CHANGE WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT.

I hate to call people on fallacies, but what I'm really trying to say is that this is appeal to authority (the writers of the constitution) and popularity (the American people). Neither are arguments, and since you have arguments, I do not understand why you would be interested in bringing these up. They are perfect justifications for not changing the law in the US right now, yes. But I've never said that you should. Rather, I specifically said that you shouldn't.

I don't want the law to change without popular support, either, and I'm very glad that we have a set up where things CAN change with public support.

On the other hand, I'm also glad that public support isn't the ONLY THING THAT'S NEEDED. If you'll remember, Mr. Hitler and his gang of thugs were VERY popular with the public.

So was the current Mr. Bush.

Popular doesn't mean right, right?

As for, "appeal to authority," I guess you're right, but the writers of the Constitution... well... WROTE the CONSTITUTION, so their authority, as set in the words of the Constitution are the ultimate legal authority in this country, so please forgive me if I persist in appealing to that authority and attempt to figure out what the people that wrote them actually intended.

Yes. Which is sad, really. But securing a free state does not require guns.

I guess it depends on what you mean by, "free state."

does it mean, "as free as we want to be," or, "as free as the government will allow," or, "as free as we should be?"

In the first two, indeed, you do not need guns. In the third, I'd submit that owning a gun, just because you want one, is a pretty powerful test of how free you really are.

I am allowed guns because my government assumes that, since I have never been found guilty of a felony or high level misdemeanor, and since I'm not now under charge or restraint for domestic battery, that I should be allowed to do pretty much anything I want, gun-wise.

Also, as long as the enemies of the free state have guns, and the current ones do (please check the current US homicide rates. That isn't law-abiding people getting out of bed and shooting passers-by.) (Well - for the most part. It does happen, but it's rare.) the law-abiding populace... the militia... should have the freedom to have guns.

Legislate all the criminals away, and I'll lock up my guns forever and just deploy them for target shooting and maintenance.

It's nice that they want to help out, and I don't dispute the fact that hunters need guns (for hunting), but do you think this feeling about duty to the government will work in your favor if the nightmare scenarios suggested become reality?

I'm not really interested in nightmare scenarios, much, any more, but I still carry a cell phone, spare tire and jumper cables. I still stock up on food and water during tornado season. I still maintain enough equipment that I can stay dray and warm in the field, and I still have guns to protect the things I hold as valuable enough to kill for.

Spare cell phones, tires, jumper cables, extra food and water, camping gear and guns are all just tools that I use to be prepared. It doesn't mean that I walk around worrying worrying about flat tires, tornadoes, and armed insurrection.

It just means that I'm ready if something rolls up to my front door.

And that's an entirely different matter.

Was he now? Because he was a communist? Extremists of both left and right share many undesireable traits, among them this fondness of violence as a tool of political power.

Indeed. You have just said correctly and politely what I could not express politely.

I hope so. That's why I wrote that I don't think anyone actually does that. So we don't have to worry about fascists taking over your democratically governed nation, then?

Not if the fascists who used to live next door are any indication of American fascists in general. They'd be hard pressed to pour urine out of their boots.

However, again, something just being popular doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Back before the '60s, it was very popular, in some places, to forbid, to persons who had a slightly higher mellinin content in their skin, both gun ownership and the vote. Her in Indiana, before the, "shall issue," concealed handgun permit law, it was very popular for the same criterion often to be used for denial of the carry license.

There's lots of things that can try to take over a democratic government, so ours is set up to have one absolute, last option when redress by law fails.

Back in the day, they called it, "the palladium of all other rights."

 

[Architect]

But, since 1776, they are on the list.

Ancient history. Although I have to admit that my house is older than that.

As for, "appeal to authority," I guess you're right, but the writers of the Constitution... well... WROTE the CONSTITUTION, so their authority, as set in the words of the Constitution are the ultimate legal authority in this country, so please forgive me if I persist in appealing to that authority and attempt to figure out what the people that wrote them actually intended.

Yes, because something written 250 years ago wouldn't need updating or revision to suit changing society.

Just a minute, I've a copy of the Declaration of Arbroath somewhere, I'll just get my sword out of the thatch and away and attack my English neighbours...

I guess it depends on what you mean by, "free state."

does it mean, "as free as we want to be," or, "as free as the government will allow," or, "as free as we should be?"

I'm waiting for you to tell us how us Europeans aren't really "free".

 

[fagin]

Ancient history. Although I have to admit that my house is older than that.


Yes, because something written 250 years ago wouldn't need updating or revision to suit changing society.

Just a minute, I've a copy of the Declaration of Arbroath somewhere, I'll just get my sword out of the thatch and away and attack my English neighbours...





I'm waiting for you to tell us how us Europeans aren't really "free".

Note to USA - we have REAL Highlanders

 

[Architect]

Ceart, agus tha mise ghaidhlig!

 

[Rolfe]

Translation: This is a guy who can pay attention to Eorpa without watching the TV screen.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

I noticed that there was an oblique suggestion that gun related homicides might displace other kinds (though I may have misinterpreted what was being said.) Anyway, for what it is worth:

http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf

"In this connection, it is noteworthy that our data do not lend any
support to the displacement hypothesis: whatever the outcome measure (suicide,
homicide) considered, a high presence of guns does not go along with less non-gun
events. Thus, there is no indication that people will, in the absence of guns, turn to
knives or other lethal instruments."

and

http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related-activities/523667-1.html

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

It has been pointed out before, the government is the people it is not a them and us. UK gun laws are met with universal support in the UK, (although people who live thousands of miles away across an ocean have problems with it for some reason I can't fathom.)

By, "universal," I assume you mean you and the people you know.

I'm fairly sure that the people (some 20,000, according to one of the guys here) who were required to sell their handguns to the government at set prices were pretty unhappy about the affair.

...and since, apparently, gun ownership wasn't actually enumerated as a right under British Common Law, I can't even resort to that old, "majority rule, minority rights," thing.

I am quite amazed too. We have moved on.

I quite agree. None of that old fashioned, inconvenient patriotic stuff for you guys.

In any case. what is it with the war quotes ? Things must be very bad where you are if you feel you are in a war with your fellow citizens.

It was a reminder of three things.

First, it was a reminder that, just half a century ago, you guys were hip-deep in The Big Muddy because you declined, as a nation, to roll over and be good dogs. Second, it a reminder of who it was that helped you accomplish that declining. Third, it was a reminder of what it cost a mess of guys you never met to try to leave you in a position where you, as individuals, could decide what was right for you instead of having a government tell you.

I would like to mention, at this point, how much it cost you guys, too, to resist a government who, pretty much first thing, would have taken away your guns, as they did everywhere else they went.

Out of interest how many people would you be willing to murder in order to keep your gun ? Who would you murder first ? Would you go for the politicians, the law enforcers or your fellow citizens who favour of a tightening of the gun laws?

See? The typical anti-gun point of view is that all killing with a gun is murder, so all gun owners, therefore, are murderers. They are either intellectually unable, emotionally unable, or unwilling to differentiate between a gun in the hands of an attacker and a gun in the hands of a defender.

I, just to set things straight, am that latter type of gun-hand.

All I have to do to keep my firearms, right now, is not commit any felonies or high level misdemeanors, and not be charged or restrained in any cases of domestic battery.

Keeping my license to carry a concealed firearm is a bit more difficult. If I even brandish my weapon in a way that bothers someone, I can kiss that baby goodbye.

If Indiana decides to ban guns, I'll move to Vermont or Texas, where I have family. If the USA decides to ban guns, I'll be the first guy in line on turn-in day.

The likelihood of my leaving Indiana is slim, though:

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

What is my birthright ?

My point, exactly.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

If the video linked to in the opening post is indeed by the NRA then the NRA is certainly a lying organization. Whilst I expect special interest groups to spin the facts as best they can the UK based parts of their video is full of very easy to spot lies - not spin, not mistakes but quite deliberate falsification.

I quite agree. I'd say, "lying sunzabiches," but I think I'd get Rule 10ed.

I used it to demonstrate that both sides are far more interested in membership dues than anything else.

Ummm... unless... unless the Brits actually ARE living in a crime-free paradise. That would change everything.

 

[Ranb]

If the person attacking you has no firearm, is it ok in tha USA to draw yours and shoot them in the chest?

If they are already threatening you with one, you won't have time to draw, so what's the benefit.

I believe that the majority of gun crime here is gangsters shooting each other, so no big deal.

There are other deadly weapons available besides firearms. As far as I know most states will not prosecute a person who uses deadly force to defend themselves if they fear for their life and other options are not available to them. So the short answer is; it is sometimes ok.

Your potential gun wielding assailant might miss, or not shoot. A gun might some in handy in this circumstance.

I do not know much about gang violence where you live, but here in the USA there is no shortage of innocent (or less than innocent) bystanders getting shot when the gang bangers shoot at each other. It is a big deal here.

Ranb

 

[littlehulkster]

Isn't the NRA considered to be the single most powerful single interest lobbying group, over 4 million members and so on?

In terms of membership, yes. In terms of money, not even close.

Furthermore the NRA does advocate responsible gun ownership and has in fact endorsed many gun control laws. Their distortion of the truth is much less than that of their main opponent, the Brady Campaign, who seem to operate wholly off sensationalism.

 

[The Painter]

As an aside and this really should be a different thread:

Rofle I think the acronym you heard would have been "PTO", paid tme off from work, not PTA. However your summary of your friends' experience was not far from the average. When I was moving a department from New York to the UK the USA staff I transferred simply could not believe the holiday entitlement and how sick time was nothing to do with what they called "PTO". I would get questions like "I was off sick for 3 days but I don't want that to come out of my PTO can it be deducted as pay from my salary instead?".

See: http://www.salary.com/personal/layo...asp?tab=psn&cat=cat011&ser=ser031&part=par088 for some figures and more details.

Bold mine. A blatant violation of rule 11, even by your own admission. Your post isn't even accurate but that's OK, as long as you can demean the Yanks, right? Wait that's rule 12 another violation. This place is falling apart.

This entire topic has turned into nothing more than pissing contest between the US and the UK. Nice job Mods. Oh wait maybe it was his day off.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

...so it shouldn't be hard to show me a lowering of the homicide rate, because surely not all of the fatal gun violence was replaced by fatal punches in the nose, right?

I will, however, start looking for injury rates. Thanks for the nudge in a productive direction.

Now, here's a bit of an interesting read, form the Home Office, called, Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006/07 2nd edition

Down about page 40, they have a bit of a chart, talking about, " Injuries in crimes involving firearms." I'll just extract the non-airgun table.

Year | Total | Fatal injury | Serious injury | Slight injury
1998/99 | 864 | 50 | 162 | 653
1999/00 | 1,195 | 62 | 200 | 933
2000/01 | 1,382 | 72 | 244 | 1,066
2001/02 | 1,877 | 96 | 392 | 1,391
2002/03 | 2,179 | 80 | 416 | 1,683
2003/04 | 2,367 | 68 | 437 | 1,862
2004/05 | 3,900 | 76 | 412 | 3,412
2005/06 | 3,822 | 49 | 476 | 3,297
2006/07 | 3,011 | 56 | 412 | 2,543

So, while the overall firearm injury rate has been rising, the Brits have managed to do a good job on lowering the firearm fatality rate... since 2001.

No.

That's not fair.

Somewhere between 50 and 100 is actually very good, all things being considered, and the rise and fall doesn't seem to be statistically significant.

So: No real drop or rise in fatalities, but significant rises in severe and slight injuries.

Now, I wonder what kinds of firearms are being used in those crimes....

Down on page 53 is a chart, "Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have caused injury by type of principal weapon, 1996 to 2006/07"

Year | All firearms | All firearms |Shotgun | Handgun | Other firearms | Air weapons
| |excluding air weapons| | | excluding air weapons |
1996 | 1,981 | 769 | 104 | 279 | 386 | 1,212
1997 | 1,972 | 778 | 71 | 314 | 393 | 1,194
1997/98 | 2,074 | 804 | 74 | 317 | 413 | 1,270
1998/99 | 2,378 | 864 | 73 | 239 | 552 | 1,514
1999/00 | 3,172 | 1,195 | 100 | 352 | 743 | 1,977
2000/01 | 3,203 | 1,382 | 73 | 400 | 909 | 1,821
2001/02 | 3,794 | 1,879 | 111 | 648 | 1,120 | 1,915
2002/03 | 4,556 | 2,179 | 107 | 640 | 1,432 | 2,377
2003/04 | 4,762 | 2,367 | 104 | 590 | 1,673 | 2,395
2004/05 | 5,402 | 3,904 | 135 | 780 | 2,989 | 1,498
2005/06 | 5,004 | 3,822 | 154 |1,024| 2,644 | 1,182
2006/07 | 4,065 | 3,011 | 128 | 792 | 2,091 | 1,054

...so in a country where handgun controls are so tight the national Olympic pistol shooting team can only train in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or Isle of Man, there's a general RISE in handgun use in criminal injuries.

There's also about 4.4 times as much overall gun crime in the graph, with nice a drop last year! I understand that the current year's rate is about 13% lower than last year's rate, too. Good on you!

Fancy that, though. I wonder what kinds of guns are generally being used in what kind of crimes...

Back to page 49, please, under, "Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported to have been used by offense group and principal weapon, 2006/07"

| | | | Violence against the person| | | | |
Principal weapon | All offences | All offences excluding |========|==================== |====== | Robbery | Burglary | Other offences excluding | Criminal
| | criminal damage |Homicide| Attempted murder and other | Other | | | criminal damage | damage
| | | |acts (including wounding) | | | | |
Long-barrelled shotgun | 361 | 302 | 6 | 64 | 98 | 115 | 4 | 15 | 59
Sawn-off shotgun | 252 | 243 | 3 | 37 | 51 | 136 | 6 | 10 | 9
Handgun | 4,175 | 4,123 | 27 | 283 | 843 | 2,684 | 126 | 160 | 52
Rifle | 69 | 58 | 2 | 7 | 37 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 11
Imitation firearm | 2,517 | 2,061 | 0 | 34 | 1,765 | 194 | 13 | 55 | 456
Unidentified firearm | 1,277 | 1,116 | 17 | 181 | 351 | 472 | 29 | 66 | 161
Other firearm | 999 | 956 | 1 | 30 | 576 | 297 | 12 | 40 | 43
All firearms excluding air weapons | 9,650 | 8,859 | 56 | 636 | 3,721 | 3,905 | 191 | 350 | 791
Air weapon | 8,839 | 1,939 | 3 | 123 | 1,438 | 74 | 15 | 286 | 6,900
Total | 18,489 | 10,798 | 59 | 759 | 5,159 | 3,979 | 206 | 636 | 7,691

So, I don't think there are VERY MANY gun injuries being replaced by punch in the nose injuries.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Ancient history. Although I have to admit that my house is older than that.

LOL

Yes, because something written 250 years ago wouldn't need updating or revision to suit changing society.

Just a minute, I've a copy of the Declaration of Arbroath somewhere, I'll just get my sword out of the thatch and away and attack my English neighbours...

Says a guy with a monarchy that goes back... wow... how long? The earliest I can remember is Ethelred the Unready... probably, "the Ill Advised," would be more correct. What's that? 1000AD?

...and how many laws from your Magna Carta are still in place? Still got that LIMITED monarchy thing going on? How about due process and habeas corpus? What was that? I forget. Something in the 13th century....

Now, lets see: We lowered the vote in '71. That's the last change the the Constitution I remember. It changes when most people want it to...

but they REALLY gotta WANNA!

I'm waiting for you to tell us how us Europeans aren't really "free".

Not at all.

You're exactly as free as you deserve to be.

 

[Stout]

Gagglegnash

Should we be expecting a change in numbers ? Was there some event like a Brady ban that would prompt such a change ? I can't recall anything happening in the UK that would suggest that these are the "punch in the nose" numbers.

Five years ago, a British friend of mine told me that then, he had to keep his shotgun locked up, with the ammunition locked up separately, and that the police had dropped by to check things out a couple of times. He was a skeet shooting kind of guy.

How many of those incidents are criminal vs criminal ? Say a meth dealer shooting another meth dealer. I tend to see those as "less serious" when compared to incidents like a homeowner getting shot in a burglary.

The handgun numbers look pretty high when compared to the guns that people are allowed to have. I wonder where they come from ? given that the EU is pretty gun controlled.

I have no problem figuring out where illegal guns that are used in Canada come from.

 

[Rufo]

No problem. Guns are the last thing I would want to bear against my own government.

But, since 1776, they are on the list.

That's a very odd way to express your reasons. Are you saying that prior to the Declaration of Independence, you would not consider it justified to keep guns for the purpose of an armed revolution, but after you would? Surely that must be nothing but a practical question of what is allowed, rather than what is necessary.

The thing that made the impact was British sentiment, and the British interest in fair play was a powerful force in that sentiment.

The Nazi took pride in their lack of sentiment. They were the Arier Übermenschen and had no time or inclination for such frivolity.

I would discredit the British Empire - although I have little sympathy for it - if I said otherwise. But civil disobedience on a large scale would still have disrupted much of Nazi Germany's activities. It's true that they had insane leaders, and that they would have been far more ruthless than the British. But that does not mean it would have been a losing battle.

...and the opposition to the Nazi did NOT have enough guns. One of the first things the Nationalsozialisten did was to disarm the civilian populace, which seemed to the people of the time to be a rational outgrowth to previous laws to keep them safer.

As Architect pointed out, the civilian (and smaller military) attempts to attack them with weapons did not do much to stop them. The fact remains that they had widespread support which gave them their power, and that they used propaganda to increase that mindless support. That was the problem. Instead of arming themselves with guns, people should arm themselves with humane values and an understanding that prevents them from being used in this way. I understand that these are not mutually exclusive, but if you have the latter, you do not need the former.

You'd be amazed at the percentage of law-abiding gun owners that vote. I'd like to point out the fact that Mr. Bush did get elected, right?

I have no idea how many of the gun owners that vote. What I do know is that too few vote in America, and to me it seems to me that this, among other things, is a more pressing issue when it comes to democracy being vulnerable than getting a gun to rebel if it falls apart completely. In short, rather than preparing for the worst, people should be focusing on not letting the worst happen.

I don't want the law to change without popular support, either, and I'm very glad that we have a set up where things CAN change with public support.

On the other hand, I'm also glad that public support isn't the ONLY THING THAT'S NEEDED. If you'll remember, Mr. Hitler and his gang of thugs were VERY popular with the public.

So was the current Mr. Bush.

Popular doesn't mean right, right?

In a democracy it does. People like Hitler and - to a lesser extent - Mr. Bush can play the system and sometimes the results are fatal. But democracy is the best system we have. Forcing the American people to give up their guns against their collective will would accomplish nothing, but no one is really suggesting that.

As for, "appeal to authority," I guess you're right, but the writers of the Constitution... well... WROTE the CONSTITUTION, so their authority, as set in the words of the Constitution are the ultimate legal authority in this country, so please forgive me if I persist in appealing to that authority and attempt to figure out what the people that wrote them actually intended.

Attempting to figure things out never hurt anyone. All I'm saying is that the Constitution does not constitute (bad pun intended) any kind of higher truth or absolute right. So what the constitution says does not interest me when it comes to if one should keep firearms for the purposes of armed revolution.

Do not misunderstand me, I have respect for the Constitution as a historical document. But it is exactly that - an historical document. We must not cling on to its values because they brought about change in the day it was written.

I guess it depends on what you mean by, "free state."

does it mean, "as free as we want to be," or, "as free as the government will allow," or, "as free as we should be?"

Is there any other way to determine how free you should be besides how free you want to be?

In the first two, indeed, you do not need guns. In the third, I'd submit that owning a gun, just because you want one, is a pretty powerful test of how free you really are.

I am allowed guns because my government assumes that, since I have never been found guilty of a felony or high level misdemeanor, and since I'm not now under charge or restraint for domestic battery, that I should be allowed to do pretty much anything I want, gun-wise.

Also, as long as the enemies of the free state have guns, and the current ones do (please check the current US homicide rates. That isn't law-abiding people getting out of bed and shooting passers-by.) (Well - for the most part. It does happen, but it's rare.) the law-abiding populace... the militia... should have the freedom to have guns.

Legislate all the criminals away, and I'll lock up my guns forever and just deploy them for target shooting and maintenance.

I'm not attacking your right to have guns. I'm questioning the justification for keeping them that they should be used for an armed revolution.

I'm not really interested in nightmare scenarios, much, any more, but I still carry a cell phone, spare tire and jumper cables. I still stock up on food and water during tornado season. I still maintain enough equipment that I can stay dray and warm in the field, and I still have guns to protect the things I hold as valuable enough to kill for.

Spare cell phones, tires, jumper cables, extra food and water, camping gear and guns are all just tools that I use to be prepared. It doesn't mean that I walk around worrying worrying about flat tires, tornadoes, and armed insurrection.

It just means that I'm ready if something rolls up to my front door.

Ready for what? It would be a nightmarish scenario indeed if you would be forced to revolt against your government.

Indeed. You have just said correctly and politely what I could not express politely.

Then I hope you understand why I felt the quote shared some values with fascism. The fact that it shared some values with Mao doesn't really make it better...

Not if the fascists who used to live next door are any indication of American fascists in general. They'd be hard pressed to pour urine out of their boots.

However, again, something just being popular doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Back before the '60s, it was very popular, in some places, to forbid, to persons who had a slightly higher mellinin content in their skin, both gun ownership and the vote. Her in Indiana, before the, "shall issue," concealed handgun permit law, it was very popular for the same criterion often to be used for denial of the carry license.

There's lots of things that can try to take over a democratic government, so ours is set up to have one absolute, last option when redress by law fails.

Back in the day, they called it, "the palladium of all other rights."

I know that democracy is not infallible, but neither are gun owners. I repeat my earlier question - if there is a feeling of strong duty toward the government amongst gun owners, how do you know they'll be on your side if things get bad?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Should we be expecting a change in numbers ? Was there some event like a Brady ban that would prompt such a change ? I can't recall anything happening in the UK that would suggest that these are the "punch in the nose" numbers.

If you spend a few tens of million of pounds to get rid of handguns and make sure that law-abiding people are storing their weapons correctly, and a couple to a few million every year in enforcement, shouldn't there be FEWER gun injuries? Shouldn't there be FEWER gun-related crimes?

... snip ...

How many of those incidents are criminal vs criminal ? Say a meth dealer shooting another meth dealer. I tend to see those as "less serious" when compared to incidents like a homeowner getting shot in a burglary.

I can't speak for Britain, but here in Indiana, something like 64% of the motives of convicted murderers were accounted for by felony murder (killing someone while involved in the commission of a separate felony) and silencing the witness to a previous crime. Of all the felons convicted of murder, 92% had criminal histories.

This tends to indicate to me that most of our gun violence is not being committed by legal, law-abiding citizens.

Your, "less serious," incidents makes me want to point out that NONE of your handgun homicides, nearly half your total firearm homicides, are being committed by the law-abiding segment of your community! I have little reason to expect that any of the other firearms homicides are, either. On, the other hand, it's the law-abiding segment that are being limited (I'm trying to avoid saying, "being punished") by the firearms restrictions.

The handgun numbers look pretty high when compared to the guns that people are allowed to have. I wonder where they come from ? given that the EU is pretty gun controlled.

I have no problem figuring out where illegal guns that are used in Canada come from.

Most of the illegal full automatic weapons in the US come in through Miami/Dade County, Florida ("Machine Gun Alley"), associated with the drug trade. I would suspect that Britain, with is pretty high coastline to landmass ratio along with a mobile and reasonably affluent population would be a drug smuggler's dream, and if the demand is there, someone will fill it.

On the other hand, there's nothing magic about MAKING a gun. I'm pretty glad that most criminals have the overall intelligence of a shopping bag full of parsley because I could probably teach a band of attentive orangutans how to build the Sten Mk. II submachinegun.

From the increase of, "other firearms excluding air weapons," injuries... the largest increase group... I'd suspect that a lot of shooters were being improvised. A pistol cartridge, a piece of steel tubing, a pen body, a piece of spring, a nail and an idle afternoon's work and you have a single-round firearm.

....

OH DRAT!

I didn't compare the numbers to the population!

D'OH! (_8(|)

ARRRRGH! That may be your drop in numbers. Back to the spreadsheets.

D'OH! D'OH! D'OH! D'OH! D'OH! D'OH! D'OH! D'OH! (_8(|)