Free Speech!! Free Speech!!

[Diuretic]

Ok, I'm not an expert on the topic, so I won't pretend to be. I am an avid gun owner. I live in South Texas and use them frequently. I would agree that gun laws are brought about in areas where they seem to have more gun crime, however, studies show that total crime-rates including gun crimes have increased once these gun laws have taken effect. Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them unprotected...considering the police typically are a reactionary and response force. The UK has experienced this along with several U.S. cities. I read the statistics the other day but I'm trying to remember where at, If I find the source I'll post it. Criminals will get their hands on guns whether they're illegal or not. Same way with marijuana, it's illegal, you can't go down to the local supermarket and get it (legally), but it still finds its way into peoples' hands.

From what I've heard, Texas has a real lenient policy when it comes to buying guns...however, in order for an establishment to sell a firearm, they must be register with the federal government. When an individual comes in to purchase a firearm, the seller is required to identify the FBI for a background check before the buyer is even allowed to purchase the gun. If the person's background checks out (not a criminal, no prior record, etc...) they can purchase the gun. If the person has a previous criminal history, the establishment will not sell them the gun. I used to sell firearms and I had to deny an old man from buying a gun for his grandson because he was Vietnam who (at one time) had Post Tramatic Stress. To me the system is set up just fine.

People are going to kill people whether they have guns or not. People have been killing people long before guns were invented. A gun is a piece of metal that cannot think for or function by itself. Sure, I'd agree that guns make it a little easier to kill, but killings killing no matter how hard or easy it is.

Brian - the UK has had very strict (comparatively I mean) gun control laws for many, many years. The reasons for its recent rapid rise in crime are myriad but gun control isn't one of them.

 

[Diuretic]

Maybe where you live. The existence of police means there's someone around to investigate what happened to you. Some consolation for the dead body and family.

The point I was getting at that was the police will not and do not protect any specific individual (except on cpp work) and aren't in fact meant to.

 

[BrianH]

Brian - the UK has had very strict (comparatively I mean) gun control laws for many, many years. The reasons for its recent rapid rise in crime are myriad but gun control isn't one of them.

I'm not going to argue that point because I don't know enough about it. I just posted the link that backed up my statement about the UK's crime rate increasing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Brian - the UK has had very strict (comparatively I mean) gun control laws for many, many years. The reasons for its recent rapid rise in crime are myriad but gun control isn't one of them.

You can not ignore the fact that SINCE the banning of almost all guns in Britain the incidents with guns has GONE UP. You also can not deny that England would have an easier time stopping illegal weapons then most places, being an Island and all.

The simple fact is that in the US the MOST gun related crimes occur in the most gun restrictive areas. In other words outlawing guns does n ot solve any problem. Further there is evidence that certain types of crimes go down when the local is unrestrictive on gun ownership. Paint me silly if I don't see a correlation there.

 

[BrianH]

One of the links did say that in Japan and I think the Netherlands, there is virtually no gun crime, because people are simply not allowed to have guns. It is extremely extremely impossible for a citizen to get a gun. Of course, that's why we're not Japan. But this cannot happen in the United States because it would violate one's constitutional rights. I think that in dealing with our constitution no gun laws could go into effect that would positively effect gun crime. When it mentioned that Japan had no gun crime, it did say that other crime was virtually the same. And setting up strict gun laws would further increase the demand of firearms on the black and crime markets. You take away guns from law-abiding citizens, the demand goes up on the black market, and the criminals will get them anyway...just like drugs.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not going to argue that point because I don't know enough about it. I just posted the link that backed up my statement about the UK's crime rate increasing.

Yes, the UK crime rate has really spiralled, it's possibly nearly out of control, although that's a big statement I suppose.

 

[Diuretic]

You can not ignore the fact that SINCE the banning of almost all guns in Britain the incidents with guns has GONE UP. You also can not deny that England would have an easier time stopping illegal weapons then most places, being an Island and all.

The simple fact is that in the US the MOST gun related crimes occur in the most gun restrictive areas. In other words outlawing guns does n ot solve any problem. Further there is evidence that certain types of crimes go down when the local is unrestrictive on gun ownership. Paint me silly if I don't see a correlation there.

I can deny anything I like provided I can back it up.

Firearms began to be regulated (not banned) in the UK in the early 1900s. If you want to continue with your claim then I'll be happy to continue discussing it but we need to start from there.

In recent years the incidence of gun crime in the UK has gone up but it has nothing to do with gun control legislation. It has everything to do with organised criminals from the Caribbean and Eastern Europe.

I'll say this again. Gun control is not linked with crime. Gun control is separate from crime. You will keep bumping up against this fact if you keep mixing the two up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't you think you should prove your claim?

Prove anything to Jillian is pissing in the wind.
No matter what you put out, she denies it.
Thus, there's no reason to try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Brian - the UK has had very strict (comparatively I mean) gun control laws for many, many years. The reasons for its recent rapid rise in crime are myriad but gun control isn't one of them.

Know what amazes me?
According to the anti-gun loons, crime is ALWAYS so bad that guns need to be controlled, but NEVER so bad that people need a gun to protect themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll say this again. Gun control is not linked with crime. Gun control is separate from crime. You will keep bumping up against this fact if you keep mixing the two up.

So...
Adding gun control to a situation does not increase or decrease crime?

 

[Dr Grump]

So...
Adding gun control to a situation does not increase or decrease crime?

It lessens they way a certain crime is committed and takes a potentially fatal way of dealing with confrontations away.

Brian is wrong about the UK too. I have had this argument so many times on messageboards (and yes, with graphs etc to back them up). At it's most basic gun lovers cherrypick and warp the stats to help their argument.

For example they provide a graph that shows that UK gun crime has gone up 50% while US gun crime has only gone up 10%. You look at the stats and go "holy shit, they're right!". Until you find out that the UK rate has gone from 2/100,000 people to 3/100,000 people, while the US has gone from 10/1000,000 to 11/100,000. Yep the US rate has only gone up 10% but is still over 3 times that of the UK. This is just an example, but the stats that gun lovers provide are full of holes like that. Another favourite is they fail to mention is that the UK wya of reporting assaults is much looser than the US. So what is considered an assault in the UK is not so in the US so doesn't get reported as such.

Bottom line is, the vast majority of guns have been designed to kill people. Most western societies don't have the gun mentality because they have grown up - moved on. You don't think it strange that the only western nation with a fixation for their pea shooters is the states? The rest of us are out of step with the norm and you guys are normal? And no, none of us are in any way worried about our govts taking over. By far the people I see whining and whinging most about their govt is Americans. having seen how your system works, I too, wouldn't trust it, so I can understand from that POV, but then again, in order for you govt to disarm you all and turn the country into a dictatorship (which is one reason the gun lovers give for holding the 2nd sacrosanct), all the armed forces would have to agree with the CIC. And yet the most fervent advocates of the 2nd on boards I visit are ex-servicemen, so it stand that their brethren who are currently serving would not support such a move by a president. IOW, it's a strawman..


When your constitution was written it was at a time when colonialism was still going on and borders were changing. There was a lot of uncertainty in the world at the time and I can see why they put it in there. The 2nd is archaic and only supported by those who are scared of their own shadow.

 

[Diuretic]

Prove anything to Jillian is pissing in the wind.
No matter what you put out, she denies it.
Thus, there's no reason to try.

If you'd written "try it" at the end there that would have been a nice little stanza!

 

[Diuretic]

Know what amazes me?
According to the anti-gun loons, crime is ALWAYS so bad that guns need to be controlled, but NEVER so bad that people need a gun to protect themselves.

Believe it or not I'm very pragmatic about the topic. I do go on a bit about keeping the two issues separate. But when pressed this is my idea.

If violent personal crime is high then it indicates to me that the state (the polity) has failed in its promise to the citizen to protect the citizen. Therefore the citizen should have the right to arm up and be prepared for self-defence (including home property) and the defence of others. But I would still argue for reasonable gun control based on type of weapon and person.

If violent crime is low then I would still support reasonable gun control in the terms I just described.

That is, the justification for ownership and use of a firearm can be made out for defence where the criminal justice system has failed its community and for recreational purposes in areas where there is no reasonable need for someone to be armed for self defence.

I know and I can prove, that in my state in my country, that reasonable gun control means reason able gun owners/users. By definition criminals are not reasonable gun owners/users, they refuse to abide by reasonable gun control and need to be dealt with harshly both for their substantive crimes whilst armed and for flouting the reasonable gun control laws which law-abiding firearm owners/users choose to abide by.

 

[Diuretic]

So...
Adding gun control to a situation does not increase or decrease crime?

I don't think it does, that's just an opinion and of course I'd have to work hard to find some statistical data to prove it, call it intuitive at this stage but I'd be willing to make it a hypothesis and then try to prove it if needed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you'd written "try it" at the end there that would have been a nice little stanza!

I thought about creating a haiku, but I was -way- too hungry for such cleverness.

 

[Diuretic]

I thought about creating a haiku, but I was -way- too hungry for such cleverness.

I can get the structure right but I miss the essence, it's all clunky when I do it

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is, the justification for ownership and use of a firearm can be made out for defence where the criminal justice system has failed its community and for recreational purposes in areas where there is no reasonable need for someone to be armed for self defence.

I know and I can prove, that in my state in my country, that reasonable gun control means reason able gun owners/users. By definition criminals are not reasonable gun owners/users, they refuse to abide by reasonable gun control and need to be dealt with harshly both for their substantive crimes whilst armed and for flouting the reasonable gun control laws which law-abiding firearm owners/users choose to abide by.

As you know, I oppose any gun control law that infringes on the rights of the law abiding -- but I -do- agree that criminals can and should be excluded from gun ownership.