People don't need hand guns or fully automatic guns to live in a civilised society. Sounds rational to me...
People don't need a free press to live in a civilised society.
People don't need an education to live in a civilised society.
People don't need a hospital to live in a civilised society.
People don't need a potato to live in a civilised society.
Lack of need for a thing is not a rational criteria for restricting access to that thing. I'm still waiting for that rational criteria of yours.
I am not agreeing with you with what you think I am. I am agreeing a baseball bat can kill somebody. I disagree that treating them the same with regard to causing harm to people. Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows a gun is far more destructive, and has a much better capability, to carry out harm. To say otherwise is disingenuous.
You are agreeing with me that guns do not cause murder. You are agreeing with me that guns do not cause violent crime. You have agreed, and agreed, while completely ignoring the the neccessary consequence of such agreement--that since guns DO NOT cause violent crime or murder, getting rid of them CAN NOT get rid of violent crime or murder; that guns are but incidental to the incidence of violent crime or murder, not effective of the incidence of violent crime or murder.
I'm not looking at responsibility, but ability.
Oh?
Ability is it now? Fine. Guns are better self-defense weapons than baseball bats. Even when someone is defending themselves against another who has a gun.
You advocate for resricting of a persons natural right to defend themselves?
How many people were killed by baseball bats last year? How many by firearms?
None, and none. What is your point?
Possibly, but I prefer licensing like we have here. It allows firearm store owners to see if they should be selling the arms to somebody proficient in their use, the person is of the right age, and also gives the person some ID in their proficiency.
I'm not surpised you prefer licensing, as it serves better as a substitute for proficiency than as an assurance of proficiency, and is better than education at putting gun owners on a list.
No, I disagree. Assurance of proficiency is necessary in licensing, which makes your assertion redundant IMO.
Assurance of proficiency is not neccessary in licensing. Licesnsing is not neccessary to assure proficiency, is the more important point.
Also, just so you can be extra careful, this argument--that gun owners need to demonstrate proficiency with arms--argues against the assertion that guns are especially easy to use...as a murder weapon.
Since, assurance of proficiency is not really the reason for licensing, and since those not mentally or moraly competent for gun ownership can be listed without listing licensees, the remaing reason for licensing remains the creation of a list of (likely) gun owners. The question then is: To what purpose? I continue to assert that purpose is confiscation.
For such a thing to work (the purpose being confiscation), there would have to those who want to confiscate. That means there would be people upon people in various govt depts working in tandem to want to do such a thing. Dunno about your govt, but mine - although reasonably good - is still a bureaucracy - IOW, not the most efficient body in the world.
Right.
First, there ARE those who wish to confiscate guns;
Second, there ARE people who wish to confiscate guns in various government departments;
Third, they DO NOT have to work in tandem to create confiscation lists--unless, of course, the creation of such lists are not already mandated by regulation; such mandate that you are advocating for;
Finally once the existence of such lists become a pre-existing condition , bureaucracy can be rather effective support to those who wish to use those lists for confiscation purposes--particularly if gun confiscation becomes a bureaucratic function.
Then limit you gun control laws to these "loony tunes" of yours--actually, limit your control to these loony tunes" of yours--and leave everyone else, and their guns, alone.
That's what licensing helps achieve...
Licensing of gun owners does not control these "loony tunes" of yours, nor is licensing of gun owners you hope for, at all limited to these "loony tunes" of yours--but that is of no consequence when making lists of gun owners is the actual point of licensing.
Cool. So you are happy for people to walking around with AK47 and similar? That's fine.
Good. Leave other people, and their guns, alone then, ok?
When I think of societies that have that sort of scenario I'm thinking Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, civil war era Angola etc. You want to live in that type of society?
Fortunately my choices for a society to live in--even those that include the right to keep and bear arms--are not limited to those few your thinking limits you to.
Yes. Power more power to me; in particular, that power to defend myself--that precise power that gun grabbers are afraid that other should possess. Why should some people be so afraid that others might be able to defend themselves with the very best technology available to them?
Actually, I disagree with you. A lack of a firearm certainly limits the type of murder that might be carried out, and in fact, might prevent the murder from taking place. A firearm is a nice, easy way to commit a murder - a baseball bat is a tad more messy - not to mention if you are a 120 pound woman wanting to take out a 280 pound man. I have never stipulated guns do cause murder, they just make the act a tad more easier to carry out.
Firstly, if the kind of murder you think no guns results in is the type of murder where no-one gets killed, then I honestly can't imagine why you think murders not committed with guns are so preferrable you'd make such a distinction regarding "type of murder." Secondly, considering how much longer murder has been around than guns, and how much much murder occurred before guns arrived, I think it's fair to conclude that murder--even baseball bat murder--is already, and always has been, an easy enterprise to engage in. If there is anything that might make muder more difficult, it's not disarming victims, but rather allowing them to use the most effective self defense tools available--that means letting a 120 pound woman bring a gun to a knife (or baseball bat) fight when she's facing a 280 pound menace. The gun makes the task of self defense against the menace...how did you put it?...Oh yes!
"...a tad more easier to carry out."
You should
look it up then.
It was your assertion, so you should look it up. Your link just tells me what it is, not the number of instances. That aside, intent is important to me, so therefore it would only be relevent to compare homicides with firearms against homicides caused by doctors a la Mr Shipton.
As it turns out Grump, one has to actually READ the article to gather information from it. The number of incidences are there, and your refusal to view that data does not invalidate it, or its support of the argument I make.
We have no idea because they were closed societies. But those countries had porous borders, so I think you can draw a conclusion there were arms available.
More like:<blockquote>
Dr Grump: If I really stop to think about it, looking into this just a little bit will only result in me getting my ass handed to me...again.</blockquote>
Except for each of those premised upon the notion that guns cause murders.
I personally don't think the gun laws had anything to do with the increase in violence...
Unless those gun were to restrict guns less, in which case, I'm feeling rather sure you'd assert a causal link. Face it pal, your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period. You'll grasp at any staw to limit them. Yes?
If I was arguing that guns cause violence, you'd be right. I'm not, so not being disingenuous from this end.
If you're not, them you'll just have to stop arguing from the premise that they do--at that point, and not before, you'll stop appearing disingenuous.
YOu are the one who keeps on asserting that is my position, and I keep on asserting it is not.
Because you keep arguing from the premise that they cause crime. You return to it after each denial.
You seem to think that is the only plank people who are against firearms being in society is the violence aspect.
I do not. I also think another favored plank is that guns are inherently evil. Another is that guns are nothing but killing machines.
While the weapon itself is a means of inflicting violence, mine is a more philosophical argument of firearms' role in society.
Bullshit. You've made no such philisophical argument. NONE. Switching to this unsubmitted gun philosophy argument of yours appears more to be a hopeful escape from the point by point beating you're taking.
I hope you share your philosophy, I really do.
Why do I need to reiterate it? The murder rate is still lower even after the legislation, and is in fact almost down to pre-legislation levels.
You need to reiterate it to remain genuine--you have no problem comparing England to the US in an attempt to make some correllation between gun ownership and murder, yet you refust to compare England to England--primarily, I suspect, because it's a better comparison that fails to support your assertions.
This is becoming a theme for you.
Wasn't my point. My example was meant to illustrate that the laws had little or no affect on English society because there were hardly any guns there to begin with. People did/do not have guns as a means of protection like the US. That is not the type of society it is. How more simply can I put it to you?
Well, allow me to pull a little taste of your own bullshit reversal on you: You have not stated how many guns the English had prior to the 1996 gun legislation. Until you do, you can't make the claim that "there were hardly any guns there to begin with." Without that claim, your further assertion that "People did/do not have guns as a means of protection like the US" is meaningless--even if I concede there are/were more guns in the US, and more guns per person in the US.
I could extend the taste of your own bullshit by demanding you know what the English
WOULD have done with those guns if they were allowed to keep them, to validate your assertion. I won't go so far.
This is particularly disingenuous of you as I'm using the same standaed of proof to support my assertions that you are. Mine are in fact better for not being self-contradictory. Most likely reason this is not proof for you, is that no data contradicting your assertions can be considered "proof" in your measurement of such.
There could be a 101 reasons why violent crime has gone up. More could be reported. Criminals that were inside on long stretches of time could now be up, maybe people have inherently become more violent when settling disputes.
Yes, yet if none of those reasons were the availability of guns, I think you would still refuse the notion that guns aren't the problem--and if the reason was the disamament of the victims, you'd discount it as lacking of "proof."
You have not shown ONE single correlation between the 1996 laws and the increases in violent crimes.
I can one-up you: You have not shown ONE correlation between the 1996 laws and a decrease in violent crime.
Really? In what way. Seems their homicide rate is dropping.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp
It looks to me like the murder rate remains higher than it was in 1996 when the legislation was adopted. I see the decline over the last three years, that has yet failed to bring the murder rate below the 1996 level, and refute my assertion.
You talk about me arguing semantics and being disingenuous and then post the above.hhhhmmm... That decline is almost at 1996 levels. Are you going to argue that decline is due to the legislation? Thought not....
Semantics? What? As there were no additional gun contol measure adopted (that I'm aware of) at the begining (2002/03) of the decline you cite, so you can't claim gun control measures are resposible for that decline. It is not disingenuous to argue, based upon the correlation that you deny exists, that the dramatic rise in violent crime rate (that you deny is a higher violent crime rate than that of the US) after adoption of the 1996 legislation is, at least, one result of that legislation. I won't try to mimic your argumentative strategy by asserting that the post 2002/03 decrease is due to the relaxation of gun laws pertaining to the Olympic shooting teams--I'll just say it's likely due to something like England's adoption of harsher punishment and deterrence strategies in response to the dramatic spike in violent crime resultant of legislation disarming the civilized folks of England.
I never said guns would save anybody, and I agree (as I must) that guns did not save any of Mr. Shipton's victims--what you are refusing to point out, is that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering 200+ people.
You said guns would save your from a tyrannical govt. So you have said that. Those gun control laws didn't stop Shipton murdering, neither would having a gun.
Allow me to demand you show me where in this thread, I said "...guns would save [me] from a tyrannical govt."
You are still refusing to point out that no gun control laws--NOT ONE--prevented Mr. Shipton from murdering 200+ people.
I am willing to argue that if Mr. Shipton's victims had the capacity to defend themselves, a gun would have enhanced that capacity--your gun control proposals unneccessarily inhibit that enhanced capacity.
You see it that way, which is fine. I see them as making for a more civilised society by taking away an extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act.
And people beating each other to bloody pulps with baseball bats is somehow
less violent than shooting each other? If this "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" is the primary test for resricting guns, why aren't you first demanding the restricting chainsaw use? Are you about to assert that using chainsaws is more civilized, and not such an "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act."
I doubt you will. I'll repeat my suspicion: I think your problem is not with murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization--you problem is just with guns...period.
.
