Some people believe you do need those things. I don't have to explain my rationale, no more than you have to explain you having guns other than you "want them". That is my rationale, and where I come from, a pretty normal one.
I didn't ask for your rationale. I asked for rational criteria--you just don't have any, do you?
Of course it can't, but it can certainly limit the means by which those things can occur as I illustrated by the road rage example.
Your road rage example only succeeds because you don't allow that the fist fight is deadly.
No. Where I'm from most incidents are settled with fists. Have a brawl, shake hands afterwards, and go home.
Settling disputes with fist fights is your idea if civilized? Grump, it is clear that the problem with your country is that it is NOT civilized in the first place--if it were, you'd have no problem with your folks having guns, would you?
Let's pretend those instances involved guns instead. You think they'd be shaking hands at the end?
Certainly not if we're talking about the neanderthals you commiserate with--but yes, if we're talking about civilized folks.
How many people were killed by baseball bats last year? How many by firearms?
None, and none. What is your point?
You see, this is where I see cracks starting to appear. You offer a smart arse answer, when you know EXACTLY what I meant, and then ask What is your point? This does nothing constructive to the argument. You know I am comparing deaths where a baseball bat or a gun were the weapons of choice.
I think I understand you clearly, even if you don't understand yourself. I think I can recall 3 or 4 instances in this very thread where you stated clearly that you don't think guns cause crime. Yet you ask me to provide for you the number of murders caused by guns and baseball bats; a question whose explicit premise is that guns and baseball bats in fact
do cause crime--a premise
inconstent with your assertions. However, fully
consistent with my own assertion that guns and baseball bats do not cause crime, I say they don't.
This is me submitting a "smart arse answer"? I think not. I think you cannot pose your question consistent with your disingenuously submitted position that guns don't cause crimes, such that my answer will not refute your genuine position that they somehow do.
But that is not the reason for licensing. You can put a tail on it and call it a weasel for all I care, all I'm seeing is "conspiracy theory". We've had licensing since I can remember. It has never been as issue here (shrug)...
I'm glad we now agree that assurance of proficiency is not the purpose of licensing. Now that that is out of the way, what the purpose of licensing?
Of course my problem is with guns. Why do you think we are having this conversation? I grasp at no straws. I live in a society, that for the most part, agrees with me. Your thoughts would probably be echoed by about 5% of our population, or even less. We do not fear our govt, and have enough belief in our police that, generally, they'll get the bad guy. We have a choice - every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a gun, or we limit their availability. We do the latter. Nobody but diehard gunnies are upset. They are a negligible minority. I am for limiting 1) How guns are obtained 2) And types of guns. Not ALL guns.
First, what society are you talking about? Secondly, your Toms, Dicks and Harrys don't have a choice--you've legislated it away. Third, I know you're for limiting how guns are obtained, and what types are obtainable, but you always avoid telling me the rational criteria for establishing such limits--all you've submitted thus far is that you don't like some guns.
You're reading far too much into my posts.
No I'm not--see above.
They do not cause crime, I have said so from the get-go. What I am saying, is they make it easier for perps to commit crimes, and generally, I don't trust even law-abiding citizens to have certain types of weapons. I make no apology for that mistrust.
So you're a conspiracy theorist just like those you accuse of not trusting their government? How nice that must be for you to point at the tin-foil hats of others, while your own fits so smugly.
Hey, you're the one who said that you had no doubt there was a tonne of people around you that had firearms - without backing it up. I believe you. You live there. I lived in England for three years. Nobody had firearms that I knew. They were hardly mentioned. Not even an issue. You can believe me or not.
You still 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."
No you are not. You are defining things and giving answers to questions without proof.
Nonsense. Your refusal to read my posts and the sources cited are not my failure to provide proof.
You sure are.
You are assuming/inferring violent crime has increased since the new gun laws in England took place.
It has, I provided proof, you didn't look at it, and then claimed I didn't provide it.
I am not. I am saying I have no idea why there was an increase in violence.
But you are willing to assert that because there are more murders in the US than in England, there is a greater violent crime in the US than in England; and since there are more guns in the US than in England, guns are the cause of the greater violent crime rate (that you manufactured out of nothing), and that US society is somehow less civilized.
So no, not disingenuous and certainly not the same standard. How are mine self-contradictory?
Certainly disingenuous, and as for self contradictory start with the "guns don't/do cause murder" discussion above. Then consider everything you've posted regarding licensing, and restricting gun ownership with--and I quote you exactly, "I think there is no correlation between the laws and any crime."
Err, that's because I'm not trying to. I think there is no correlation between the laws and any crime. I think the laws have had negligable or no affect on crime, period.
Then why do you assert that laws limiting how guns are obtained, and what kinds of guns are obtainable, have some effect on crime?
If there is no correlation between gun control laws and any crime, then you agree with me that gun control laws are have no effect on any crime. Having no effect on crime, gun control arguments citing hopeful effects on crime are not valid.
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.
Show me where I have claimed that? I was asking YOU if you were going to use that as a reason for the decreases....I absolutely think it is semantics (just like when I talked about baseball bat used in murders vs gun murders, you said neither of them killed anything - you knew what I meant but decided to be a smartarse about it). The homicide trend in England is falling, but because it is not quite at 1996 levels you think that still validates your (incorrect IMO) argument that the new laws were somehow responsible or the crime rise...
Oh. You didn't claim England's gun control laws of 1996 were responsible for the decline in Englands violent crime rate from an apex in 2002/03 that you pointed out with graph you linked to. Nor did you mean to imply such correlation. It does beg why, you supplied it, but I'll fix my reply, to replace my offending use of the word "you" to "I", as appropriate, because it does not change my point one bit; and I will place it in it's appropraite context because doing so blocks your transparent attempt at misdirection.<blockquote>
Post by LOki edited to make Grump a happier person:
"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
I 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."</blockquote>I understand the notion that correlation does not necessarily mean causality--but the correllation still supports the argument I make. You're right in that the legislation, of itself, did not result in more violnet crime, but the disarming effect (for civilized folks
) of that legislation enhance the security of person for those who would commit violent crime by crippling the deterrent effect of the self-defense capacity of their victims, leading to a greater violent crime rate after adopting said civilized person disarmament legislation.
BTW and FYI:
Recorded crime statistics show a 2% increase in violent crime in 2005/06 compared with 2004/05.
And while gun control laws are being relaxed in the US, including the ban on assault/wicked-cool-looking weapons,
violent crime rates have declined (since 1994), reaching the lowest level ever in 2005.
You have inferred that violence in England has increased since the gun ban, and it is the ban that is the reason for the increase. If you are NOT saying that, then I stand corrected. If you are, pony up the evidence, that that is the reason. And if it is the reason, how come since 2002, the number of homicides are almost down to pre-1996 levels?
And better yet,
Per head of population the US DOES have a higher rate of violence than England.
I was worried that the lightly stale statistics I have used to demonstrate how entirely wrong you are about this might be the reason you have steadfastly resided in this state of denial of yours--so I tried to get the freshest data I could, and what do I discover?
YOU ARE STILL WRONG!!!!!!
There were 1,220,198 recorded violent crimes in 2005/06, an increase of two per cent.
The population of the UK is 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.)
Which amounts to a crime rate of 20.13 violent crimes per 1000 in the UK.
There were about 5.2 million violent crimes in the US in 2005.
The population of the US is 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)
Which amounts to a crime rate of 17.42 violent crimes per 1000 in the US.
That's 20.13 (and rising) in the UK, vs 17.42 (and falling) in the US.
The crime rate in the US is lower than the crime rate in the UK.
Savvy that Jasper? THE CRIME RATE IN THE UK IS HIGHER THAN THE CRIME RATE IN THE US!!!!
CRIME RATE = HIGHER IN THE UK!!!!!
NEVER FORGET!
You didn't, Bern80 did, but you answered on his behalf (post 78)...Also, if you are not afraid of a tyrannical govt, why do you give a shit about licensing being another form of a confiscation list.
Nowhere in my answer you cite from post 78 do I claim "...guns would save [me] from a tyrannical govt."
Nor did I say I was not afraid that a tyrranical government might gain control of my nation--I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
I will say this now: Without guns, I, and others like me, alone or together, have no chance what-so-ever to resist a tyrranical government.
You don't know about the case do you? I said he put them to sleep. They didn't even know they were being murdered. It was only after he tried to get one of his victim's wills changed, her daughter became suspicious, and the whole house of cards came flying down. They reckon there were 243 victims and least.....So, no, a gun would not have been of use.
I insist that my reply was valid, and this misdirection of yours is not.
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.
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?
Again, pony up the stats were a chainsaw is the murder weapon vs a gun. To me, that's all that matters (shrug)..
I do not need statistical analysis to defend the notion that a chainsaw murder is more violent than a shooting murder.
What you need to do, is defend your notion that gun murder is such an "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act", so much so, that "extremely violent way of settling a dispute or carrying out a violent act" becomes the primary consideration for restricting only guns, and somehow takes precedence over other allegedly less violent means of murder.
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.
As already stated in this post. You've just clicked?
Then stop rationalizing your problem with guns through concerns over murder, or violent crime, or safety, or civilization...just explain the problem you have with guns.
