Gun laws: too much or not enough?
Posted by: Slayr
Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/08/05 03:44 PM
I have talked to several of you in the latest scenario thread and the weapons thread on the topic of guns, how much is too much (never too much if you ask me as you may have read), and how much restriction should be placed on guns and such. I decided to stop backing up the other threads with opinions and "heated" debate and bring it here.
Here's the question:
How much restriction should be placed on guns, knives, batons, tazers, pepper spray, and the whole deal. How involved should the government be on restricting these? I have given my spill already in the novel I wrote in the "What weapons do you carry" thread, so I will try not to talk too much here. I wanna know what other martial artists think on this topic.
Posted by: nekogami13 V2.0
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/08/05 04:02 PM
As a moderator, I see you want to keep us busy
I will warn everyone up front: KEEP IT CIVILIZED!!!!!
As for my personal feelings, Robert Heinlein summed it up nicely: "An armed society is a polite society."
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/08/05 04:56 PM
neko, exactly. Slayr, I believe that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most fundamental American rights. It allows us to protect ourselves from any threat, even our own government. The problem isn't that we don't have enough gun laws on the books, the problem is that we need to enforce the ones we have, which will never be truly possible.
Posted by: Gino
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/08/05 11:07 PM
I'm afraid that some idiot, whom I unintentionally cut off in traffic, will pull up next to me and blow what few brains I have out the passenger side window. I'm also afraid that I'll get into what I think is a civil debate on politics, religion, abortion, etc., and the other person will go postal on me. (My apologies to the U.S. Postal Service; it's just an expression, honest!!) I could go on, but you get my point. WE've practiced gun-disarms in class, but I'd like to avoid it, if possible. I just don't trust my fellow man to be as reasonable or civil as I am and, if he/she's packing heat, my wife's a widow. And for what????????
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 05:32 AM
Gino, it goes back to the idea that an armed society is a polite society. I understand worrying about who's carrying, but if you're carrying as well, and most of the people are, who's going to let it get out of hand? The whole idea is that either almost everyone is armed, or almost noone is armed, and by the broadest definition of that, any person is armed at any given time.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 07:16 AM
Gino,
Another thing to consider is that the guy who would do such a horrid thing is not the law abiding citizen who would be able to have a gun permit to begin with.He's the loon that we need protection from who is already packin' despite having a license.
I for one like the ccw laws and wish more states would adopt it.One thing that does concern me though is what do licensed carriers do with their gun when they have to enter a building where guns aren't allowed? Leave it in the car?
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 07:24 AM
What I would like to know, is what is stopping an escalated arguement between two drunk guys over a girl turning in to a gunfight? Like we have all seen poplarized in the 'ghetto'.
Basically a moment of irresponsibility is all it takes.
How about making the minimum age of owning a gun 30?
Why not have psychological testing. Someone said before because that could be turned and used as a policy that too many people are not allowed to carry guns. Psychology is a well established science (albeit not an accurate one) I am sure they can make a test to determine who has psychological imbalances, a very high temper for example.
Posted by: Gino
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 09:55 AM
Quote:
Gino, it goes back to the idea that an armed society is a polite society. I understand worrying about who's carrying, but if you're carrying as well, and most of the people are, who's going to let it get out of hand?
I respecfully disagree with this position. It assumes that human beings are reasonable creatures who will use logic and deliberate thought and planning to dictate their behavior. Many people, who are otherwise good people, sometimes lack impulse control, misperceive social situations and are too quick to judge the behavior of others. IMHO, without some SERIOUS form of gun control, this is a receipe for disaster. Guns are too available in the U.S., and I don't trust my fellow man enough to use his responsibly. But, I am enjoying the debate.
Posted by: Cord
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 03:38 PM
Which is more dangerous, intent or oppertunity?
If I wanted to kill someone, yet I didnt have access to a 'recognised weapon' (gun, tactical knife, crossbow etc)
then i should think i would use a bread/steak knife, a rock in a sock, my car, a corkscrew.... you get the point.
However, all these require more thought and effort than pulling a trigger, so in preparing the rock in the sock, or driving my car of doom to its murderous destination, i have a window of opertunity in which to realise that what I am doing is DUMB!
There is no easy answer, but i have seen plenty of fights escalate in the heat of the moment to the use of bottles and glass, both of which are easily capable of maiming and killing. Would guns have been drawn in these situations if available? I couldn't say for sure.
If we do start relaxing weapon carrying laws in the UK (which I believe is very unlikely, so somewhat of a moot point), then I would expect random breath tests/drug tests on licensed gun carriers, with the banning/incarceration of those found under the influence. Its what we do for drunk drivers, and i would want no less for irresponsible gun carriers.
Posted by: BAMA REDNECK9000
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 03:43 PM
The gov. doesn't need to be involved with guns, we should be able to have as many as we want and shoot and blow up wutevers we want, hehehehehe!!!!!!!!!!!
, but seriously, I think guns only need to be used for hunting and target practicing.
Posted by: nekogami13 V2.0
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 03:55 PM
The phenomenon of weapon substitution is well documented.
If you have murderous intent or criminal intent and a gun is not available-you will use whatever is at hand-cricket bat, hammer, knife, box cutter, etc.
The image of "the Wild West" where shootouts occured at the drop of a hat is a myth. Shootouts as such were actually very rare, yet everyone was armed.
Today in America, a large portion of the populace is in fact armed, regardless of the legality of it. This will not change, it is part of our culture. The vast majority of gun owners never fire their gun. A very small segment of gun owners use theirs to commit crimes.
Because of this, some start crying out to ban all guns.
By this line of thought, why are we not banning cars?
Through their reckless use they kill far more people every year than guns.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 04:39 PM
Quote by nekogami13v2.0 -
Quote:
By this line of thought, why are we not banning cars?
Through their reckless use they kill far more people every year than guns.
Car's intended purpose is transportation. A gun's purpose is to injure/kill.
Reckless use of a gun has the same consequences as "proper" use (death/injury). Not so for the car.
I do not know enough about gun laws/crimes/statistics to have an opinion, was just making a point about neko's analogy.
Posted by: McSensei
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 06:24 PM
Owning a gun is one thing. Carrying a gun is a whole different ballgame. You can own a cricket bat, knife, bicycle chain and so forth but do you feel the urge to carry them around with you, no. If you do carry them then, in the eyes of the law, you are carrying an offensive weapon.(unless you are on the way out to the crease of course, re cricket bat) So, like all these potential weapons, if you do not have an absolutely cast iron reason for carrying them, you're bang in trouble, the same it should be for guns. The only difference I can think of is that a guns purpose is to seriously injure or kill. Therefore unless you are taking it to be cleaned, repaired or whatever, there should be no good reason to be carrying it. The assumption would be you're up to mischief and you're going to be arrested, charged and if convicted, feel the full force of the law.
The above comments are directed at our U.S. friends. In England the laws have fairly recently got tighter. The theory being that if you possess a gun you're a criminal. That's it. Black and white. I like it that way.
Posted by: JoelM
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 11:15 PM
Quote:
So, like all these potential weapons, if you do not have an absolutely cast iron reason for carrying them, you're bang in trouble, the same it should be for guns.
Is not self defense a feasable reason for carrying a gun or any type of weapon?
Quote:
The only difference I can think of is that a guns purpose is to seriously injure or kill. Therefore unless you are taking it to be cleaned, repaired or whatever, there should be no good reason to be carrying it.
Except for self defense.
Quote:
The assumption would be you're up to mischief and you're going to be arrested, charged and if convicted, feel the full force of the law.
Pardon me, but that is a dumb ass-umption.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/09/05 11:26 PM
McSensei,
Your post really doesn't match any statistics or personal observations that I ever made.There's no logic in your reasoning and I couldn't disagree more.
Posted by: Slayr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/10/05 08:34 PM
Let me say that I think that Robert Heinlein sums it up as well.
For all you pholosophicators out there, maybe the better question is: What is the true nature of man? Inherently good or inherently bad? Was Rousseau right? That seems to be where some of yall are going on the issue, when you discuss whether or not an armed society is peaceful or one that will inherently become a disaster.
Just a thought as the question relates to philosophy.
Posted by: McSensei
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/10/05 09:13 PM
Gun laws are one of the major differences in culture between the U.S. and Britain, so I don't necessarily expect you to agree with me.
My comments were intended as a hypothetical way of maintaining the right to ownership of guns while attempting to circumvent the inherent dangers of said ownership.
You ask, is not self defence a feasible reason?
My answer to that (bearing in mind our different cultures on this issue) is no. To keep a gun in your house for the protection of you and your family has some mileage to it. Even for me. To step outside your front door bearing arms, to me, is an act of aggression. The problem with the self defence excuse is that at what point would you feel warranted to draw your gun? A punch, a slap, a poke in the chest or only if the "attacker" draws a weapon?
As MAGr and Cord mentioned, the problem is escalation.
I can see it now,
A spills Bs drink, B punches A, A draws gun shoots at B. Misses B hits C. Cs husband shoots at A....
I know that's extreme, it's called hyperbole.
I hope you get my point.
As to the dumb ass-umption, if the restrictions were in place as I stated, it would be a perfectly logical assumption.
The questioner asked for opinions.
These are just MY opinions, I don't expect to change anyones
mind.
Posted by: dadoody5
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/10/05 09:24 PM
It depends. I don't know where you're from.
In England, the gun law is too much. Citizens can no longer protect themselves, and the criminals are taking advantage of this. If you'll notice, crime has jumped exponentially in the UK since handguns were banned.
In California, New York, and Washington DC, the handgun laws are excessive. They protect criminals more than law abiding citizens.
In Vermont and the states that actively grant CCW licenses, crime is pretty low, because citizens are armed and can defend themselves and others.
Those who oppose firearms and support stringent restrictions on Firearms, aren't living in reality. The reality is, there are a lot of bad people in the world, and they will do bad things regardless of laws.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/10/05 11:00 PM
Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming a keyboard for typing errors.
Posted by: BuDoc
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/10/05 11:45 PM
I don't know much about gun laws or statistics, but I will weigh in on this on a personal note.
In 6 years of working in ER's in the US (I'm discounting gun shot wounds I have treated abroad), I have treated srveral hundreds of GSW's.
I can not think of a single case where these wounds were caused by an upstanding citizen in defense of self, a home or loved one.
Now you might think that I am working in ER's in some inner city slums or "ghettos". WRONG. I'm working in suburbs and affluent areas of cities and states that you would not think of as high crime areas.
So my experience has been that most or all of the gunshot wounds treated by myself or staff were criminally inflicted,police inflicted or children/teen accidents.
Anecdotal? Absolutely. Compelling? Maybe. Statistically Significant? Guess that depends on whether you were the one being shot
Page
Posted by: dadoody5
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 12:56 AM
And with this knowledge, you would think making laws to prevent citizens from owning firearms would curb the criminal and/or law enforcement shooting incidents?
The case has been the opposite in the UK.
Posted by: Cord
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 05:09 AM
I dislike statistics, but i can guarantee that there are less gun related crimes in the UK than in the U.S.
This is reflected in the policing of the country. Yes there are now more armed response units, but they are only called in when necessary, the day to day policing is still done without firearms, this is in proportion to the relatively small likelyhood of encountering firearms in their day to day duties.
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 06:16 AM
Quote:
In England, the gun law is too much. Citizens can no longer protect themselves, and the criminals are taking advantage of this. If you'll notice, crime has jumped exponentially in the UK since handguns were banned.
What are you talking about??
Dont state assumptions as facts, because someone may actually believe you!
It hasnt even risen let alone 'exponentially'! :rolleyes:
What BuDoc said, affirmed my suspicions.
The question on whether guns should be allowed is this. Are the number of people saved by protecting themselves with guns more than the number of people wrongfully killed by guns?
Posted by: BuDoc
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 06:46 AM
If we distill it. No.
More citizens ownning guns= same amount or more criminal activity, same amount or more police shootings, more potential for accidental child/teen shootings.
Please keep in mind that I am not reporting this as fact. Merely a personal study of cases. The examples presented may be spurious correlations, however it still happens.
Page
Posted by: Neko456
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 10:44 AM
I think the gun laws are sufficent if used properly I see no problem with civilians owning assault rifle clones semi autos or special licences for full autos. I don't see a reason or purpose for citizens owning full operational boozookas or missile firing devises. If owned they should have the barrel blocked and trigger disenaged. I've seen some men collections that are down right scary (explosives devises and missle launchers).
A $3500 MP5 full auto is a waste there very few ranges that will let you fire that weapon on. I have a couple of assualt rifles but I bought a Air Soft full auto MP5A4 for training home clearing and hostage rescue, that shoots paint balls. A lot agencies are going to the pellet gun because blanks still can kill at point blank range.
Posted by: Raziel00uk
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 06:33 PM
Culture does have alot more to do with gun crime than mearly restricting guns. I mean there are plenty of countries out there that allow guns (Finland springs to mind) but people don't go around carrying them or having gang wars and the such (nono I can't prove this :P). Then in UK I rarely hear of gun crimes (thought they certainly happen) this is pretty much because it's not easy to get one (I have never tried).
You give easier access to guns and more people with have them.. more people with them = more gun crime. It's common sense. As people have said thought it's what people do with them that matters (Finland not as bad as US for example).
I think keeping a weapon in your home as self defence is ok but carrying certainly is not.
To sum it up I beleive restricting access will definatly decrease gun related crime but it wouldn't make a difference over night.
I would love a gun mearly to shoot it (rather than self defence) and I can see why people want to be allowed them so much :P
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 07:02 PM
I think you need to do a little more research.
Quote:
more people with them = more gun crime
I would change that to...more criminals with guns=more gun crime.Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes, guns or not. Whether or not guns are restricted criminals will have them.Convicted felons are caught with guns all the time,but they are not supposed to have them.
Posted by: Raziel00uk
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 07:11 PM
Quote:
Whether or not guns are restricted criminals will have them.
I certainly didin't do any research and I'm not really sure what to say with this, certainly it's true they will have them but look at the UK (very strict laws) and very few gun crimes (compared to US).
hehe but then I go back to my finnish example, fewer restrictions but not really any more gun crime =\.
It is definatly a culture thing but in asnwering the original question I do beleive more restrictions would result in less gun crime.
I don't pretend to be able to back this up but destroy half the guns wouldn't half gun crime but it would certainly reduce it (effectibly just making guns less available).
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 07:16 PM
They destroy drugs everyday,everywhere,yet the criminals still have them. We don't need stricter laws,we need to enforce the laws already in place. THAT would reduce gun crime.
Posted by: pathfinder7195
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 08:35 PM
SANCHIN you keep referring to these people as "criminals". There's not a good side and a bad side. Every day in this country people with no prior record committ crimes. 80% of all people murdered in this country knew their attacker. Let's not act like those dirty criminals over their and us good guy's over here. People who murder other people are the people next door or down the block.
As for the gun laws I would imagine that as the guns get more powerful the laws will follow.
Kevin
Posted by: McSensei
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 08:42 PM
Quote;
We don't need stricter laws, we need to enforce the laws already in place.
I don't know for sure what the laws are in the U.S., but I do know that if the Police in the U.K. went about clearing crime with the same vigour with which they hound motorists
we'd all be alot better off.
Going back to the point of "an armed society is a polite society."
If that were the case then all we need to do to stop bullying in schools is to teach every student self defence.
Yeah, right.
All you end up with is martially trained bullies that now have a myriad of ways to inflict pain and suffering on the meek of society.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 08:46 PM
Yes, I am referring to the criminals(repeat offenders) who are responsible for the majority of gun crimes,not the guy next door.Crimes of passion happen also,but they would happen with or without the help of a firearm.
Posted by: pathfinder7195
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 09:03 PM
SANCHIN I disagree with your premise that most of the gun crimes are committed by "repeat offenders". Do you have any FBI stats to back that up? I'll try looking.
Kevin
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 09:14 PM
Posted by: pathfinder7195
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 09:25 PM
SANCHIN I think your site may be a little biased?
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 09:36 PM
The FBI is biased? Also....
Quote:
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)
Posted by: pathfinder7195
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 09:41 PM
I still trust the FBI stats more. They are the ones used in all college criminal justice classes. They tend to be the most trusted.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 09:51 PM
Quote by SANCHIN31 -
Quote:
Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming a keyboard for typing errors.
Sorry, bro. That analogy has the same problem that neko's did earlier. A keyboard's intended purpose is wholly different from a gun's.
BuDoc did bring up a point about misuse. When teens or other emotionally sensitive people (depression, divorcees, etc) have access to firearms, the likelyhood of misuse rises dramatically.
As these people are not yet criminals, what should be done to limit firearm availability to them?
Please note that I am not arguing that misuse is not occuring - I am just trying to see what proposals exist to control otherwise law-abiding citizens in heat-of-moment acts of violence.
I do not know if more laws would help - but is it possible to ever adequately enforce even what laws exist now? Certainly the status quo is not really acceptable.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/11/05 10:48 PM
The intended purpose for my firearms are target practice,hunting,and personal protection.If someone uses a rifle obviously made for huning to kill a person is it the rifle's fault?
Posted by: dadoody5
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 12:55 AM
Quote:
Quote:
In England, the gun law is too much. Citizens can no longer protect themselves, and the criminals are taking advantage of this. If you'll notice, crime has jumped exponentially in the UK since handguns were banned.
What are you talking about??
Dont state assumptions as facts, because someone may actually believe you!
It hasnt even risen let alone 'exponentially'! :rolleyes:
What BuDoc said, affirmed my suspicions.
The question on whether guns should be allowed is this. Are the number of people saved by protecting themselves with guns more than the number of people wrongfully killed by guns?
Have you been living in a f---ing hole?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm
http://www.tsra.com/Lott112.htm
http://www.fmft.net/archives/000959.html
I'm a proud Asian American who strongly supports the 2nd amendment. You probably wouldn't understand the reality of crime and self-defense until you're mugged yourself or worse.
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 02:39 AM
As stated before, I don't know how to post links, but I've seen several sets of stats about crime rates and gun control laws, and in every case, when the source given was reliable the numbers for violent crime/sex crimes were much lower for right to carry states as opposed to restrictive states. Sites promoted by the NRA or 2nd Amendment groups may seem biased, but why is it that pro gun control sites always quote stats from news media known for their liberal biases? Any of the pro gun rights groups are routinely quoting stats by the FBI, US Justice Department, Univerities/law schools. Do the comparisons, and see what there is for stats.
Posted by: Cord
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 03:24 AM
Quote:
Have you been living in a f---ing hole?
I'm a proud Asian American who strongly supports the 2nd amendment. You probably wouldn't understand the reality of crime and self-defense until you're mugged yourself or worse.
I respect your standpoint and am not anti gun per se, but what works in one culture does not necessarily work in another. Britain does still have very little gun crime in relation to its population. What gun crime there is tends to be concentrated in certain specific areas (inner cities that have become known , even notorious, areas nationaly), these areas inflate the national picture artificialy.
Living across the atlantic, you are not in the strongest position to speak with authority on the state of Britain and its social issues, anymore than I could offer true insight into american culture and its good and bad points.
Posted by: Raziel00uk
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 05:47 AM
Anyone seen the new batman film? well this is badly misquoted by me but it's the genral idea, the cop guy tlaking to bat man says soemhting like:
They use knives so we get pstols
they get pistols so we use sub machine guns and body armour
they get blah blah
and now we got batman...
obiviously refering to whats to come (all the mad criminals liek the joker etc ) but my point with that is if your gonna rob etc you generally want the advantage ( weaponn ) if everyone has guns to defende themselves...
Posted by: fattts14
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 08:59 AM
Quote:
They destroy drugs everyday,everywhere,yet the criminals still have them. We don't need stricter laws,we need to enforce the laws already in place. THAT would reduce gun crime.
What laws are already in place?
What is the proccess of obtaining a permit?
THe rite to bear arms...probably wasn't so much of a bad idea when you needed them to hunt for food, and protection against bears and mountain lions, or fighting of the red-coats.
BUt now that we have grocery stores, and there isn't too many bears roaming the streets these days, and the Brits and Americans are allies...do you really think you still need that gun? We got strict gun laws up here, and although there is still guns and gun crime, I feel safe walking down whatever street at whatever time not packing heat.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 10:18 AM
Quote:
Have you been living in a f---ing hole?
dadoody, Keep it civil.Comments like this aren't necessary and could be construed as a personal attack.
Quote by fatts
Quote:
What laws are already in place?
Do your own searching and research.There are too many gun laws to be listed and they vary from state to state.
Quote:
What is the proccess of obtaining a permit?
Same as above.
Quote:
THe rite to bear arms...probably wasn't so much of a bad idea when you needed them to hunt for food, and protection against bears and mountain lions, or fighting of the red-coats.
BUt now that we have grocery stores, and there isn't too many bears roaming the streets these days, and the Brits and Americans are allies...do you really think you still need that gun? We got strict gun laws up here, and although there is still guns and gun crime, I feel safe walking down whatever street at whatever time not packing heat.
There are many more reasons for the second ammendment than what you stated.One is to keep the governing body from being too governing.
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 11:03 AM
Quote:
Have you been living in a f---ing hole?
I could take the two last words and make one hell of a comeback but I will keep it civil and not talk about your relatives.
Lets deal with the first link you posted, these are quotes from the article:
Quote:
Home Office minister Hazel Blears said: "The risk of a fatal shooting in England and Wales is still one of the lowest in the world."
Last year there were 80 fatal incidents compared to 95 the year before - a reduction of around one sixth
Overall crime rates remained "unchanged" according to recorded crime figures, but the number of offences reported by interviewees in the British Crime Survey, which excludes crimes against children and businesses, fell by 5%.
The British Crime Survey, which includes crimes not reported to police, also found:
Overall crime fell
The risk of being a victim is the same as in 1981, at 26.9%
There were 5% fewer violent crimes reported to the survey in the 12 months to June 2003
Recorded robbery fell 7% in April-June 2003 compared to same period last year
So where in the above did you find something saying that there has been an exponential rise in gun crime or crime in general in the UK?
Quote:
I'm a proud Asian American who strongly supports the 2nd amendment
Ok dude, you ve convinced me now!
The statistics game has been played before and it has been found that you can find statistics to prove that the Earth is flat, believe me I used to be an analyst.
I think whatever causes deaths to be less is good. But giving people more dangerous weapons is not the answer IMO. Do you support the 2nd amendment (that talks about the right to have arms if I am not mistaken) because you think that criminals will get guns and therefore there is no point in having law abiding citizens not having them to defend themselves and their homes? How bout you try to answer the fact that law abiding citizens ARE the criminals. Ok so some of them are re offending criminals, but a lot of them are ex-law abiders arent they?
Also, why is are there so many gun related deaths in the US if, like you said, criminals get dissuaded by the fact that a citizen may be packing heat?
I think you want a gun because you feel safer behind it. The solution to unecessary deaths is not to give an illusion of safety to a citizen because his tool of defence is bigger than his neighbours. The solution is hidden in people's mentality and irresponsibility. You think that when someone is drunk or high or pumped on adrenaline is thinking about the consequences of the law. Ok, so some people in the UK have been attacked by gun carrying dudes and have been shot whilst been unable to defend themselves adequately, but that doesnt hide the fact that a lot less gun crimes happen because no one has easy access to guns.
Posted by: MattJ
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 11:19 AM
MAGr -
Lots of people have firearms in the USA or sporting purposes, so let's not call people cowards for having them.
The problem, as you pointed out, is law abiding folks that get weapons and use them in improper circumstances. How do you enforce laws on people that are not yet law-breakers?
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 11:29 AM
Quote:
Lots of people have firearms in the USA or sporting purposes, so let's not call people cowards for having them.
No, of course not. I also go hunting and I own a rifle. But its not kept loaded, I dont have it in my car or on my person, and in fact it is kept locked in my safe only to be brought out when I go hunting. Hunting rifles and shotguns are allowed in the UK, its the hand guns and the semis/autos that are banned. Also, for someone who goes hunting, unless yuo are hunting elephants there is no reason to have slugs.#
Quote:
How do you enforce laws on people that are not yet law-breakers?
Its called a pre-emptive law. I think it is fair enough. How do you ban countries owning nuclear missiles if they havent launched one yet?
Posted by: nekogami13 V2.0
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 11:52 AM
The US has something like over 1,200 federal laws regarding firearms.
These address improper ownership of firearms(felons have no right to own,etc.) to punishing people committing crimes with firearms.
We, here in the US, do not need more laws. We need proper enforcement of the laws already in place.
PS. regarding shotgun slugs-people use them to hunt deer, because they do not wish to buy a seperate rifle.
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 12:04 PM
Quote:
regarding shotgun slugs-people use them to hunt deer, because they do not wish to buy a seperate rifle
Only because they cant shoot well enough..
Like I said people who use the guns IMO, usually dont evaluate the risk of punishment nor do they care about the consequences at the time.
But yes the existing ones need to be enforced and tightened.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 05:27 PM
MAGr, A slug in a shotgun is for longer range and wouldn't be as practical as oobuck in a shotgun anyway.
Quote:
Like I said people who use the guns IMO, usually dont evaluate the risk of punishment nor do they care about the consequences at the time.
I assume you are talking about those who use them illegally,right?
I like the law on guns in my state.I can have a variety of guns.I can get a permit to carry a gun. In fact,where I live I can shoot my guns whenever I like because I'm outside of city limits.Because of this I am a crackshot.
Whether or not guns are banned the criminals will have them.I prefer to be at least on equal ground.
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 07:00 PM
Like I said a law abiding citizens become criminals under certain circumstances.
I dont know how you are on a bad day, but I would go near you if you are carrying a gun!
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 07:14 PM
The thing is it's a concealed carry permit.You wouldn't know I was carrying a gun.
I find it highly unlikely that CCW citizens would be the troublemakers.I'll have to see evidence to back that up and if there was why would more and more states be adopting the law?
Posted by: MAGr
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 07:28 PM
For votes. Very few laws get passed to make ciizens lives better, the fact that they sometimes do is a byproduct of their actions in accordance to the voters and lobbyinsts wants.
What about people who have a record of assault, violence. Should they be allowed to carry guns. Perhaps someone with a clean sheet could be allowed to own a gun, but he would have to prove that he has kept his sheet clean so a min age of 28 and finger prints upon registration of firearm?
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 07:53 PM
Quote:
What about people who have a record of assault, violence. Should they be allowed to carry guns.
Absolutely not! Under the current laws they can't obtain a CCW permit. They do fingerprint you and run your SS# through NSIS(?) or something. If any record comes up you are denied flat.
Posted by: dadoody5
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 11:15 PM
Wow MAGr, talk about being selective.
#1 Why the hell would you bring up my relatives? I already know alot of you brits are racist and you people are the people who caused a lot of problems in the world, especially from my ancestrial neck of the woods. What's most infuriating is that my "relatives" are still buying back items your ancestors loots from my ancestors - at gun point. So don't even dare mention "relatives" of mine. You're a piece of work.
#2 Anyways, you seem to be very selective in what stats you choose, especially from a article entitled "Firearm crime continues to rise".
"The number of crimes involving firearms increased by just under 3% in the 12 months to March 2003, to 10,250.
It was well below the 35% rise in the previous year, when gun crime leapt from 7,362 firearms offences to 9,974. "
You do realize hand guns were banned since 1996 or there about right?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39458000/gif/_39458052_firearms_416graph.gifCrime has near doubled since the ban.
Look at the 2004 figures as opposed to previous years.
Anyways, whatever you want. You want firearms out of your own hands? Fine.
I and my own countrymen will fight to keep our rights. It hasn't been our military and police that protects our rights to freedom of speech. It's my fellow vigilant countrymen. We'll keep our arms and our wits about us.
You can wait for the police while you're bleeding to death.
Posted by: SANCHIN31
Re: Gun laws: too much or not enough? - 07/12/05 11:20 PM
Since we can't keep civil.Thread locked.