19 Feb 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakIf it "works" in the UK then why do statistics say that gun crime is on the rise in the UK?
you seem to contradict yourelf a little here. You agree that the US is much higher in cases of gun related crimes/shootings etc, but then you say that tougher gun control doesn't work...
What do you mean by 'work'? If you mean that tougher gun controls don't 'work' because they don't prevent 100% of gun crime then you are right. If however you ...[text shortened]... er of gun incidents' then I would say that the tougher gun control laws in the UK have worked.
19 Feb 04
1 edit
I support the right to bear arms, but the "overthrow the government" argument doesn't hold water IMHO. When the constitution was written, military weapons were on similar footing with civilian weapons. I no longer think that is the case, as I just don't think some guy with a deer rifle is going to take out an apache helicopter.
I know the statistics and the arguments about guns being bad, but if gun owners would be responsible, (lock them up so kids can't get them, use common sense) then the statistics would be shifted.
On Dateline, they interviewed criminals, and they would try to avoid houses where they thought an armed citizen lived. How they determined who was armed, I don't know, but criminals do fear armed citizens.
19 Feb 04
Originally posted by knapperjaAgreed
I support the right to bear arms, but the "overthrow the government" argument doesn't hold water IMHO. When the constitution was written, military weapons were on similar footing with civilian weapons. I no longer think that is the case, as I just don't think some guy with a deer rifle is going to take out an apache helicopter.
I know the statisti ...[text shortened]... lived. How they determined who was armed, I don't know, but criminals do fear armed citizens.
19 Feb 04
Originally posted by chaswrayObviously young man, we come from different eras and areas. Yoy prove my post in your first sentence...guns ARE legal. Drug paraphenalia is NOT.
I wouldn't dream of saying that something you posted was ridiculous.And I stand by that statement as one who has lived in the Miami - Fort Lauderdale area for 35 years before moving back to the country. Drugs ARE ruining this country! More so than guns I might add, although unfortunately the two go hand in hand.
😉😉
This discussion is about whether or not the legality of guns is legitimate though, so the fact that they are legal is not really relevant.
Let me ask you this RC, if there were no guns, they were never invented, would there be no murder?
I said nothing of the sort. The fact remains, however, that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is to kill someone with an axe or a rolling pin, for a variety of reasons.
And one more thing RC. Please do not say that a statement of mine is ridiculous. I may not be as educated as you, but I have a right to my opinions and to state them without ridicule....reread my post, I didn't say drunken yahoo's, I said drug crazed idiots. And I said they are ruining the country not the country side. Litterers do a good job of ruining the countryside. But that's another topic and I don't want to get off topic as you accuse me of doing in another thread
This I find a bit patronizing. I have less than a high school education. You do have a right to your opinions. However, I thought your statement about drug-crazed idiots was ridiculous, an opinion to which I am also entitled. My comment about drunken yahoos was an [i]analogy[i]. What I said was completely absurd, and I was using it to point out that your analogous statement about drug-crazed idiots was similarly absurd unless you elaborate and point out the difference. I did not intend a personal attack at all; I just don't see how that constitutes an argument.
19 Feb 04
Originally posted by royalchickenIt's an argument because crime statistics and gun grime statistics are inflated because of drug crime in this country. I do not argue that guns don't make it easier to kill. My argument is that there are legitimate reasons for owning a gun and banning them here in the states won't do a thing to stop the crime. Oh, it might lower the rate for a while, but it will soon increase again. Tougher penalities are the answer, and you can make it harder to purchase a gun, I have no problem with that either.
[I just don't see how that constitutes an argument.[/b]
19 Feb 04
There are millions of guns in the US. It is too late to get rid of them. If they are made illegal, the cliche of "only criminals will have guns" will come true. Even if all guns were destroyed in some cosmic miracle, their is too much money to keep them out. So, since I am confident criminals will always be well armed, I prefer to be able to defend myself, family and pet fish.
19 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ianpickeringIan, are you a professor of unflattering American statistics? Where do you get all this stuff? I'm worried you may be clinically obsessed.
Both in our city and nationally, violence in schools is one of the major fears of teens and their parents. National studies of American high school students by Edward Gaughan, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology at Alfred University in NY sh ...[text shortened]... t your society is going to wrack and ruin don't you think ?
That said, I do find it strange that Columbine and similar incidents haven't created a much stronger movement for gun control in the US. In Britain we've always had pretty tight controls, but after Dunblane (a horrific massacre of a classful of young kids, for those who don't know) everyone seemed to agree that they should be made even tighter.
Rich.
20 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeDrugs tend to kill the user, not people who have nothing to do with drugs. Those drugs that can make people more violent etc should be strictly regulated - but on this score, which is more harmful: cannabis or alcohol?
Pro Gun Lobby (NRA): "Guns don't kill, people kill"
Pro Drugs Lobby: "Drugs don't kill, people kill"
Now who's kidding who ? 😀
Getting back on topic, I think the gun issue is a 'public safety vs personal liberty' issue. Unlike with certain illegal drugs, I think you can make enough of a case for public safety (as opposed to personal safety: people buy guns at their own risk, but it shouldn't be at a risk to others) to have tighter controls on guns. For example, I realise more elaborate safety mechanisms on guns wouldn't stop criminals stealing them, they would reduce the number of children who set off their parents' guns accidentally.
Also, I can see that owning a gun, and making it clear that you have one, makes you a much less desirable target for burglars. Good for you; but it just means the burglars will hit somewhere else, so from the general public's point-of-view, you owning a gun doesn't help at all.
20 Feb 04
some fair points
criminals ...would try to avoid houses where they thought an armed citizen lived. How they determined who was armed, I don't know, but criminals do fear armed citizens.[/b]
When the constitution was written, military weapons were on similar footing with civilian weapons. I no longer think that is the case, as I just don't think some guy with a deer rifle is going to take out an apache helicopter.
although the most common weapon to bring down planes/helecopters in Vietnam was the AK47, but that I aside I agree with you here. Your'e not going to beat the military no matter how well armed you are.
criminals ...would try to avoid houses where they thought an armed citizen lived. How they determined who was armed, I don't know, but criminals do fear armed citizens.
two things on this:
Firstly that all you are doing by making the criminal think you are armed is passing the problem over to your neighbour, but I guess this could be said of having a sturdier front door, security lighting, and any other anti burgler device.
Secondly, that criminals may fear that the owner will be armed will be one hell of an incentive for the criminal to arm himself. This then gives you a situation where there are 2 scared people, burgler & burgled, both with guns - not a good combonation.
Burglers in the UK largely don't carry guns because they don't feel the need - they don't think they're going to get shot at and the increased penalty of getting caught for armed robery over robery makes it not owrth it. If they do carry guns then they are much less likely to use them because they aren't scared that they'll get shot first.
20 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by chaswrayDid you read what I posted? It depends on what your defenition of whether or not the gun controls are working is. I agree that they haven't and never will prevent 100% of gun crime. I also claim that the fact that he UK has vastly fewer gun crimes than the US has something to do with the tougher legislation & controls, and therefore it does work to an extent.
If it "works" in the UK then why do statistics say that gun crime is on the rise in the UK?
Is gun crime on the increase in the UK? It might well be, but the only figures that have been posted here are that gun crime in London increased by 96% from the year before. That means it increased over 1 year in 1 area, but not that it is increasing every year or that it is increasing in every area. For example, I believe gun crime in Liverpool is on the decline.