Gun confiscation

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by robjones

Stats have born out that violent crimes decrease, not increase, in states where concealed carry laws are enacted. Conversely places in the US with the strictest anti-gun laws have serious violent crime problems.

It isn't a coincidence that the worst slaughters in our country occur in places declared "gun free zones". Gun free zones were a noble idea, but in effect are merely workplace safety laws protecting potential murderers.

I have said most of this before, but I was illustrating that carrying guns and knives encourages more guns and knives to be carried. If controls existed across states then the stats may be of some use, but when one can carry guns across state lines with no impairment then one has to be careful how one interprets statistics. The only valid gun free zone would be the whole of the US.

Trouble is what happens in US does affect us in the UK. Many of the arms used by the IRA in N Ireland started life in the US and with US money.

I think that perhaps one should annalise why there is so much gun crime in US, allowing for the larger population, to the tiny amount in the UK.

Is the US more lawless?
Does it have more violent people per head of population?
Is it a more lawless society?
Do people obey any laws less?
Are there simply more guns available?

UK police when asking for guns for officers in certain situations recognised that sometimes they would need them because the criminals would carry guns anyway, but sometimes they would need them because the criminals knew the police might have guns and so the criminals armed themselves with guns simply for their own protection and that would lead to citizens and police offices being involved in shooting.

[robjones]

OK, agreed. We'll put up signs and make the entire US a gun free zone. People intent on murder are bound to retreat in the face of smaller prohibitions than the one that we execute people for violating.

In fact, we'll extend the idea to other areas where we have problems with people that violate prohibitions against killing.
I see huge application for this magical concept in a military setting.



Damned shame the Nobel committee already announced their winner. I think you're onto something big.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by robjones

OK, agreed. We'll put up signs and make the entire US a gun free zone. People intent on murder are bound to retreat in the face of smaller prohibitions than the one that we execute people for violating.

Interesting, you chose to take my comment as though it was intended to be something that I wanted, I commented that the statistics taken in isolation did not prove what you were trying to p[rove with them. That because there was a gun ban in one area and crimes increased in it = remove gun free zone and crimes would stop. Anyone who works with statistics knows that they can be manipulated and more importantly incorrect conclusions drawn because other factors were at work. My comment was on the only statistical value a gun free zone could have and that would be if it were across the whole of the US and not just state wide. To also interpret any comment of mine into military situations is more than taking my words out of context. We also have terrorist attacks but that does not make me want to own a gun.

Interesting too that, whilst you seem to want to keep weapons in individuals hands you don't want to look at why gun crime is so prolific in the US. We try to keep the UK free of guns as far as possible, because we know that with increased gun ownership comes more gun crime. Our police officers who are armed are highly trained and they still make tragic mistakes, I think that mistakes increase the more untrained people carry weapons.

Cricket commented that the greatest task was to protect our children the question is can that be done by escalating the number of weapons in society or decreasing it? If carrying a weapon an individual stops a crime but someone's child is killed in the cross fire, is that a sacrifice just for the good of society? How do we protect children from being killed by 'mistakes' because there are so many guns around and so many being fired? I had to deal with the family of a child killed in the US in just such an incident.

[Natural Elements]

@ anonymously, you should study the History of Weapons and ask God to re-design the human being

Weapons of the Pre-historic age
When humans came into existence, they probably killed each other for survival, using stones or uneven broken branches. With the growing threat from animals, humans started to use the uneven branches or logs in a more effective manner. They started sharpening them with sharp edged stones. They started using clubs and slings for hunting and defending themselves from carnivores animals and other enemies. Cave paintings in Africa, said to be as old as 6,000 BC, have revealed that people during those days were armed with clubs and other sharp weapons resembling maces. Clubs made of wood were used in Africa for a long period of time. Later, clubs were made of metal and they were called maces. [1] Even the wooden axes that were basically used for cutting wood were now made of metal. Axes were mostly used in Europe and Asia. Down in places like Australia and New Zealand people used boomerangs. These boomerangs however were not designed to come back. In Asia people used slings initially, but with the discovery of copper and metal, they started using bows, arrows and spears. Meanwhile in China, staff was used effectively to fight the enemies. A stone was tied to the top of the staff and it was used as a weapon. The Indians used wooden axes which were comparatively smaller in size. They used weapons that were light and easy to use. Most of these weapons were used for hunting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Weapons

[robjones]

Originally Posted by anon

We try to keep the UK free of guns as far as possible, because we know that with increased gun ownership comes more gun crime.

Speaking of stats
-*- The percentage of US citizens owning guns in the early 20th century exceeds current figures.
-*- The availability of guns (of any kind) was much higher in the early 20th century.
-*- The crime stats were lower then than now.

That doesn't bear up the quoted premise.

That'd indicate the difference in crime stats reflect changes in socialization (maybe parenting techniques?), but not availability of weapons.

Our police officers who are armed are highly trained and they still make tragic mistakes, I think that mistakes increase the more untrained people carry weapons.

Refer to previous story of 5 yr old boy in Texas killing 800 lb gator. Cant speak for others, but in my neck of the woods we learn responsivble use early. Having grown up with firearms and had additional training from the USMC, and substantial practice since... I could shoot rings around your cops. Assuming that police are the only ones trained is a red herring.

Cricket commented that the greatest task was to protect our children the question is can that be done by escalating the number of weapons in society or decreasing it?

Again, we simply differ on WHO is responsible for safety... the individual or the government. I think the individual is responsible. In the event of immediate danger, calling 911 is handy for helping police locate the scene of a murder, not for preventing one. That's not their fault, they cannot be everywhere at once. If you are comfortable accepting that, no problem and good luck, but we're not likely to scrap the 2nd amendment in response to concerns outside our borders.

[anonymously]

How have you got gun free zones through the 2nd amendment? Will be interesting to see what Obama does do or not do to control any weapons.

Again, we simply differ on WHO is responsible for safety... the individual or the government. I think the individual is responsible

If that is a general belief in the US, why do Governments make laws about driving a car, building buildings to certain regulations. Isn't it the individual who should make up their own mind and own rules?

There is always a measure of individual responsibility, like locking house doors, but there also needs to be a framework in which people operate. That framework is set by the government and unless we want society to become a lawless society then we accept laws made by democratically elected governments.

One of the problems with your comments about individual responsibility is that in situations, say of preventing a murder, an individual shoots who he sees and perceives to be the responsible person. Pity when that snap judgement is wrong and the person has not seen all the action.

Why too do you think that criminals in the UK do not appear to carry anything like the number of weapons, judging by the number of crimes in which guns are involved, that are carried in the US? And from what I see is it a healthy state for society when one has to metal check every student entering school? Carrying a knife or a gun to school is just taking responsibility for themselves, isn't it?

[Allen Farlow]

Well, there's some twisted logic for you.

Anonymously, in the very same post you say there needs to be "a framework in which people operate." one set by the government.

But then you wind it up by saying "And from what I see is it a healthy state for society when one has to metal check every student entering school? Carrying a knife or a gun to school is just taking responsibility for themselves, isn't it?

Did you suddenly forget about what you said about there needing to be a framework?

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

But then you wind it up by saying "And from what I see is it a healthy state for society when one has to metal check every student entering school? Carrying a knife or a gun to school is just taking responsibility for themselves, isn't it?

Did you suddenly forget about what you said about there needing to be a framework?

Sorry about the above post, did not manage to turn the page.

Sorry too that you did not notice my healthy dose of sarcasm in the question. Rob said he could shoot from being a kid, then surely we need to allow kids to take weapons to school for their protection is the logical and deadly conclusion.

[anonymously]

I wrote a long reply, but when I tried to load it it wouldn't fire whoops it did!

[robjones]

Actually there was no prohibition against taking guns to school when I was a kid... remember I hit elementary school in 1960's Texas in a suburb surrounded by woods. if you wanted to go hunting afterward it was pretty standard. Did we wag 'em up and down the halls? Naah. Did we shoot each other? Nope. We didn't live in a society that felt a need to protect us from ourselves or each other... we didn't have to be told not to kill our classmates or restrained from the means.

Similarly I carried a pocketknife at all times as a kid, in my pocket (hence the name). Wasn't a problem. In class. Not doing so would've been unusual. [Today I carry a Leatherman (ok, actually a Gerber) multi-tool on my belt unless I'm in a suit. ]

We walked or rode down the streets on bikes as minors carrying hunting rifles and shotguns. The availability of arms was greater, the prohibitions against carrying them infinitely more lax... yet the violence issues were lower. This simply could not be the case if the premise were true that violence increases with increased availability of guns/weapons.

When trying to cure a problem it really helps to start by understanding the cause, and misdiagnosing the cause throws off all efforts that follow. Misdiagnosing the issue and acting on that diagnosis is a bit like changing the oil because your car has a flat tire.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by robjones

Actually there was no prohibition against taking guns to school when I was a kid... remember I hit elementary school in 1960's Texas in a suburb surrounded by woods. if you wanted to go hunting afterward it was pretty standard. Did we wag 'em up and down the halls? Naah. Did we shoot each other? Nope. We didn't live in a society that felt a need to protect us from ourselves or each other... we didn't have to be told not to kill our classmates or restrained from the means.

Similarly I carried a pocketknife at all times as a kid, in my pocket (hence the name). Wasn't a problem. In class. Not doing so would've been unusual. [Today I carry a Leatherman (ok, actually a Gerber) multi-tool on my belt unless I'm in a suit. ]

We walked or rode down the streets on bikes as minors carrying hunting rifles and shotguns. The availability of arms was greater, the prohibitions against carrying them infinitely more lax... yet the violence issues were lower. This simply could not be the case if the premise were true that violence increases with increased availability of guns/weapons.

When trying to cure a problem it really helps to start by understanding the cause, and misdiagnosing the cause throws off all efforts that follow. Misdiagnosing the issue and acting on that diagnosis is a bit like changing the oil because your car has a flat tire.

Gee you two are young!

I have not said that guns = more violence, I would argue that availability of guns and the carrying of guns for protection, which most of you seem to want to argue why you should keep them, will ensure that everyone including criminals will carry them and use them.

I have invited you earlier to examine some of the reasons for gun crime being astronomically higher in the US than the UK, but you did not respond.

Acting as an individual in life and death matters can mean that an individual asserts their rights but to the damage of society.

[Allen Farlow]

Obviously, Rob, more guns does not equal more violence. And you are right. We are about the same age (I'm 54) and went to elementary school in the 60's, too, and crime was a lot less than it is today. Why do you suppose that is?

I have a theory about that. People who grow up in the country see a lot less crime than their city cousins.

Why? Let me put it to you this way. If you put two hamsters in the same cage but that cage is too small for two of them, they're gonna fight it out to the death of one of them.

It's a simple matter of the mindset of city people. People by nature are territorial. And in the country we see a lot less of one another than we would in the city. Attitudes, crowding, over-population, rush-hour traffic, everyone in a hurry, it's the perfect mix for increased crime.

And some people use guns to settle their differences and criminals try to maintain the upper hand over others by being armed with handguns, while others butt in and say that just ain't right, so now we have gun laws.

And now we have Obama who will do his best to tiptoe around the Second Amendment. He won't tell us we can't own firearms, he'll just raise the taxes on ammunition until we are paying $5 per round and can't afford to lock and load.

I anticipate people stealing ammunition from stores, at gunpoint if need be, especially gang members and the like.

It's gonna get dicey.

[robjones]

Originally Posted by anon

I have invited you earlier to examine some of the reasons for gun crime being astronomically higher in the US than the UK, but you did not respond.

I don't see that getting killed by a baseball bat is somehow morally superior to being shot, but I'll cross that bridge if I decide to live in the UK. The thread however is about gun confiscation in the US, where there is a constitutional right to bear arms.

Acting as an individual in life and death matters can mean that an individual asserts their rights but to the damage of society.

Lovely theory. What would you have done in my situation I was in... parked a few feet from a man in danger of being sliced up?

MY answer was to point a gun at the perpetrator. This ended the violence without bloodshed.

What would you have done that would have been a better answer? [NOTE: Making a policeman magically appear isnt one of the choices.]
So let's hear your suggested response. I could and DID end it without violence. Tell me what you would have done.

[John Scott]

I have not said that guns = more violence, I would argue that availability of guns and the carrying of guns for protection, which most of you seem to want to argue why you should keep them, will ensure that everyone including criminals will carry them and use them.

In everyone carries them, violence would drop. It's like war - if only one country has "the bomb", they use it. Using the bomb when others have it ready to drop on you prevents use.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by John Scott

In everyone carries them, violence would drop. It's like war - if only one country has "the bomb", they use it. Using the bomb when others have it ready to drop on you prevents use.

Sure, why not carry a bit of semptex in your back pocket too.

So every individual could become judge and jury, he's gonna shoot him, so I'll get in and save two lives. Bang, oops sorry you do not seem to be doing what I thought you were doing.

I ask again what is the difference between US and Uk where we have so little gun crime? Could it be the less amount of guns we have on our streets?

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by anonymously

...
I ask again what is the difference between US and Uk where we have so little gun crime? Could it be the less amount of guns we have on our streets?

Or, could it be they are using something else?

[robjones]

Originally Posted by robjones

Lovely theory. What would you have done in my situation I was in... parked a few feet from a man in danger of being sliced up?

MY answer was to point a gun at the perpetrator. This ended the violence without bloodshed.

What would you have done that would have been a better answer? [NOTE: Making a policeman magically appear isnt one of the choices.]
So let's hear your suggested response. I could and DID end it without violence. Tell me what you would have done.

To Anonymously:
You speak in generalities and suppositions, I'm talking flesh and blood reality... so the question still stands. You are in the UK... you do not have a gun with you, because unlike us, you have no constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. I stopped the situation without a single drop of blood from myself, the intended victim, or even the attacker.

Now... you were quick to criticize my actions, so please share YOUR alternative action. Given the same scenario (and without a non-present cop magically materializing in the middle of the road) how would you have handled it in better fashion? We await your answer.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by robjones

To Anonymously:
You speak in generalities and suppositions, I'm talking flesh and blood reality... so the question still stands. You are in the UK... you do not have a gun with you, because unlike us, you have no constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. I stopped the situation without a single drop of blood from myself, the intended victim, or even the attacker.

Now... you were quick to criticize my actions, so please share YOUR alternative action. Given the same scenario (and without a non-present cop magically materializing in the middle of the road) how would you have handled it in better fashion? We await your answer.

That sounds to me like using the only good reason for carrying arms to justify the right to have them. But you cannot assume that everyone will carry their guns unloaded, nor that they will only use them properly.

Indeed your example is one of the few cases in which having a gun could stop violence, but overall I believe guns do more harm than good.

And answering your question (I know you asked Anonymously but this applies to everyone who is opposed to civilians carrying guns) I personally wouldn't mind if that guy in the example you posted got sliced if the same law that deprived you from helping him also prevented other thousand crimes from happening.

[Cricket]

My question was sincere by the way. I mean, if someone is intent on killing someone, they are going to do so regardless of if they have access to a gun or not. Fewer gun deaths (via criminal activity) due to reduced access to guns does not necessarily less deaths via criminal activity right? Just maybe that they will simply use something else.

[robjones]

Hades... we disagree on the acceptability of allowing a guy to be sliced in our presence. So for lack of a gun, as a young Marine fresh from weeks of physical training I'd have waded in, and barring a lucky break on his side, I'd have beat the knife-wielding aggressor with whatever weapon was at hand... be it a tire tool or his own arm. Of course there's every possibilty I'd have been cut up in the process, as would he.

Instead... nobody was harmed, yet despite the obvious best case outcome allowed by use of a firearm... you oppose it on the suggestion that allowing the victim to be sacrificed would help others? I have to disagree.

I still await Anonymously's recommendation. He indicated what I did was inappropriate. I want to hear his preferred action.