[Archived] Gun Law Debate: Please keep posts civil and conversational

[Steve Moss]

Imo Steve, if the UK intro'd gun laws like America, our murder rate would soar overnight simply because there are that many morons among my generation who would shoot anyone/anything for fun.

According to this article, it is Romanians, etc. which account for a lot of your violent crimes, including murder- http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/380512/How-Romanian-criminals-terrorise-our-streets

Again, its a newspaper article so take it for what its worth, but it appears that a lot of your crime is due to an inability to control your borders. The USA has a similar problem.

I say this as a person who is very much pro-immigration.

[Tom]

13 year old shot dead for carrying a realistic looking toy gun

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/national/dozens-march-remember-boy-killed-deputies/nbXW9/

Witness claims he saw the officer shoot the child whilst he was down on the ground

Edit sorry it was an air soft gun not a toy

[speeeeeeedie]

Here is another tragic case from the USA; http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/

A bloke who had just been in a car crash was shot dead by a policeman. It is assumed that the lad was asking for help by knocking on doors. However, he conformed to America's most dangerous and feared person; the unidentified black man. The policeman has been charged.

I did read that the majority of gun killings in America are suicides.

After that predominantly young black men with no education, no money, no help, and no hope kill predominantly young black men with no education, no money, no help, and no hope.

As far as gun ownership goes, plenty have them to hunt. There is also a section of the population who arm themselves as protection against the young hordes intent on killing anyone and everyone.

[Steve Moss]

I did read that the majority of gun killings in America are suicides.

After that predominantly young black men with no education, no money, no help, and no hope kill predominantly young black men with no education, no money, no help, and no hope.

Both of the above are true.

[Steve Moss]

Conclusion based on a few carefully selected statistics from a few chosen states. And then you choose to believe those figures while rubbishing the UK stats that have been verified by a number of different sources.

Your reasoning is as flawed as your perception of US voting intentions at the last election. As ever, you're talking nonsense.

Jim-

Your Parliamentary report itself admits your statistics only count convictions. I did not make it up. As a matter of courtesy, I asked you and others to verify or dispute it. To date, you've not done so. This implies that it is indeed true, the UK only counts convictions in establishing its murder rate, unlike the USA. So comparing your 1.2 with our 4.7 is not an apples to apples comparison.

I did pick one of 15 states (or so) for comparisons sake. I also picked a state (Idaho) that had more than half the houses armed, but a murder rate comparable to the UK's reported rate. This establishes at least one data point supporting the hypothesis that it is not the availability of guns which account for the murder rate, but the culture. There are about another 14 or so data points within the US, perhaps more.

So more guns do not equal more murder. More drugs, unemployment, broken families and less education probably equals more murder.

All in all, I believe my reasoning is based on facts and, I hope, logical analysis. I believe your reasoning relies on emotion or political philosophy, which is irrational.

So if we are setting reason and data aside, and relying only on emotion or political philosophy, I think the USA system is the best. Ted Nugent states it better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUexKY8Blew

[jim mk2]

Jim-

Your Parliamentary report itself admits your statistics only count convictions. I did not make it up. As a matter of courtesy, I asked you and others to verify or dispute it. To date, you've not done so. This implies that it is indeed true, the UK only counts convictions in establishing its murder rate, unlike the USA. So comparing your 1.2 with our 4.7 is not an apples to apples comparison.

I did pick one of 15 states (or so) for comparisons sake. I also picked a state (Idaho) that had more than half the houses armed, but a murder rate comparable to the UK's reported rate. This establishes at least one data point supporting the hypothesis that it is not the availability of guns which account for the murder rate, but the culture. There are about another 14 or so data points within the US, perhaps more.

So more guns do not equal more murder. More drugs, unemployment, broken families and less education probably equals more murder.

All in all, I believe my reasoning is based on facts and, I hope, logical analysis. I believe your reasoning relies on emotion or political philosophy, which is irrational.

So if we are setting reason and data aside, and relying only on emotion or political philosophy, I think the USA system is the best. Ted Nugent states it better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUexKY8Blew

Your reasoning is based on selected facts, such as the comparing the state of Idaho with Britain overall. Now correct me if I'm wrong but Idaho is a rural backwater but according to data I found still had one murder every 10 days last year. Its UK equivalent in population terms is something like Merionethshire or Clackmanannshire, and the murder rates for those counties are virtually non-existent.

You think you have the "best system" yet I don't have a gun and I have never felt the need to have a gun because I feel safe and have always done so. I feel sorry for you (I really do) that you feel the need to protect yourself. I know where I would rather live thank you.

[Steve Moss]

So is it your contention, Jim, that it is the size of the population which controls the murder rate?

Scotland has a population of about 5.2 million and a murder rate of 1.7 per 100,000.

Minnesota has a population of 5.4 million and murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

Minnesota has a gun ownership rate of 41.7%, has 153,000 concealed carry permit holders. It is a "shall issue" state, which means any law abiding citizen can get a concealed carry permit.

I don't think population is a primary driver of murder rates.

[thenodrog]

Your reasoning is based on selected facts, such as the comparing the state of Idaho with Britain overall. Now correct me if I'm wrong but Idaho is a rural backwater but according to data I found still had one murder every 10 days last year. Its UK equivalent in population terms is something like Merionethshire or Clackmanannshire, and the murder rates for those counties are virtually non-existent.

In fairness your point is invalid cos the pop of Idaho is comparable to that of Merseyside or Birmingham in number.

[jim mk2]

So is it your contention, Jim, that it is the size of the population which controls the murder rate?

Scotland has a population of about 5.2 million and a murder rate of 1.7 per 100,000.

Minnesota has a population of 5.4 million and murder rate of 1.4 per 100,000.

Minnesota has a gun ownership rate of 41.7%, has 153,000 concealed carry permit holders. It is a "shall issue" state, which means any law abiding citizen can get a concealed carry permit.

I don't think population is a primary driver of murder rates.

I didn't say it was - I was questioning your example of a rural state such as Idaho against Britain as a whole.

[thenodrog]

I didn't say it was - I was questioning your example of a rural state such as Idaho against Britain as a whole.

It's not a good compariosn either way. Although the pop of Idaho is a fraction of Britain's I'd wager there are more privately held firearms in Idaho than in Britain.

[Steve Moss]

It's not a good compariosn either way. Although the pop of Idaho is a fraction of Britain's I'd wager there are more privately held firearms in Idaho than in Britain.

I don't know the numbers for Idaho alone, but before President Obama's first election the USA had 270 million or more firearms in private ownership. The 270 million is a conservative estimate. There has been more than 65 million additional firearms bought since President's Obama's first election, putting the number well north of 300 million.

I've toyed with the idea of comparing the murder rates with the number of firearms. I suspect that if considered on a murder per firearm basis would indicate that the USA is much safer on an individual handling firearms basis also.

[thenodrog]

I've toyed with the idea of comparing the murder rates with the number of firearms. I suspect that if considered on a murder per firearm basis would indicate that the USA is much safer on an individual handling firearms basis also.

Rather a tenuous argument Steve. That would serve only to confirm that there are lies, damned lies and staistics.

[Guest Norbert]

300 million or so guns? Blimey, I can imagine what the Freudian interpretation would be. I'd be terrified to live in a country with so many guns.

[thenodrog]

I dont mind the guns..... it's the lunatics that scare me.

[jim mk2]

300 million or so guns? Blimey, I can imagine what the Freudian interpretation would be. I'd be terrified to live in a country with so many guns.

Me too. You have to respect US culture though - the right to kill each other is a way of life over there.

[Steve Moss]

Rather a tenuous argument Steve. That would serve only to confirm that there are lies, damned lies and staistics.

Absolutely correct.

But it does serve to illustrate that guns don't kill people. A million pistols scattered hither and yon are not a danger. It's when a lunatic picks one up that danger is a real possibility.

300 million or so guns? Blimey, I can imagine what the Freudian interpretation would be. I'd be terrified to live in a country with so many guns.

Don't worry. It's unlikely those guns would be pointed at you, unless you get involved in drugs.

I dont mind the guns..... it's the lunatics that scare me.

I agree.

Yesterday, a mother and her 4 children were killed when a lunatic attacked with a knife. http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/at-least-three-die-in-stab-rampage/

And 22 were stabbed by a lunatic in China, the same day as the Sandy Hook shootings. Though, thankfully, no one died. http://www.latinospost.com/articles/8436/20121220/22-schoolchildren-stabbed-china-same-day-sandy.htm

What appears to be the trend is that crazed persons, armed with guns or knives, target children and women when they decide to go nuts. When confronted with resistance, usually armed, they put a bullet in themselves. So I think the solution is to:

1. Work to better track the deranged and those on psychotropic drugs, to keep them away from both weapons and children.

2. Arrange for them to meet armed resistance much sooner once they do travel onto locations with vulnerable populations, including schools.

[ultrablue]

Finally, after page upon page of useless comparisons between the UK and US you've given us something to work with Steve. I have two very specific reforms to the gun control laws in the US that I think fit into your solutions given above.. Both were suggested last year with overwhelming public support. But neither got through the House.

So I think the solution is to:

1. Work to better track the deranged and those on psychotropic drugs, to keep them away from both weapons and children.

That seems reasonable. So one of the ways to do that effectively would be to close loopholes in the federal background check laws. Drug convictions, history of mental health problems. All this background information should be checked, no matter where you are buying the gun or who is selling it to you. This has little to no impact on sensible, law-abiding people. Do you disagree?

2. Arrange for them to meet armed resistance much sooner once they do travel onto locations with vulnerable populations, including schools.

Again it seems reasonable. Protecting the vulnerable by intercepting those who are armed with assault rifles. handguns, knifes, whatever, as soon as possible, is surely the goal of all law enforcement. However, due to the inability of the federal government to track the tiny minority with a propensity for violence and murder, many are loathe to require an armed presence so near to these vulnerable citizens. It seems counter intuative.
An alternative is that you could limit the amount of fatal damage an individual can do in the amount of time it takes for them to meet armed resistance. Limiting ammunition sales and magazine size is one way to do this.

Neither of these reforms have any impact on your right to bear arms that is not already limited by the law. You can keep all the guns you have. You can shoot them as much as you want. And who knows, they could save some lives.

[Steve Moss]

1. No, I do not agree. You are suggesting a background check for any transfer of a firearm, even person to person sales and inheritances? I decline, mostly due to a balance between property rights, the background fees which some would charge to deter transfers, the creation of gun registries, and a general distrust of the federal government. I do, however, agree with the current system which is every purchase from a professional vendor is subject to an instant background check. I also believe those who are hearing "voices" should be reported to local law enforcement and tracked.

2. I do agree to armed security at such places as schools and libraries or, failing that, allowing teachers to be armed if they desire and are trained. I do not agree to limiting the size of magazines for two reasons:

a. Anyone who has every fired a semi-automatic knows its a ridiculous safety precaution. Limit a magazine to 10 rounds? It won't slow a shooter (good or bad) a second, as they simply get 10 magazines which take no time to change.

b. Who decides the round limit? And when some want to lower it again from 10 to 8? Then 6? 2? 1? No thanks, I'm not even letting that camel's nose under the tent.

There are two bi-partisan solutions to "mass" shootings: 1) report and track the mentally unstable; and, 2) provide security to those who are likely victims. Neither of which was accepted by those supporting more gun control. I wonder why, considering that anything else is a non-starter as the anti-gun left has a long history of "compromise", only to try to seize more ground next year. The pro-gun right has learned this the hard way and is now unwilling to compromise on any gun rights, which is proper, in my opinion, mostly as most of what they suggest would be ineffective anyway and is only designed to erode the rights of citizen's overtime.

[Stuart]

Sadly, Steve, if you, one of the good guys and a pillar of your community, cannot be persuaded to give up your 'right' to own a deadly weapon - designed only to kill - then there is no hope for the rest of your country.

All this talk of guns being no more deadly than knives is a smokescreen. Faced with someone intending to do me harm, I know which I'd prefer them to have.

It must be a very fragile freedom you have when you have no trust in your government not to summarily round you all up and kill people en mass, such that you feel the need to protect yourself (and your 'rights') in way which makes it as easy as possible for the wrong people to have guns.

Much like our Human Rights laws, it seems that everyone wants to give the criminals as much power as possible.

[Guest Norbert]

So property rights and a fear of federal government are more important than human life. Interesting way of looking at things.

And tracking or finding out who'd be the next killer is harder than you might think. Someone who might be the next school mass murderer, may on the surface be 'normal', whereas the angry kid who shouts a lot might be fine. If we could spot these people, then the likes of Berkowitz, Dahmer etc. would be spotted before they started killing people. Then there are the logistics and how reporting and monitoring anyone with mental illness is conducted. Would anyone be taken into protective custody? Banned from going to a supermarket that sells guns? Those two policies would be an infringement on the civil liberties that Mr. Moss is so keen on.

As for not banning assault rifles, frankly that is stupid and insane.

[jim mk2]

Perhaps the mentally ill are those who think they have a right to bear arms and "defend themselves" even though their country is plagued with mass and random killings on a regular basis. Perhaps more than 300m Americans are mentally ill.

[ultrablue]

1. No, I do not agree. You are suggesting a background check for any transfer of a firearm, even person to person sales and inheritances? I decline, mostly due to a balance between property rights, the background fees which some would charge to deter transfers, the creation of gun registries, and a general distrust of the federal government. I do, however, agree with the current system which is every purchase from a professional vendor is subject to an instant background check. I also believe those who are hearing "voices" should be reported to local law enforcement and tracked.

.

So the police can track him or her all the way to a gun show where he can legally buy an arsenal of guns from

private sellers and are powerless to stop it?

I am interested by the outright rejection of a national gun

register. some prominent conservatives such as bill O'Reilly are quite receptive to the idea. Is it just that "the folks" are scared of imaginary Hilter being voted into the White House?

[Stuart]

Came across this Carlin quote today:

"The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions."

Apt

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Perhaps the mentally ill are those who think they have a right to bear arms and "defend themselves" even though their country is plagued with mass and random killings on a regular basis. Perhaps more than 300m Americans are mentally ill.

I think it's a case of collective mass insanity. As someone else said if guys like Steve can't be won over the game is lost. I'm also a member of an Engineering site on the internet. The site is primarily run by and for Americans. In the main they are well educated, smart , logical people. That is until you mention the right to bear arms. Steve's views are held by the vast majority on that site and you may as well tell the tide to go back. I think you need to live there to fully get the vibe.

[ultrablue]

Here is another tragic case from the USA; http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/

I did read that the majority of gun killings in America are suicides.

After that predominantly young black men with no education, no money, no help, and no hope kill predominantly young black men with no education, no money, no help, and no hope.

As far as gun ownership goes, plenty have them to hunt. There is also a section of the population who arm themselves as protection against the young hordes intent on killing anyone and everyone.

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with that second statistic. In the eyes of the law and the constitution Americans are killing Americans. I'd hope that's also the way the people see it.