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

[Stuart]

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.

That's a great way of looking at it. I'm confident by analysing it at that level, the root causes will be fixed in no time.

The propensity for people on here to highlight and condemn racism, where there is none, is staggering at times.

[Steve Moss]

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.

Wow. The naive simplicity of this post floors me.

There is a cause and effect going on with gun killings. Knowing who is killing who, and why, is more likely to reduce in a reduction in gun violence than beating our chests about the horror of it.

Study after study has shown that young black men are killing other young black men for causes involving drugs and control of territory.[1] If we solve that problem, which centers around broken homes, poverty, lack of education and no real employment prospects, we'd cut the murder rate by more than half. Most of these problems are centered in 20-30 inner cities which are the equivalent of war zones. We could solve those problems, if the government grew a spine but I suspect there are vested interests on both sides of the aisle who see the continued existence of these social problems as beneficial.

By the way, I roughed the numbers out in my head. The USA has about 4x the murder rate of the UK (probably less as your stats are fudged) and has 150x the number of firearms in private ownership. I believe that stat lends further support to my hypothesis is that there is no direct correlation between the gross number of firearms and the murder rate, rather the murder rate has far more to do with adverse, but solvable, cultural factors.

[1] When you get out of the inner cities the USA murder rate plummets to being as safe and even safer as England, despite huge numbers of privately owned firearms.

[ultrablue]

I'm simply suggesting that clouding gun control issues with race and poverty issues helps nobody.

Crime comitted by under-educated under-employed black american men isindeed a huge problem in American cities.

But the complexity of these long standing social issues is too often used to drown out gun control law reform debates. The simple matter is that all americans would be better off if guns were only in the hands of capable and responsible citizens "as part of a well regulated millitia". That's why I think the issue needs to be stated as broadly as possible.

[Steve Moss]

I'm simply suggesting that clouding gun control issues with race and poverty issues helps nobody.

Crime comitted by under-educated under-employed black american men isindeed a huge problem in American cities.

But the complexity of these long standing social issues is too often used to drown out gun control law reform debates. The simple matter is that all americans would be better off if guns were only in the hands of capable and responsible citizens "as part of a well regulated millitia". That's why I think the issue needs to be stated as broadly as possible.

1. I believe developing and sharing accurate data is not "clouding" the issue, but rather clarifying the problem. If the problem is clarified, finding answers is easier, not harder. That is, of course, if your objective is to solve the problem, as opposed to an objective to ban firearms irrespective of the problem's parameters.

2. Taking away all Americans rights because a minority of citizens can't responsibly exercise those rights due to social problems within their neighborhoods smacks of overkill. Let's take a test:

a. Would you be opposed to declaring martial law [temporarily stripping those residents of civil rights] in those areas with very high drug, crime and murder rates? Why or why not? What about if the schools were made safer and massive amounts of federal aid money were poured into those neighborhoods for education for both young and old? How about massive tax or financial incentives for those families that stay intact?

b. In those areas of England where this is little or no murder, would you be okay with letting those residents own or carry a gun if they wanted to? Why or why not?

3. Almost all citizens are responsible, well north of 90%. It is a minority who abuses their rights. As to the militia, all able-bodied males are a member per the Founding Fathers (which in the days of equal protection should be expanded to all able bodied citizens). The well regulated part no longer occurs as the federal and state governments no longer conduct drills as they did in the few decades after the Revolution. Here's another test:

a. Do I lose my rights because the government defaults on its responsibilities?

b. Do I get to keep my right to own and carry a firearm if I voluntarily submit to firearm training at my own expense?

[jim mk2]

W

The USA has about 4x the murder rate of the UK (probably less as your stats are fudged) and has firearms.

Just because rapid right wing US websites keep saying this (I know, I've read them) it doesn't mean it's true. In fact, it's a load of b*ll*cks as has been pointed out several times but please keep repeating it just to prop up your flimsy arguments.

[ultrablue]

There you go again Steve, talking about confiscation. This is why it is impossible to have a reasoned debate on gun control reform.

On the previous page I made it very clear that the suggested reforms would not take away a single legally held firearm from capable and resposible person. That's the vast majority? Excellent. Good news. Go live your life

I am suggesting universal background checks on all types of sale are a common sense reform that the NRA supported until a few years ago. Let's try to focus on that. So we are tracking people who hear voices, as you advocated earlier. I'll ask again would tracking them not extend to knowing when they try to buy weapons from a private seller at a gun show?

Can we develop this very specific point before I take your test?

[Steve Moss]

Just because rapid right wing US websites keep saying this (I know, I've read them) it doesn't mean it's true. In fact, it's a load of b*ll*cks as has been pointed out several times but please keep repeating it just to prop up your flimsy arguments.

Jim- Where did I miss your rebuttal to the allegation that the UK only counts convictions toward your murder rate? I actually linked to a Parliamentary report which spelled it out. You keep saying I'm wrong but you provide no citation to establish I'm wrong, despite me linking to the evidence that says I'm correct.

If the USA followed UK methodology, our murder rate would be less than 2.26 per 100,000 (based upon arrests, not convictions, would be be obviously lower). Does the ability to manipulate numbers make one "civilized"?

I'll give you another link. Here's the report confirming that all of Dr. Shipman's 172 victims were counted in the year he was caught. (See page 16), despite his murders occurring over many years. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

These are your government's statements, if you cared to look. It appears you are hell bent on espousing the "civilized" nature of England, even though your numbers lie. By contrast, the FBI is much more straight forward, regardless of whether a person is convicted or not.

[jim mk2]

Definitions of crime between the countries is different. The methodologies of the two statistics are also different. That does not mean the British figures are "manipulated" and does not mean they are a "lie". Civilised countries do not have a gun culture and they do not execute their own citizens. We leave that to medieval societies, and the US.

[Steve Moss]

Thank you, Jim, for acknowledging that the UK uses a different "methodology" to keep its statistics. Whether the UK's "methodology", which artificially reduces the reported rate of intentional homicides, is a lie or not, I'll leave to other's to debate.

I'm highly amused that you define a nation's "civilized" rating to be based on gun rights (or the lack thereof) or the death penalty. Leaving the death penalty aside (which I almost agree with you on, but don't for barbaric reasons), would this remain true if the USA's intentional homicide rate was comparable to the UK's, despite the large number of guns?

[jim mk2]

People in civilised societies don't feel the need to carry guns. We also don't have your regular mass killings. I do feel sorry for you living in the US but you have it in your power to join the 21st century at some point.

[Steve Moss]

So it has nothing to do with the actual murder rate, it's more about the presence of guns? It's a good thing I'm relaxing with my third Guinness or I might mock the logic.

And as laid out at the link, the responsibility for our barbaric ways rests with England; America is blameless as it was the poor upbringing provided by England which resulted in our wicked ways-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJYY1CFKzTg

[dave birch]

Goodness, you can't say things like that, England is totally blameless in all of it's Colonial history..... It gave the world.....

[dave birch]

In light of yet another US shooting, I'd ask Steve, when is it going to stop?

[thenodrog]

Goodness, you can't say things like that, England is totally blameless in all of it's Colonial history..... It gave the world.....

You for a start Dave.

In light of yet another US shooting, I'd ask Steve, when is it going to stop?

When they weed out and lock up the nutters at a guess.

[jim mk2]

List of shame of a sick society.

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

[Steve Moss]

In light of yet another US shooting, I'd ask Steve, when is it going to stop?

When they weed out and lock up the nutters at a guess.

Bingo.

And I have a question for Jim. Can you explain the UK's coroner's increasing use of unclassified and/or narrative verdicts, which describes how someone died but without adding the "who did the killing"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_verdict

I was surprised to find that they've increased from about 111 (in 2001 and earlier) to around 4,400 today.

And an example provided of a "narrative verdict" was an obvious homicide, unsolved to this day, is the killing of Gareth Williams, one of your spies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

Even the coroner agrees that Gareth William's death was an "unlawful killing", but she couldn't call it that- http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/gareth-williams-inquest-narrative-verdict-explained-1-2270780

And while these narrative verdicts seem mostly to be used to cast doubts on suicides (to ease the grief of families, perhaps), they also mask homicides, both based on the Gareth Williams' situation and those 827 people who have died following police contact since 2004. http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/deaths-in-british-police-custody-no-convicted-officers-since-1969

Of course, as there are no convictions, these murders don't result in an increase in your homicide rate. Even your mental health professionals believe the narrative or unclassified verdicts are hiding your real suicide rate, so why not the same for your homicide rate? http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/11/15/pubmed.fdr091

UK suicide statistics are a lie and it appears the UK homicide statistics are a lie. I suggest that the UK gets it house in order before you proclaim that there are fewer murders in the UK than the USA. I'm trying to crunch the numbers from various UK reports and, assuming I'm on the right track, you are in for a shock (though based on Theno's earlier posts about his observations he may have been onto something).

And I think its beyond a doubt that your crowing about the "civilized" moral superiority of the UK over the USA is built on a foundation of quicksand. At least we don't hide the truth about our homicide and suicide rates, and the causes for the same.

[jim mk2]

When they weed out and lock up the nutters at a guess.

The difference being US nutters have easy access to a gun, whereas here they don't. The US right of course will say that it is to the US's credit that their nutters have more freedoms than our nutters.

[Guest Norbert]

If you believe what you read, the US even allow their nutters to stand for election, and then elect them too.

The best we can come up with is Boris Johnson.

[ultrablue]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3890291

Sounds like something off Brass Eye but no it's true.

The blind can now carry guns in public in Iowa.

[Steve Moss]

A 3-D printer just made a metal gun, specifically 1911 series. For those who don't know, that's a .45 semi-automatic pistol.

Last year they made a plastic gun on a printer, this year a metal gun. You can keep your restrictive gun laws if you like, but your criminals won't. And it won't be too many years until they're able to make their own pistols while drinking their morning tea.

Welcome to the future, it's both better and worse.

Here's more information on the metal gun from the 3D printer. http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/7/5077718/worlds-first-3d-printed-metal-gun-fires-over-50-rounds

[Stuart]

No thoughts on the idea of blind people carrying guns, Steve?

"When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary," said Michael Barber, a blind man interviewed by The Register at a gun store in Iowa last month.

[Steve Moss]

No thoughts on the idea of blind people carrying guns, Steve?

"When you shoot a gun, you take it out and point and shoot, and I don't necessarily think eyesight is necessary," said Michael Barber, a blind man interviewed by The Register at a gun store in Iowa last month.

Actually, I'm floored with this one. It makes no sense.

[ultrablue]

Well it's a pretty clear example of how scared law makers have become about passing common sense gun control amendments that keep up with other developments in society.

[Baz]

Wow, left this topic alone quite a while ago after Steve and I debated to a point I don't think either side could progress.

My feelings are still that the only logical argument i see in the US for owning a gun, is for hunting. The propensity of other weapons in circulation only serves to increase their likelihood of being used for or against you.

[Guest Norbert]

It seems we can at least agree that blind people should not have a gun. I think someone in Iowa has taken the Ray Charles scene in The Blues Brothers a bit too literally.