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

[Guest]

Your typical 'one stop gun shop'......Heckler and Koch MP5SD your's for just £323.

http://www.davidsons...one&sight_class_

Have a nice day folks!

I was reading up on the H&K MP5 just yesterday. Spooky!

This rifle is more pricy but still looks like fun from the same store. (Add another $1000 for decent sights)

http://www.davidsonsinc.com/consumers/subsites/inven_product.asp?dealer_id=288673%20&item=BCW3M30-50BMGLW&instock=all&manufact_combo=None&mod_ser_combo=None&category_combo=None&model=None&g_type=None&act_type=&finish_type=None&calib_combo=50BMG&sight_class_combo=None&price_range=None&left_handed=&youth=&Offset_rec=0&num_rec=50&item_num=

[Rovermatt]

British gun violence is not unheard of unfortunately.

In spite of my opposition to the death penalty, the piece of sh*t at the centre of this case deserves to ride the lightning quite frankly.*

*Mods, perhaps you could move this to one of the old crime control topics that I can't seem to find...

[naperrover]

This rifle is more pricy but still looks like fun from the same store. (Add another $1000 for decent sights)

http://www.davidsons...ec=50&item_num=

An example of the problem. This weapon chambers .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun ammunition and is a similar weapon to those used by US special forces snipers as an "anti-materiel weapon." In other words it has the power to disable vehicles, usually by cracking the engine block. What civilian actually NEEDS this kind of firepower?

[thenodrog]

An example of the problem. This weapon chambers .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun ammunition and is a similar weapon to those used by US special forces snipers as an "anti-materiel weapon." In other words it has the power to disable vehicles, usually by cracking the engine block. What civilian actually NEEDS this kind of firepower?

Me! When d1ckheads with massive speakers and base units in their cars drive by with the volume full up and the windows down! (Why do so many empty heads do that?) If they like the music literally deafening, as they are almost certainly destined to discover in later life, then opening the windows lets the sound out. As far as I am concerned they should be prosecuted at every opportunity for noise pollution.

[colin]

I was at a BBQ in Washington State (Richland) last month.

The guy got out his gun collection which was over 50+ ( I have seen similar in the States on a number of occasions) and the 8 of us had a bit of fun shooting dingoes and other assorted wildlife. The guy also had 2 concealed guns in his house, one in his car glove box and one on his body.

You shot a dingo from Washington State? That must be one hell of a gun you were using.

(with apologies for otherwise trivialising this excellent discussion)

[thenodrog]

.

[purplegrover]

You shot a dingo from Washington State? That must be one hell of a gun you were using.

(with apologies for otherwise trivialising this excellent discussion)

Indeed. 10000 mile range with a scope to match ? Now thats firepower !

[cletus]

I`m glad there`s no 'buy over the counter guns' in this country. Quite a few years ago i 'lost the plot' & very nearly went after somebody who had wronged me. If i`d had access to one i would have killed him without hesitation.....& been banged up for it.

It was pure heat of the moment red mist stuff. Now i look back & see how trivial everything was & am grateful i didn`t have easy access to a weapon.

I wonder how many people who actually committed 'heat of the moment' gun crimes regret their actions?

[Steve Moss]

For those who lack familiarity with firearms:

http://online.wsj.co...cleTabs=article

Amongst many other statements, I think this one was telling:

"Mr. Bloomberg's claims about guns are mere hypotheticals, apparently based on guesses and little knowledge of what happens in real life. He also uses inaccurate, scaremongering terminology that suggests he doesn't even understand how guns operate.

He seems to dismiss the idea of letting people defend themselves when he speculates that if concealed-handgun permit holders had been present at the Colorado attack, the crossfire between permit holders and the killer would have been even worse than the mass shooting itself. But we have the evidence of multiple occasions when mass shootings were prevented by civilians.

One incident took place at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007. There were 7,000 people inside when an armed man came on the church's property and began shooting, killing two people and wounding others. What stopped him was a parishioner who had permission to carry her permitted concealed weapon on church property. Despite this and other incidents—preventing shootings in schools, a mall and other public places—there is no case on record of a permit holder accidentally shooting a bystander."

[Baz]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

No guns equals no gun crime.

If you seriously restrict access to guns, you get less gun crime.

The example above from Steve Moss is the classic problem of not dealing with the issue, just concentrating on the outcomes. If the assailant had no gun, the defendant wouldn't have needed one either.

[Steve Moss]

No guns equals no gun crime.

If you seriously restrict access to guns, you get less gun crime.

The example above from Steve Moss is the classic problem of not dealing with the issue, just concentrating on the outcomes. If the assailant had no gun, the defendant wouldn't have needed one either.

So in the name of eliminating gun crime we should give up our freedom to own, possess and carry a firearm?

Using the same logic, in order to eliminate driving under the influence crimes we should eliminate motor vehicles and/or alcohol.

I decline to accept the proposition that I and other law abiding citizens must give up our civil liberties in response to the criminal behaviors of others.

[LeChuck]

Using the same logic, in order to eliminate driving under the influence crimes we should eliminate motor vehicles and/or alcohol.

How is that logic?

The only intention of owning a gun is to fire it at someone/something. There is no other reason for owning a gun. People own vehicles and drink alcohol for MANY other reasons than trying to injure people.

By your logic, a world where every country can own nuclear weapons as a deterrent is a safer one than a world where nuclear weapons are prohibited.

As with most irrational human behaviour, it is entirely based on fear, but it's much easier to hide behind phrases like "civil liberties".

Out of interest, where do you stand on drug legislation? Surely anyone who believes in right to own a gun believes in the right to freely take drugs?

[jim mk2]

So in the name of eliminating gun crime we should give up our freedom to own, possess and carry a firearm?

Using the same logic, in order to eliminate driving under the influence crimes we should eliminate motor vehicles and/or alcohol.

I decline to accept the proposition that I and other law abiding citizens must give up our civil liberties in response to the criminal behaviors of others.

US foreign policy is to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons. Isn't that an infringement of Iran's civil liberties too ?

[Steve Moss]

Out of interest, where do you stand on drug legislation? Surely anyone who believes in right to own a gun believes in the right to freely take drugs?

The War on Drugs as currently enacted results in wide spread violation of individual rights (erroneous no knock raids, mistaken shootings, etc) and is wildly ineffective. It needs to be re-evaluated and its focus changed to education and rehabilitation. The current policy of prohibition and incarceration is both ineffective and wrong.

US foreign policy is to prevent Iran having nuclear weapons. Isn't that an infringement of Iran's civil liberties too ?

Jim I understand our personal political philosophies are in opposition, but surely you would agree that it is individual people who have civil liberties not governments?

Governments have power, legal and otherwise, which it is supposed to use to promote the alleged common good (which it achieves with mixed results).

Government obtains its power by reducing the civil liberties of those governed. The more powerful the government, the fewer freedoms possessed by the populace.

Are we on the same page as to this basic issue? Or are we speaking different languages?

Long story short, I'm not weeping for Iran.

[thenodrog]

No guns equals no gun crime.

If you seriously restrict access to guns, you get less gun crime.

The example above from Steve Moss is the classic problem of not dealing with the issue, just concentrating on the outcomes. If the assailant had no gun, the defendant wouldn't have needed one either.

Laws are worse than useless unless they are enforceable Baz.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19074694

[Baz]

Laws are worse than useless unless they are enforceable Baz.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19074694

Not worse than useless, but In principle I take the point.

Steve, As for infringing civil liberties, the link I provided shows how it can be achieved without denying civil liberties, with proven results. Look at the stats, Japan has 11 per year, USA tens of thousands. The Japanese just have very strong enforcement of their laws. If the people of the USA had the same will, they could get similar results. They don't, so they won't. The ONLY valid argument I have heard for private gun ownership is for hunting, the Japanese model takes that into account.

I honestly don't understand why you don't agree that less guns equals less gun crime. I'm really interested in why you don't agree.

I think others have already shredded your point about drink driving.

[Audax]

Don't really want to get involved in the talk here but today at a Sikh Religious Temple in Wisconsin near Milwaukee, a gunman went on a rampage. The gunman shot dead, 6 others dead... at this very early point in time, this is what I've heard....

[Tom]

Sadly there is a good chance this is a hate crime and not just a random mentalist.

Reports suggest he was white with a 9/11 tattoo, hope he wasn't thinking that turbans = terrorists!

That's just speculation for now though and there should be more news at 10am their time tomorrow

[purplegrover]

Its hard not to see guns in America as having become a rolling snowball. So many people have guns, that everyone now needs guns to defend their civil liberties against the bad guys with guns - thereby generating more bad guys, and more guns, and more good guys needing guns to keep away the bad guys.

Having visted the US and having some close friends from there (with whom I have this disagreement quite often), it's become so ingrained into their psyche that otherwise perfectly intelligent and respectable citizens are astounded when the suggestion is made that they shouldn't be allowed to carry around lethal weapons, and the gun lobby is as a result so strong that the thought of de-arming the general public is just inconcievable.

Its very sad, and I don't purport to see a solution. What I do know is that in countries where the snowball never started (e.g. Japan as mentioned above, Aust. etc.) you don't generally worry about being randomly shot by a loony in a cinema - who somehow legally owns and carries around a device specifically manufactured for the wartime high-rate killing of multiple persons.

I said it before in this thread - Every single murder makes the news here - To my American friends, its 'quaint' and 'laughable'. The implication is that the place is therefore a hick backwater because we all aren't "packin' heat" - in which case, I would say 'well why did you move here then ?' - and the concession is then made that the fear of crime was indeed a major factor.

.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

What I can't fathom is how they think the 2nd Amendment gives any mentally unbalanced idiot the right to walk into Wal-Mart and buy an assault rifle. Surely the bit about "a well regulated militia" actually constitutes a provision for the restriction of the sale of firearms rather than a mandate for the unfettered proliferation of guns in the hands of people who think they should be used to solve every problem.

[Steve Moss]

Steve, As for infringing civil liberties, the link I provided shows how it can be achieved without denying civil liberties, with proven results. Look at the stats, Japan has 11 per year, USA tens of thousands [1]. The Japanese just have very strong enforcement of their laws. If the people of the USA had the same will, they could get similar results. They don't, so they won't. The ONLY valid argument I have heard for private gun ownership is for hunting[2], the Japanese model takes that into account.

I honestly don't understand why you don't agree that less guns equals less gun crime[3]. I'm really interested in why you don't agree.

I think others have already shredded your point about drink driving[4].

Addressed in order:

1. The USA does not have tens of thousands of gun murders every year. The murder rate in the USA has been failing steadily for years, despite wide spread lifting of restrictions in our gun laws. For example, in 2006 we had 15,087 weapon related murders, of which 10,225 involved a firearm. In 2010 we had 12,996 weapon related murders, of which 8,775 involved firearms. http://www.fbi.gov/a.../10shrtbl08.xls

By way of reference, the 2010 population of the USA was 308,745,538. http://2010.census.g.../cb10-cn93.html

I'm not saying that this is a low number and we should be complacent. My position is that our "high" murder rate is not a reason to throw away our rights, whether it be 4th amendment search or seizure protections or the individual right to possess and carry a firearm.

I suspect that most people think of firearm related murders as primarily associated with drugs. I haven't found clear cut statistics on it, but I suspect there is a degree of truth in that assumption. http://www.dailymail...red-year.html

This may explain, in part, why most law abiding citizens (i.e. voters) aren't being stampeded in giving up their rights. The vast majority have nothing to do with the drug trade so the shootings are out of sight, out of mind. It is the shootings like which occurred in Denver, Columbine, etc which grab people's attention as the victims are not competing drug dealers but normal law abiding folks.

2. That may be your position, but it is not mine. And it is not the Supreme Court's either. It's very clear that the 2nd Amendment was enacted to protect two rights: a) the individual right to self-defense; and, 2) ensure the populace was sufficiently armed that it could resist an armed invader (which is currently beyond question in that there are an estimated 270 million firearms in private ownership, half of USA households have at least one firearm, and the national firearm ownership rate is 88.8 per 100 people). Protecting one's "right" to hunt is not the reason the 2nd Amendment was enacted. Hunting is a regulated hobby, not a federal constitutional right.

Japan's culture and values are fine for Japan. I prefer American culture, including our personal, individual liberties. Which, though it may offend you, includes the right to go armed if we please. If the anti-gun lobby doesn't like it, there is a process to amend the Constitution.

3. I agree. Less guns = less gun crime. Less alcohol = less alcohol crime. Less cars = less motor vehicle crimes. Heck, let's chemically castrate all males and reduce the rape rate!

I do not accept the notion that we should give up freedom to be safe, which is essentially what you are suggesting.

4. Again, I disagree. Merely because others have assigned a social utility to motor vehicles and alcohol which somehow exempts them from the restrictions you would impose on firearms is not proving your point. It is an expression of opinion.

In fact, if I were an Earth first environmentalist fixated on Global Warming, Cooling, or other fad of the moment (I'm not), I would likely be of the opinion the internal combustion engine poses a far greater threat to the survival of the human race than do firearms. So let's ban all cars and all drive bicycles to work, which will likely involve focusing on crystals and communing with our navels.

What I can't fathom is how they think the 2nd Amendment gives any mentally unbalanced idiot the right to walk into Wal-Mart and buy an assault rifle. Surely the bit about "a well regulated militia" actually constitutes a provision for the restriction of the sale of firearms rather than a mandate for the unfettered proliferation of guns in the hands of people who think they should be used to solve every problem.

The 2nd Amendment does not give the right to the mentally ill to own and carry a firearm. The trick is identifying the mentally ill as our privacy laws make it somewhat hard to communicate that information to those who clear firearm purchases.

In the USA when you buy a firearm, you complete a form which asks many questions, including an inquiry on the purchaser's mental health, in addition to: Are you an adult? A felon? A legal resident? Subject to an order of protection? Etc. The form is transmitted to a clearinghouse which reviews its files and sends back a yes or no as to whether a person can buy the firearm in question.

While the system may be cumbersome and flawed, it is not the case that a person can walk into a store, slap $500 on the table and walk out with a firearm no questions asked.

And other than lunatics, I doubt the vast bulk of citizens owning firearms consider them the solution to "every problem".

Unless your home invasion is similar to Tony Montana's, do you really need an Uzi which fires 600 rounds per minute?

Despite what you see on TV, the typical citizen cannot buy fully automatic weapons, which is what you are describing. That takes a Class III firearms license which is fairly rare. Though you can rent a full auto weapon at many firing ranges, if you want to play around with it. But you can't leave with the weapon.

And the "assault weapons" you referred to are not fully automatic "600 rounds per minute" weapons. They were rifles which looked "mean", but in reality performed like every other semi-automatic weapon. Pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out.

I have to say I love visiting the US but some of their "values" are confused to say the least. The gun culture and death penalty are two reasons why much as I like the US I could never live there.

Fair enough. I likewise love visiting England but wouldn't want to live there; my perception is that you folks are far too lenient with the criminal class and are in process of losing your identity at a far faster rate then we are here in the States, though I concede this is merely my inexpert opinion and I hope I'm wrong.

I suspect we are both products of our cultures and we feel more comfortable in our own.

But if you change your mind, consider somewhere like Boston or elsewhere in Massachusetts. Restrictive gun laws, state mandated medical coverage and no death penalty.

[dave birch]

I was going to come on this thread and give my peice to Steve about how wrong he was, but I thought, I'll check first.

I won't say anymore than, before you get stuck into Steve, check wiki on US Crime statistics.

It surprised me.

[Baz]

Steve, I think we just have totally different opinions on this.

I think that had the UK had the same shocking outcomes of guns being freely available, the reaction in this country would be completely different.

I respect your views, but don't agree with them. I'll leave it at that.

[jim mk2]

Fair enough. I likewise love visiting England but wouldn't want to live there; my perception is that you folks are far too lenient with the criminal class and are in process of losing your identity at a far faster rate then we are here in the States, though I concede this is merely my inexpert opinion and I hope I'm wrong.

The GB prison population is at or near an all-time high - is that being lenient ? Or in your view is being "lenient" not putting criminals to death ? If that is the case I'm glad we are lenient to criminals. I also do not understand why this apparent leniency is connected to a loss of identity.

Please explain also why you think it is safer and preferable to live in a country where most people are armed and are prepared to use those arms rather than a country where the use of arms is so rare it makes newspaper headlines when it happens.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Sorry Steve, how does me having a firearm at home make me safer ? Along with another guy on this site I've been in a position of being so angry as a young man that if I'd have had a gun I may have used it. I'm not normally an angry man. My personal safety wasn't at risk but my life was being made intolerable. If I had have used a gun my life would have been changed for ever. I'm just glad I wasn't armed then.