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

[Steve Moss]

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2015/10/01/five-reasons-that-the-benefits-that-flow-from-guns-far-outweigh-the-risks-inherent-in-guns/

[K-Hod]

With the greatest respect Steve, I don't even know where to begin with that article.....

[MCMC1875]

With the greatest respect Steve, I don't even know where to begin with that article.....

He just doesn't give up, does he!

[Amo]

This sort of thing should be shocking, but it's just par for the course now.

'Muricans need their guns.

[Steve Moss]

With the greatest respect Steve, I don't even know where to begin with that article.....

Make an effort. What is false about the article?

He just doesn't give up, does he!

No, I don't. Neither should you if you truly believe in what you say.

This sort of thing should be shocking, but it's just par for the course now.

'Muricans need their guns.

Actually, this comment reminded me of a fisking of a recent New York Times article. Here's a link:

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/10/02/fisking-the-new-york-times-modern-man/#comments

Like the fisker, I'm very pleased to be an old-fashioned American male. What I see elsewhere isn't particularly impressive.

[otto man]

He just doesn't give up, does he!

No and that's because he's principled and agree or disagree with him, that's a good thing. Remember. "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything"

[joey_big_nose]

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2015/10/01/five-reasons-that-the-benefits-that-flow-from-guns-far-outweigh-the-risks-inherent-in-guns/

Passionate, wordy, lots of reference to personal observation but sadly does not grapple with the central facts that will always remain and can't be disguised:-

1) The united states is the only developed country where these events happen with the regularity and scale they do.

2) These events are made possible because guns are widely and freely available. You can buy a gun and kill dozens of people the next day if so desired. Killing people with planes, bombs etc is very difficult and takes time, expertise and planning during which period then plotters can be caught.

I think reading article the guy is saying it is acceptable to have X (and there are a lot of X) people a year die to have guns, as it prevents a potential takeover of dictatorship. That's his opinion, fine. But to most, nearly all I would say, Europeans, Canadians, Australians or Japanese that sounds crazy. We don't have guns - and the much higher rates of murder that go with it* - but we have absolutely no fear of dictatorship. This fear seems a particularly specific American one, and seems strange and quite paranoid from the outside.

* Apologies, I still need to do that murder rate comparison...

[Mike E]

Passionate, wordy, lots of reference to personal observation but sadly does not grapple with the central facts that will always remain and can't be disguised:-

1) The united states is the only developed country where these events happen with the regularity and scale they do.

2) These events are made possible because guns are widely and freely available. You can buy a gun and kill dozens of people the next day if so desired. Killing people with planes, bombs etc is very difficult and takes time, expertise and planning during which period then plotters can be caught.

I think reading article the guy is saying it is acceptable to have X (and there are a lot of X) people a year die to have guns, as it prevents a potential takeover of dictatorship. That's his opinion, fine. But to most, nearly all I would say, Europeans, Canadians, Australians or Japanese that sounds crazy. We don't have guns - and the much higher rates of murder that go with it* - but we have absolutely no fear of dictatorship. This fear seems a particularly specific American one, and seems strange and quite paranoid from the outside.

* Apologies, I still need to do that murder rate comparison...

You say no fear of dictatorship...the Tory gerrymandering of the electoral roll is a step in that direction :/

[Amo]

I think it's important sometimes to stop and remember that we're outsiders looking in, whereas for Steve the second amendment is a constitutional right that is ingrained into American society, and he sees disarmament as a disenfranchising of his and every other law-abiding citizen's basic rights. That's something I can empathize with to a certain degree, but when innocent lives are being lost at an alarming rate due to easy access to firearms, you've got to draw the line somewhere.

[joey_big_nose]

I think it's important sometimes to stop and remember that we're outsiders looking in, whereas for Steve the second amendment is a constitutional right that is ingrained into American society, and he sees disarmament as a disenfranchising of his and every other law-abiding citizen's basic rights. That's something I can empathize with to a certain degree, but when innocent lives are being lost at an alarming rate due to easy access to firearms, you've got to draw the line somewhere.

Totally agree with this, its not for us to tell another country how to run their affairs. But a healthy, respectful, factual debate about the positives and negatives about any bit of policy demands drawing comparisons with other country's systems as these are ultimately the examples we have to draw on. You can't just say "its none of our business" as then you deny yourself data.

While there is no serious gun lobby in any nation outside of the US does not mean there never will be. Plus logically if the gun lobby's analysis is right - gun owmership reduces crime, prevents the rise of dictatorships etc - it demand we should be looking at the introduction of mass gun ownership into other developed nations including the UK. Which is why that analysis is legitimate to be scrutinised and challenged by those outside of the US.

[Mike E]

I suppose in terms of the 'right to bear arms' being engrailed into their national psyche, it's a bit like if our Government turned around and said:

'Right, we're disbanding the NHS in favour of you fully funding your own personal healthcare'.

We just wouldn't be up for it at all, despite the potential savings made etc.

[joey_big_nose]

I suppose in terms of the 'right to bear arms' being engrailed into their national psyche, it's a bit like if our Government turned around and said:

'Right, we're disbanding the NHS in favour of you fully funding your own personal healthcare'.

We just wouldn't be up for it at all, despite the potential savings made etc.

I personally think people wouldnt have a problem with private healthcare if you could show convincingly it was cost effective and fair to people on lower incomes.

A good example is the privatisation of opticians. Specsavers et al came in and hugely lowered the cost of basic eyecare and this was shifted into the private sector and all was fine.

However all the evidence out there shows private models of mainstream health care are inefficient, expensive and provide poor service to the poorest in society, leading to high rates of child mortality and shorter years of life across the population.

The support for public healthcare is very evidence based. Sadly the same is not the case with the support of freely available firearms.

[Paul]

I'm not sure eye care is a good example. I would never visit Spec Savers, Vision Express or ASDA for my eye tests. Sight is far too important to entrust to a company offering to do it cheap or a supermarket. I want to be with a company I trust which in my case is Boots.

Sadly the NHS is being privatised by to back door much faster than oeople realise. Once the low cost providers discover there is no profit - check out those who are getting out of social care - we will face a huge problem. This government will potentially destroy our health care system.

[joey_big_nose]

I'm not sure eye care is a good example. I would never visit Spec Savers, Vision Express or ASDA for my eye tests. Sight is far too important to entrust to a company offering to do it cheap or a supermarket. I want to be with a company I trust which in my case is Boots.

Sadly the NHS is being privatised by to back door much faster than oeople realise. Once the low cost providers discover there is no profit - check out those who are getting out of social care - we will face a huge problem. This government will potentially destroy our health care system.

Maybe I don't follow what you are saying? Are Boots opticians part of the NHS? Did you prefer an NHS optician to Boots? Are you dissatisfied with Boots? If you are happy with Boots surely that demonstrates a decent effort at privatisation?

Agree the NHS is being aggressively privatised and that should be strongly opposed unless the health care quality can be proved to be maintained and the cost saving shown to be robust, which has singularly failed to be proved I think on any front. Opticians is an isolated example of where it has worked well. I can't think of another.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

https://www.hyattgunstore.com/

What's your Gun of choice for today folks...high powered 9mm? Latest Assault Rifle?.

How about that Sniper Rifle for when that close and personal touch just isn't needed?

Truly frightening stuff!

[Paul]

Maybe I don't follow what you are saying? Are Boots opticians part of the NHS? Did you prefer an NHS optician to Boots? Are you dissatisfied with Boots? If you are happy with Boots surely that demonstrates a decent effort at privatisation?

Agree the NHS is being aggressively privatised and that should be strongly opposed unless the health care quality can be proved to be maintained and the cost saving shown to be robust, which has singularly failed to be proved I think on any front. Opticians is an isolated example of where it has worked well. I can't think of another.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The point I attempted, badly, to make was I don't feel Spec Savers, Vision Express or ASDA are positive examples of privatising an NHS service. All three do things on the cheap and as such I would be concerned about standards.

I use Boots for my eye tests and glasses a long established company with standards I believe I can trust.

When I look at some of the companies and organisations tendering for contracts in the NHS there is no doubt we are heading down a very rocky road. Can't wait for TTIP to kick in.

[roverzee]

I'm not sure eye care is a good example. I would never visit Spec Savers, Vision Express or ASDA for my eye tests. Sight is far too important to entrust to a company offering to do it cheap or a supermarket. I want to be with a company I trust which in my case is Boots.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The point I attempted, badly, to make was I don't feel Spec Savers, Vision Express or ASDA are positive examples of privatising an NHS service. All three do things on the cheap and as such I would be concerned about standards.

I use Boots for my eye tests and glasses a long established company with standards I believe I can trust.

When I look at some of the companies and organisations tendering for contracts in the NHS there is no doubt we are heading down a very rocky road. Can't wait for TTIP to kick in.

I get the bit about not having confidence in big brands, but then you completely destroy your own position by putting total trust into ... a big brand!

When Boots merged with Dollond & Aitchison in 2009, how did that make them any better than Asda, Spec Savers or Vision Express?

They are all the same. If you don't like big brand names then go to your local independent optician.

[Paul]

I don't think you read the posts. I didn't say I don't like big brands, I said I lack confidence, when it comes to eye care, in brands with an offer based around low cost. If people feel ASDA is the appropriate place for eye tests that's OK with me but it's not who I trust.

[Beta Ray Bill]

I'm fairly certain the professional opticians at any of those companies would take great exception to any thought they were any less interested in eye care just because they happen to work for a chain. One of my best friends used to work at an independent practice for the first 10 years of his career. He has never regretted moving to Specsavers in the last 15.

[Mike E]

Terrorism is less deadly than guns for US citizens...discuss:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/10/02/u-s-deaths-from-gun-violence-and-terrorism-in-comparison-infograpic/

It says a lot that terrorism is 'better for' the US than guns yet they remain so desperate to keep guns.

[Paul]

Saw a poster the other day which read:

One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in gun regulation.

While I don't understand the American obsession with guns nor the concept one cannot enjoy freedom without a gun I do agree it has nothing to do with the rest of us.

What I do find impossible to understand is why a country does not demand its government take action. It does appear, as Obama said, these shootings are just routine. The price some Americans have to pay so the rest are free to carry guns. Certainly for me the shootings have just become another news item, no shock, no surprise, it is just routine life in that part of the world.

[perthblue02]

Saw a poster the other day which read:

One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in gun regulation.

While I don't understand the American obsession with guns nor the concept one cannot enjoy freedom without a gun I do agree it has nothing to do with the rest of us.

What I do find impossible to understand is why a country does not demand its government take action. It does appear, as Obama said, these shootings are just routine. The price some Americans have to pay so the rest are free to carry guns. Certainly for me the shootings have just become another news item, no shock, no surprise, it is just routine life in that part of the world.

Unfortunately even if the sensible ones in America demanded to take action, the NRA have very deep pockets that includes both a wealth of cash and a host of American politicians , probably the same politicians that receive Christmas pressies from the munitions industry.

Perhaps an ideal scenario so they can still keep playing at being cowboys and stick to the 2nd amendment that they love would be to limit gun ownership for the general public to the type of weapon that was available when the 2nd amendment was first enacted. That would be a fair compromise wouldn't it?

[Steve Moss]

Some interesting stats in this article. In the USA over the last 20 years (1993-2013), gun homicides have decreased 49% even as gun ownership has increased 56%.

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

[Mike E]

More mass shootings than days in the 2015 calendar (as of Dec 5th, anyway) tells me even more.

[Steve Moss]

The USA vs. Europe comparison of mass shootings:

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/compared-to-europe-the-us-falls-in-rank-for-fatalities-and-frequency-of-mass-public-shootings-now-ranks-11th-in-fatalities-and-12th-in-frequency/