Charlton Heston Dies, Age 84

[Bazzlad]

Follow this logic.

Legal hand guns banned to decrease gun crime.

Amount of illegal hand guns rise dramatically.

Gun Crime rises dramatically.

Conclusion - The ban was knee jerk, reactionary and failed in its purpose.

[Salazaar]

Follow this logic.

Legal hand guns banned to decrease gun crime.

Amount of illegal hand guns rise dramatically.

Gun Crime rises dramatically.

Conclusion - The ban was knee jerk, reactionary and failed in its purpose.

That logic is wrong.

1. Guns have been banned. 2. Gun crime has risen.

But unless you have a control group (country) in which guns had not been banned but all other conditions (i.e. it must be the same Britain in all other respects) remained the same you cannot say that the one is related (much less the cause) of the other.

Learn how statisticts work before you quote them.


And you still haven't come up with a good reason for allowing guns yet.

[Bazzlad]

And I've still yet to hear a good argument for letting all and sundry have access to tools explicitly designed to kill.

We all have tools that can kill. I can get my hands right now on a golf club, an Axe, a massive knife, a car, a house brick, my fists.

Now with all the weapons in place around me would a gun make me more likely to decide to kill someone? No.

If you're going to do it, you're going to do it.

As previously stated, I like the New Jersey Gun Laws, which are the most stringent in the US, but even this doesn't deter gun crime...

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:

* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.

* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

So what's the solution?

See the way I look at it is like this.
I'm a criminal. With a gun. and I want to rob someone.
I know that handguns are illegal, thus I have the ace in the hole.
Robbery Committed.

or

I'm a criminal. With a gun. and I want to rob someone.
I know that handguns are legal, thus I have a massive chance of confronting someone else who is armed.
Robbery Committed?

I'll be honest, I'm not sure on what would work best, all I know, is that when I move to the US, I will get a gun licence, and I will keep a handgun, locked in a safe, in my bedroom.

*Strange feeling here, I don't usually debate on something I'm not 100% sure and made up on. But this is a big can of worms!*

[Bazzlad]

That logic is wrong.

1. Guns have been banned. 2. Gun crime has risen.

But unless you have a control group (country) in which guns had not been banned but all other conditions (i.e. it must be the same Britain in all other respects) remained the same you cannot say that the one is related (much less the cause) of the other.

Learn how statisticts work before you quote them.

Simple question - has gun crime fallen since the ban?

Simple answer - no.

I'd love to have a control group, but this is REAL LIFE not an experiement, and you can only work with what you have, the simple fact is guns are banned and guns have risen.

[Salazaar]

Simple question - has gun crime fallen since the ban?

Simple answer - no.

I'd love to have a control group, but this is REAL LIFE not an experiement, and you can only work with what you have, the simple fact is guns are banned and guns have risen.

Those are facts, individually, but you have no way of telling that gun crime wouldn't have gone up anyway, or to what extent.

So I'll ask again, what reason is there to allow the general public to arm themselves with lethal weapons and do you actually think that doings so would have a positive impact on crime?

[nichomach]

That logic is wrong.
1. Guns have been banned. 2. Gun crime has risen.
But unless you have a control group (country) in which guns had not been banned but all other conditions (i.e. it must be the same Britain in all other respects) remained the same you cannot say that the one is related (much less the cause) of the other.
Learn how statisticts work before you quote them.
And you still haven't come up with a good reason for allowing guns yet.

The problem that you've got is that the ban was passed with the express purpose of reducing gun crime; that's what we were told it would do, and it has signally failed. Or to look at it with your own logic, it was asserted by proponents of the ban that there was a correlation between gun control and gun crime and that the increase in control would lead to a decrease in the crime. That has signally failed to occur. It should have been then, and should be now, the responsibility of those wishing to reduce or remove a liberty to prove the case for doing so. They didn't then, and they haven't since. All that happened was a kneejerk reaction to a lone nutter who if the firearms legislation at the time had been applied properly wouldn't have had guns in the first place.

edit: I'd also note that talking about the general public "arming themselves" is frankly a crass appeal to emotionalism. I'm not suggesting a US-style absence of reasonable licensing and control, merely that with proper regulation people should be allowed to shoot for sporting purposes.

[Salazaar]

We have perfectly good controls on guns (other than handguns) for those that actually need them. As far as I can see there are no good reasons for owning handguns at all, sorry sport just isn't a good enough reason in my book.

And yes, I agree that the legislation controlling handguns came in in order to reduce gun crime. You say that hasn't happened, I say who knows...? As I've said before we have no way of knowing what the crime statistics would be were handguns still available - it can't be proven either way.

What I am saying is that I feel safer knowing that there is an attempt to control the use of guns than if they were more freely available.

You meantion liberty, but why should we be allowed to own handguns? What reason to any of us have to actually own them?

[Bazzlad]

What I am saying is that I feel safer knowing that there is an attempt to control the use of guns than if they were more freely available.

Talk about a comfort blanket!

Did you not read the facts - there are MORE guns in the UK now than when hand guns were legal and controlled! So you carry on feeling safe despite having a higher percentage of being involved in a gun related crime!

As stated, for once, I'm undecided on this, but don't mind playing devil's advocate whilst learning.

[Salazaar]

As stated, for once, I'm undecided on this, but don't mind playing devil's advocate whilst learning.

Then do it.

Ignore my feelings on the subject and give me some good reasons why handgun ownership is necessary and should be allowed.

[nichomach]

We have perfectly good controls on guns (other than handguns) for those that actually need them. As far as I can see there are no good reasons for owning handguns at all, sorry sport just isn't a good enough reason in my book.

We read different books...

And yes, I agree that the legislation controlling handguns came in in order to reduce gun crime. You say that hasn't happened, I say who knows...? As I've said before we have no way of knowing what the crime statistics would be were handguns still available - it can't be proven either way.

Actually, we can say with certainty that the vast majority of firearms related crime was committed with illegally held firearms prior to the ban and that that continues to be the case after the ban. Firearms legislation has had no effect on that at all - as was predicted prior to the ban - and that continues to increase. Criminals don't apply for firearms certificates. Set against that, we have an assertion that we don't know whether there'd be any more committed if the ban didn't exist, which is proposed as a justification for the ban. I propose a ban on walking down the street without snapping your fingers; I've heard that it's good for keeping tigers away .

What I am saying is that I feel safer knowing that there is an attempt to control the use of guns than if they were more freely available.

I would never suggest unrestricted ownership; I favour a return to the previous licensing régime, which, as noted, would have prevented Dunblane if certain senior police officers hadn't overruled the officer who assessed Hamilton as unfit to hold a FAC.

You meantion liberty, but why should we be allowed to own handguns? What reason to any of us have to actually own them?

Wrong question; you shouldn't have to produce a good reason to enjoy a liberty, others should have to produce a good reason to take it away. There are a lot of sports which serve no social utility that involve dangerous equipment and where, despite regulation, bad things happen. Private individuals may drive ludicrously fast cars around tracks, or pilot aircraft, speedboats etc - these aren't activities undertaken for any reason other than enjoyment. We're not talking about people driving to work or whatever, we're talking about people doing things for recreation which involve some degree of hazard, in many cases not merely to themselves but to the public at large. Are we going to ban track days and private pilots' licenses? Water skiing or racing boats? I'd say that we shouldn't, but that we should balance the liberty to participate in an exciting sport with sensible well-founded regulation. With regard to firearms, that balance has been lost.

[Bazzlad]

Then do it.

Ignore my feelings on the subject and give me some good reasons why handgun ownership is necessary and should be allowed.

I did 3 posts back - when handgun restrictions are put in place, gun crime increase as has been proven here and in the US.

[Salazaar]

Actually, we can say with certainty that the vast majority of firearms related crime was committed with illegally held firearms prior to the ban and that that continues to be the case after the ban. Firearms legislation has had no effect on that at all - as was predicted prior to the ban - and that continues to increase. Criminals don't apply for firearms certificates. Set against that, we have an assertion that we don't know whether there'd be any more committed if the ban didn't exist, which is proposed as a justification for the ban. I propose a ban on walking down the street without snapping your fingers; I've heard that it's good for keeping tigers away .

So you're saying that no crime has ever been commited by someone using a licensed handgun? Isn't it better to restrict the ownership of hanguns and inconvienince a few sportsmen than put any additional risk in already violent society?

And before anyone moans about cotton wool or whatever, I'm only talking about handguns. Despite that the same arguments could be leveled at rifles and shotguns, at least they do have limited practical use to those who require them.

I would never suggest unrestricted ownership; I favour a return to the previous licensing régime, which, as noted, would have prevented Dunblane if certain senior police officers hadn't overruled the officer who assessed Hamilton as unfit to hold a FAC.

Wrong question; you shouldn't have to produce a good reason to enjoy a liberty, others should have to produce a good reason to take it away. There are a lot of sports which serve no social utility that involve dangerous equipment and where, despite regulation, bad things happen. Private individuals may drive ludicrously fast cars around tracks, or pilot aircraft, speedboats etc - these aren't activities undertaken for any reason other than enjoyment. We're not talking about people driving to work or whatever, we're talking about people doing things for recreation which involve some degree of hazard, in many cases not merely to themselves but to the public at large. Are we going to ban track days and private pilots' licenses? Water skiing or racing boats? I'd say that we shouldn't, but that we should balance the liberty to participate in an exciting sport with sensible well-founded regulation. With regard to firearms, that balance has been lost.

You're comparing taking vehicles desgned for practical (and in today's society often essential) purposes and racing them in controlled environments to the ownership of weapons with no purpose other than to take life which happen also to also be used in sporting circles. The logical extention of that argument is that we shouldn't just relax the regulation of pistols but also of automatic and assault weapons... after all if people can aim them at a target they must have the right to do so, right?

[Salazaar]

I did 3 posts back - when handgun restrictions are put in place, gun crime increase as has been proven here and in the US.

And I told you that argument is b*****ks since all you have is two seperate points and no way of proving a definitive link between them.

[Bazzlad]

weapons with no purpose other than to take life

Uses of guns:
Target Shooting.
Hunting.
Law Enforcement.
Protection.
Novelty Doorstop.

A nice quote here:
If firearms were never invented we would still be killing others with swords. If swords were never invented we would still be using rocks and clubs. No matter what you do people are going to kill others.

[nichomach]

So you're saying that no crime has ever been commited by someone using a licensed handgun?

No; but the most commonly cited examples would have been eliminated by the correct application of the law at the time, and the number of crimes committed with legal as opposed to illegal weapons is vanishingly small.

You're comparing taking vehicles desgned for practical (and in today's society often essential) purposes...

What, Cessnas? Radicals? Powerboats? Don't talk daft; they have NOTHING to do with practical purposes other than (perhaps) a simlar number of wheels or having a hull.

...and racing them in controlled environments

Like using firearms at a shooting club or shooting event, which are also controlled circumstances.

to the ownership of weapons with no purpose other than to take life

Nonsense; presumably you would outlaw archery - after all the bow and arrow have no other purpose than to take life, right? Of course, in reality they may have had their origin in hunting (which has nothing to do with taking human life) or warfare, but have developed into sports which have no more than a tangential association with such origins. Trust me, they don't use live targets at Bisley. Theoretically, if we are removing the right to use any such weapons, we then ought to ban the discus, javelin, hammer, shot-putting, fencing... A nonsense, of course; we look at the sport, not its origin, and before you claim that those are purely historical weapons, thousands of people die from blunt or sharp trauma inflicted with similar weapons every day.

which are primarily used in sporting circles.

Fixed for you .

The logical extention of that argument is that we shouldn't just relax the regulation of pistols but also of automatic and assault weapons... after all if people can aim them at a target they must have the right to do so, right?

Ah, the slippery slope/reductio ab absurdium; no, you strike a balance between a legitimate sporting use (no-one's argued for the reintroduction of automatic weapons or assault weapons), and no-one suggests that there are sporting uses for machine guns; presumably, however, you wouldn't deny that there are legitimate pistol target events? Events which bear no relation to any circumstance involving the taking of any life, human or animal? And which may also be carried out in controlled circumstances? There you go.

[JPreston]

All illegal firearms, started out as legal firearms. Banning legal firearms restricts the supply of potential illegal guns. Does anyone believe that it's easier or cheaper to obtain a black-market gun in this country than the US? Or that it's more commonplace for UK criminals to carry guns, than US criminals?

Also, allowing me to carry a gun does not restore to me the security I lose by allowing everyone else to carry them. I don't want to be getting into mexican standoffs and John Woo style shootouts every time I jostle for a parking space.

And bazzlad, I hope you've registered your fists as deadly weapons.