Another Shooting in America

[Monkeys Fist 42444]

The others ducked?

[Graing 15]

Let us know how many shots you take

 

Relax, it was the miniature variety... and air hockey. No one was injured or senselessly murdered in the activities

[Graing 15]

 

not really name calling, i was referring to americans as gun crazy, my apologies if i offended you.

 

just pointing out the facts

 

Populations: US 313 (ish) million , Canada 34(ish) million

 

# of guns (civilians): US (270-310) million, Canada 9.95 million

 

in the US total # of homicides in 2011 (15,953), # of gun homicides (11,101) about 69.5%

 

in Canada # of homicides in 2011 (529), # of gun homicides (173) about 32.7%

 

maybe the regulations we have are working.

 

Not offended mate. Put off by generalizations and such. Your numbers don't really tell the story. So of homicides, Americans use guns more often than Canadians (who are much more skilled with a B.C. two-hander or a good cross-check) in perpetrating said crimes . Not very meaningful.

 

Yep the US is tops in gun ownership with about 88 out of 100 on average owning guns. Despite the fact that they are clear and away the most "gun crazy" as you put it, they aren't even top 30 in gun murders per capita globally. And the position is skewed mostly by data from Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans. Rife with gang crime with illegal arms.

 

Here are some facts on guns and crime ...

 

A Harvard study shows that banning guns has actually seen an increase in crime:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

 

 

And how has the gun ban worked out in England and Wales?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

 

 

 

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

 

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

 

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

 

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

 

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear.

 

Well how about down under?

 

The Australian Bureau of Criminology states its murder rate in 2006 with firearms was the highest ever at 16.3 percent. The ban started in 1997.

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent, robbery 6.2 percent, sexual assault/rape 29.2 percent and overall crime rose 42.2 percent.

Since the ban, women in Australia are 3 times more likely to be raped than women in the US.

 

 

Beyond that, I think some might have a misconception of the so-called gun nuts in the U.S. It's not the wild, wild west folks. I'll let the cat out of the bag here - and probably crystallize the opinion some of you now have of me. I belong to a gun club. There it's out We have a few hundred people as members of our club. Great range facilities: indoor, 3 outdoor at different distances, trap and skeet, clubhouse. We might have a quarter to a third of our members show up at meetings and that's enough to jam pack the hall. Thing is, most members, myself included, are there maybe 3 times a year for non-event time. Most guys will go down twice a year to sight their rifles in for deer season and that's it. There's more activity with outreach programs like Pheasants Forever which is a youth program that focuses on things like conservation, nature, gun safety, etc. People aren't prowling the streets with a piece and 3 or 4 mags in their waistband. The typical guy will have his rifle out a couple times a year and for hunting season. A guy may carry if he has to venture into a place like Detroit or Flint at night, but the new Chief of police in Detroit has even advised homeowners to arm themselves for their own protection (Detroit is a topic we can go on about for pages). Even though it's popular to glamorize and sensationalize the thug lifestyle that occurs in the bad parts of some big cities - that's not America.

[Ken 119]

Dumb Yank pricks. They'll never learn.

[Graing 15]

Lol did someone just try and use UK gun crime doubling to justify banning guns doesn't work? Seriously?

Doubling from nearly fuck all to pretty much fck all isn't much to try underline an argument

 

Even with the troubles in Northern Ireland on our main 6 o'clock news for our capital city we have stories of someone being burgled or a car stolen, like fuck will ya get that in the states unless it's at least it's a double homicide with it.

 

We've all watched the shield and know the score!

 

 

Having a bit of fun throwing out that Daily Mail article

 

Some silly stats were thrown out there, so I posted a Harvard study that supports my opinion. The trends from Australia are harder to dismiss as is the internal data on a state by state basis in the US regarding issue of carry permits. Of course the issue is a little too complex to really explain away with crime stats.

 

I also tend to subscribe to Mark Twain's opinion on statistics.

 

Now excuse me while I go roll around in my pile of guns in the basement.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Graing

[Rayvin 5223]

Ok so, this is actually one of the more interesting debates I've seen about this, largely because Graing is a gun advocate. My view is in line with most other people on here I'm afraid mate, although I will say that you're right in terms of us looking at it through a certain cultural standpoint. What I am confident of, is that if guns were available over here, they'd all be owned by the people you wouldn't want to own them. Your average Brit wouldn't touch one. As such, we'd just be militarising the criminal element.

 

Also on knives - we're fucking strict on knives. You can't leave the house with anything bigger than a pen knife these days, and even then you wouldn't mention you had one. They're easy to buy though, and I must confess to having a few swords myself (although curiously, it is illegal to buy/move them anywhere, but legal for them to be in my house )

 

The guys who killed that soldier in London - firstly, London is a very different place to somewhere like Newcastle. I very much doubt they'd have managed it up here without being stopped in some form. The other thing is that it's such a once in a lifetime occurrence, that most people probably didn't understand what they were seeing - and by the time it became obvious, it would have been too late.

 

As for America, it's your country, and you'll inevitably know it better than us - but can I at least ask this: If you could be certain that banning guns would reduce the loss of life dramatically, would that justification be sufficient for you to support such a move? Or is the loss of life a necessary, weighted cost for something that is in actual fact a cultural issue, rather than a statistical one? And I'm not judging on it either way, I'm just curious.

[Gejon 2]

The argument seems to be "We have a shit load more guns so obviously more people will get shot, duhhh!" mixed with a bit of "If more people were shooting each other people would shoot less people"

 

I love these views to gun crime. They should plant more IED's around Iraq as the terrorists might step on them

[Graing 15]

Ok so, this is actually one of the more interesting debates I've seen about this, largely because Graing is a gun advocate. My view is in line with most other people on here I'm afraid mate, although I will say that you're right in terms of us looking at it through a certain cultural standpoint. What I am confident of, is that if guns were available over here, they'd all be owned by the people you wouldn't want to own them. Your average Brit wouldn't touch one. As such, we'd just be militarising the criminal element.

 

Also on knives - we're fucking strict on knives. You can't leave the house with anything bigger than a pen knife these days, and even then you wouldn't mention you had one. They're easy to buy though, and I must confess to having a few swords myself (although curiously, it is illegal to buy/move them anywhere, but legal for them to be in my house )

 

The guys who killed that soldier in London - firstly, London is a very different place to somewhere like Newcastle. I very much doubt they'd have managed it up here without being stopped in some form. The other thing is that it's such a once in a lifetime occurrence, that most people probably didn't understand what they were seeing - and by the time it became obvious, it would have been too late.

 

As for America, it's your country, and you'll inevitably know it better than us - but can I at least ask this: If you could be certain that banning guns would reduce the loss of life dramatically, would that justification be sufficient for you to support such a move? Or is the loss of life a necessary, weighted cost for something that is in actual fact a cultural issue, rather than a statistical one? And I'm not judging on it either way, I'm just curious.

 

Interesting question Rayvin. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". America is still a constitutional republic (though drifting away) with states and municipalities having local jurisdiction on most laws. Because of this, you can see differences from state to state or city to city where it comes to crime, etc. The large cities with the tightest restrictions on guns have the worst problem with gun violence. Chicago has some of the tightest restrictions on weapons and has one of the worst gun violence problems. The same is true for smaller islands of law, such as schools, military bases, etc. Declaring a locality a "gun free zone" guarantees two things: 1) upright, law abiding citizens will obey the law and avoid the location or go in without protection, assuming that the locality has assumed the responsibility for protecting them. 2) criminals will mark the place as an easy target with laws on gun restrictions in the area secondary to the other laws they are intent on breaking.

 

Let me give you an example here. A young guy that worked for me went to a very good engineering school here which happened to be in one of the toughest cities in the state and country. He was a gun enthusiast and had a carry permit. He lived just off campus with a few mates and they rode or walked around campus for the most part to and from classes, etc. There had been a number of robberies on campus - some at gunpoint, some at knifepoint or other means - typically after hours in dark places one should avoid walking in dangerous cities. He and his mates knew the hot zones and mostly stayed away from them. The university then declared that the campus was a "gun-free zone". After this happened he was talking with me. He told me that he had a real dilemma as robberies had INCREASED. He told me that some of his mates had been held up (at gunpoint) at 10:00 in the morning ON CAMPUS while moving between classes. This was also not a freak random occurrence and such incidents had multiplied and moved from the dark of night on the fringe of campus to on campus during the day time. He had to struggle with his conscience knowing the criminal had no such struggle. It was a real windfall for the criminal element - these days the kids have laptops, iphones, tablets, cash. Too tempting for the criminal element to pass by - especially knowing that there is a low probability that the prey will fight back. Just as in nature, the predator chooses the weakest and most defenseless. They go after a young calf instead of a large solid bull. The "gun-free zone" had turned the college students into young calves. It's anecdotal, but a story from personal experience with a very upright and conscientious young man that worked for me. It is a microcosm that illustrates very well that, despite their good intentions, the authorities are setting people up to be victimized in these locations as they have not the resources or foresight to step in and provide for the security which has been usurped. You can find stories like this across America with school shootings (primarily), theaters and military bases - all locations where people are deprived of the right to defend themselves.

 

All this aside, your chance of being murdered by a gun in the U.S. is around 0.004%. And that chance goes way down if you are not an idiot and know places and situations to avoid. America is a big place with a lot of people. There are other concerns though with gun restrictions. Our founding fathers explicitly guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in our constitution. The primary intent of this is something that most folk don't like to talk about. What was the first thing that Hitler did? Banned personal firearm ownership. Fascists across the world through history have had a disarmed populace or had them disarmed prior to or as they took power. Our founding fathers were very wary of the consolidation of power into a central / federal government. It's clear throughout all of the documents that the intent was and is a republic with state and local government to serve the populace.

 

I'm not very good at this, so let me cite someone who is. This is Thomas Jefferson from 1787:

"...If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure..."

 

[ewerk 30610]

You realise that quoting a letter written when your country consisted of only 13 states/colonies may not be relevant to gun control in the 21st century? Unless you're planning a rebellion of your own.

[Meenzer 15526]

Trying to persuade an American not to take literally an archaic text that was written for very different circumstances? Good luck with that.

[ewerk 30610]

Well this shooting likely wouldn't have happened at all if it weren't for the third amendment preventing the quartering of troops in citizens' houses during peacetime. It's all relevant.

[Ausman 0]

 

Interesting question Rayvin. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". America is still a constitutional republic (though drifting away) with states and municipalities having local jurisdiction on most laws. Because of this, you can see differences from state to state or city to city where it comes to crime, etc. The large cities with the tightest restrictions on guns have the worst problem with gun violence. Chicago has some of the tightest restrictions on weapons and has one of the worst gun violence problems. The same is true for smaller islands of law, such as schools, military bases, etc. Declaring a locality a "gun free zone" guarantees two things: 1) upright, law abiding citizens will obey the law and avoid the location or go in without protection, assuming that the locality has assumed the responsibility for protecting them. 2) criminals will mark the place as an easy target with laws on gun restrictions in the area secondary to the other laws they are intent on breaking.

 

Let me give you an example here. A young guy that worked for me went to a very good engineering school here which happened to be in one of the toughest cities in the state and country. He was a gun enthusiast and had a carry permit. He lived just off campus with a few mates and they rode or walked around campus for the most part to and from classes, etc. There had been a number of robberies on campus - some at gunpoint, some at knifepoint or other means - typically after hours in dark places one should avoid walking in dangerous cities. He and his mates knew the hot zones and mostly stayed away from them. The university then declared that the campus was a "gun-free zone". After this happened he was talking with me. He told me that he had a real dilemma as robberies had INCREASED. He told me that some of his mates had been held up (at gunpoint) at 10:00 in the morning ON CAMPUS while moving between classes. This was also not a freak random occurrence and such incidents had multiplied and moved from the dark of night on the fringe of campus to on campus during the day time. He had to struggle with his conscience knowing the criminal had no such struggle. It was a real windfall for the criminal element - these days the kids have laptops, iphones, tablets, cash. Too tempting for the criminal element to pass by - especially knowing that there is a low probability that the prey will fight back. Just as in nature, the predator chooses the weakest and most defenseless. They go after a young calf instead of a large solid bull. The "gun-free zone" had turned the college students into young calves. It's anecdotal, but a story from personal experience with a very upright and conscientious young man that worked for me. It is a microcosm that illustrates very well that, despite their good intentions, the authorities are setting people up to be victimized in these locations as they have not the resources or foresight to step in and provide for the security which has been usurped. You can find stories like this across America with school shootings (primarily), theaters and military bases - all locations where people are deprived of the right to defend themselves.

 

All this aside, your chance of being murdered by a gun in the U.S. is around 0.004%. And that chance goes way down if you are not an idiot and know places and situations to avoid. America is a big place with a lot of people. There are other concerns though with gun restrictions. Our founding fathers explicitly guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in our constitution. The primary intent of this is something that most folk don't like to talk about. What was the first thing that Hitler did? Banned personal firearm ownership. Fascists across the world through history have had a disarmed populace or had them disarmed prior to or as they took power. Our founding fathers were very wary of the consolidation of power into a central / federal government. It's clear throughout all of the documents that the intent was and is a republic with state and local government to serve the populace.

 

I'm not very good at this, so let me cite someone who is. This is Thomas Jefferson from 1787:

 

 

Just that bit you said that I highlighted. I find that a bit strange because in the 2003 in the United States alone you had over 30,000 gun related deaths, in that same year Canada had six, Australia 10 and Germany 2 . Just think that's a staggering amount of people dying from guns. Let just add they weren't all crime related a lot were because of accidents.

[ewerk 30610]

Where are the guns used in crimes coming from? As far as I can see the majority are coming from those: purchased legally, illegally sold by licensed dealers, bought at gun shows and those bought through straw purchases.

 

In all these situations greater gun control would have have an effect on the supply of firearms to criminals.

[trophyshy 7083]

Trying to persuade an American not to take literally an archaic text that was written for very different circumstances? Good luck with that.

Jesus died so we could try though.

[The Fish 10857]

 

 

I'm not very good at this, so let me cite someone who is. This is Thomas Jefferson from 1787:

 

[Graing 15]

All good posts gents, and I appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

I think that I may not have been successful in conveying my primary (macro level) point on this.

 

Here is some additional info on fatalities in the US from the latest CDC numbers:

All injury deaths

• Number of deaths: 180,811
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 58.6

All poisoning deaths

• Number of deaths: 42,917
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,687
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 31,672
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
• (About a third of these are suicide)

 

All Drug poisoning deaths

• Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)

Incidentally, there are approximately 1,200,000 abortions per year in the US

 

Should we ban automobiles and drugs as well? They kill more people.

 

Anyway, it's a much more nuanced topic than boiling it down to crime statistics and comparing the US to other countries. There are other significant considerations.

 

As I said though, good points gents. I don't expect to convert any of you over to my way of thinking, and I certainly don't seem to have the debate skills to get the points across that I intended.

 

Cheers! And 'Uncle'

[Gejon 2]

Old age kills loads of people, we should ban that before guns.

[Meenzer 15526]

Just ban dying. Problem solved.

[Gejon 2]

Just ban dying. Problem solved.

That would save a lot of lives.

[ewerk 30610]

What was it you were saying about Mark Twain?

[The Fish 10857]

All good posts gents, and I appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

I think that I may not have been successful in conveying my primary (macro level) point on this.

 

Here is some additional info on fatalities in the US from the latest CDC numbers:

All injury deaths

• Number of deaths: 180,811
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 58.6

All poisoning deaths

• Number of deaths: 42,917
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,687
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 31,672
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
• (About a third of these are suicide)

 

All Drug poisoning deaths

• Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)

Incidentally, there are approximately 1,200,000 abortions per year in the US

 

Should we ban automobiles and drugs as well? They kill more people.

 

Anyway, it's a much more nuanced topic than boiling it down to crime statistics and comparing the US to other countries. There are other significant considerations.

 

As I said though, good points gents. I don't expect to convert any of you over to my way of thinking, and I certainly don't seem to have the debate skills to get the points across that I intended.

 

Cheers! And 'Uncle'

How many of those cars were designed with the sole purpose of causing injury or death? How many of those drugs have been fabricated purely to cause harm.

 

Guns are designed to kill. That is their function. Your right to bear arms was included as a direct response to the fear of the kind of tyranny you fought a war to escape. It's to allow people to easily form a militia. It's not there to allow untrained, undisciplined (or blind) people access to guns like this:

 

 

 

The reason they’re legal today is because in 1986 a law was passed that any fully automatic weapon constructed before then was legal to own.

 

Or this:

 

 

Do you think Americans have more freedom than we do, or the Swiss, or the Australians? This "to protect your freedom" line is strange. You're not North Korea

 

I get that some people like guns, but surely, surely, you'd be happy enough being vetted and licensed to own your guns, leaving them at the gun club and that kind of thing? Where's the harm? If having to fill in a few forms and wait a couple of weeks stops some school kid mowing down his classmates, surely that's a price worth paying?

 

You guys are so worried that you'll be killed by maniacs with guns that you want guns of your own, oblivious to the fact that you're making it easy for maniacs to get guns.

 

It's just not the actions of a civilised country.

Read more at http://www.omg-facts.com/Business/It-s-legal-to-own-a-minigun-in-the-US/52406#45jr6Q7mAg1wwlhQ.99

[tooner 243]

What was it you were saying about Mark Twain?

[Rayvin 5223]

To be fair to Graing, his comments come from a situation that is entirely different to ours. He may well be right that by making guns available in the first place, the US has opened a Pandora's box that, if it attempts to close, will likely result in short/medium term increases in crime (as criminals will be the last to hand their weapons in, and will be immediately empowered as the rest of the country does so). This makes it different from us simply saying we wouldn't introduce them as they kill people.

 

I still think I'd argue that the long term benefits are higher with gun eradication, but at the same time, we have no idea how long it would take to remove them from circulation in any meaningful way, what the effects of doing so would be in less well policed areas, or even to what extent the likely resurgent black market for prohibited guns would be able to circumvent many of the controls.

[Graing 15]

Fish,

 

It's not as if we hand out free guns with every McDonald's Happy Meal. We do have a national database and a background check that is required before you are allowed to purchase. The serial number of every weapon sold is recorded and available to the authorities after the background check comes back and shows no felony arrests, history of mental illness, etc. etc. Think you are exaggerating how easy it is for psychos to legally obtain a weapon. FYI, the kid in the last school shooting was not able to legally purchase a weapon and used his mother's. How and why he had access is difficult to imagine and irresponsible.

 

Re freedom, tyranny, North Korea, etc.

No of course we aren't that bad. Do you not think it can happen again? Have you not seen it in less developed countries recently? Are you familiar with the Boston Marathon and the defacto martial law that ensued when the city of Boston was locked down afterwards?

Could never happen again mate. The stories surrounding the lockdown aren't widely known. The picture above just scratches the surface.

Also, not sure how aware you are of things like the IRS scandal (the IRS being used as a political weapon - admittedly! - to punish "tea party" and pro-life groups); the NSA spying on US citizens' email, internet transactions, etc. while ignoring warnings on the Tsarnev brothers; the D.O.J. dismissing videotaped cases of voter fraud and intimidation because they were intimidating or defrauding the group not in power (see the Black Panther in Philadelphia), the D.O.J. stating openly that there are certain laws that they will not prosecute and telling the States attorneys general that they are not obligated to prosecute certain laws.

I can go on. Corruption is increasing exponentially, but they are being smart about it - turning the water temp up slowly so the frogs won't jump. Small groups wake up here and there and get audited, no-knock raids, etc. The bulk of the people though just want to know when American Idol or the game is on or when the last time they checked Facebook was.

 

Vetting, etc. I have no problem with, as I said we have a national database and I gladly submitted to a background check. I wish the bureaucracy was more efficient at updating the database and policing it, but that is the type of trouble with any government project.

 

Leaving my guns at the club? Actually my guns are locked in a safe all but three days a year or so (sadly, need to find time to get out more actually). It's the responsible thing to do and most folks do exactly this. We protect our children from accidents, our property from theft, etc. So it seems we are in agreement here. At the same time, I would not refuse a citizen's right to keep their arms so that they can protect themselves and their families when necessary. I have the good fortune to live in a friendly and upstanding area. There are plenty of folk that, usually due to circumstances beyond their control, are forced to live and or work in very high crime areas. I would never tell them that they shouldn't have the right to arm themselves and protect their families from hardened criminals who seek to do great bodily harm.

 

We're not all so worried that we'll be killed by maniacs that we have gone gun crazy. Most gun owners have guns because they love the shooting sports, the engineering, like to live off the land and feed their families, etc. Self defense is often a secondary consideration in all honesty, but for those in difficult places I would not begrudge them that option.The bottom line is that the crazies that come out once a year or so are really outliers all things considered. It's a horrible thing and I wish it wouldn't happen - but it is exacerbated by disarming the victims. You can say that this wouldn't be the issue if the criminals didn't have access... but they do.

 

You can go on and think that we are not civilized over here, that's your prerogative. I think your view is quite skewed however. I don't blame you for that as I have seen what the media reports and what they don't report. I also live in the thick of it. I choose from time to time to take risks to go down to a concert or a hockey game, but I am sensible about it (as much as I can be). I've only been hassled once or twice, and have never packed because, while I affirm my fellow citizen's right to do so, it's not right for me. If I were living in different circumstances, I might rethink that. Does that make me uncivilized? So be it.

 

Since I am fond of old dead white men and what they wrote and said, I'll leave you with another quote - this from Franklin:

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

You may think there are no wolves left in the world. But they still prowl about. They are more cunning these days and they are still there.

 

Oh and re: Mark Twain. Yeah, I still subscribe... facts are stubborn things, statistics are more pliable. (I'll still toss them out from time to time though).

 

Rayvin : Thanks for the post. Was the bloodletting I was taking starting to make you squeamish? It is me!

That is a very good point you make and one that I probably failed to get across : You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. I firmly believe that - particularly in a place as "uncivilized" and as large as America with the most porous international borders in the world, the vast criminal underground networks and markets, and the obscene amount of political and municipal corruption.

 

It's been a beating, but I'm happy to be your pinata fellas. Get it out of your system, you'll feel better Seriously though some good points and questions (and barbs).

 

(...edit...)

Sorry Ant and all for getting your forum on the NSA watch list

Edited April 8, 2014 by Graing

[The Fish 10857]

To be fair to Graing, his comments come from a situation that is entirely different to ours. He may well be right that by making guns available in the first place, the US has opened a Pandora's box that, if it attempts to close, will likely result in short/medium term increases in crime (as criminals will be the last to hand their weapons in, and will be immediately empowered as the rest of the country does so). This makes it different from us simply saying we wouldn't introduce them as they kill people.

 

I still think I'd argue that the long term benefits are higher with gun eradication, but at the same time, we have no idea how long it would take to remove them from circulation in any meaningful way, what the effects of doing so would be in less well policed areas, or even to what extent the likely resurgent black market for prohibited guns would be able to circumvent many of the controls.

 

 

Took Australia 4 weeks to enforce their gun legislation.

 

Look, Graing, I look at the rest of the Western World, with all their liberties and their gun legislation and I don't worry for their liberty or their safety. You speak of "taking a risk" by going to a concert or a Hockey game. That one sentence sums up the issue. You anticipate a greater risk of gun violence. This is understandable because your country has lots of guns on the streets, one in the wrong hands can cause mayhem. I don't believe putting 500 around that one bad one would stop death by gunshot wound. Do you?

 

Brixton is an area of gang crime, of illegal gun possession, of all kinds of things that would worry a fella. I used to live there, never felt the need to carry a gun, a knife or anything more dangerous than a scowl. Whenever I went to a gig, I didn't feel a greater risk of gunshot trauma.

 

Just another thing, you've brought up abortion and so called "pro-life" a couple of times. That's a sticky wicket I'd recommend steering well clear of.

Edited April 8, 2014 by The Fish