Gun control is necessary

[William Rea]

From the outset, I am English and I oppose general ownership of firearms.

I have a question to ask about what are termed "illegal firearms" in the UK. When the term "illegal firearms" is used I ask myself if the firearms were produced by an illicit factory somewhere or were they originally legally produced and purchased and then have fallen into misuse? If so then what is the correlation between a vast pool of legal arms being available and the chances of those firearms falling into misuse. It would seem to me that a vast pool of available firearms for self defence is a self defeating proposition because a set percentage will fall into misuse?

I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully. I don't want gun culture exported to my country. I completely understand the pioneer culture of the USA but is it really necessary in an urban environment?

This isn't an exhaustive argument but it gets a few things off my chest!

[richardm]

According to an article in this Saturday's Guardian many guns are smuggled into the country. However, if we did have a vast pool of legal arms I would expect them to be stolen on a fairly regular basis - it is already not uncommon for shotguns to be pinched, and they probably represent the majority of legally held firearms these days.

[clarsct]

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?


Wow.

Erm. Evidence?



Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

[William Rea]

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?
Wow.
Erm. Evidence?
Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

Who are you asking?

[clarsct]

Who are you asking?
You.

[Darat]

...snip...

Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

As is the case for all illegal activities.

[clarsct]

As is the case for all illegal activities.

True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Much closer than the US.

When you make something illegal, all you're saying is that you'll prosecute those who have the banned item, not that the banned item will magically dissappear at your borders.

The guns are simply there because people wish to have them. It is the goverment that makes them illegal, in your specific case.

[richardm]

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?


I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

[William Rea]

So..you contend that the proliferation of guns in the USA causes illegal guns in the UK?
Wow.
Erm. Evidence?
Oh, and the firearms in your country are illegal because the government says they are. No other reason.

No.

We currently have reasonably strict gun control in the UK that prevents a vast pool of "legal" and hence "illegal firearms". There are also regular weapons amnesties where old firearms can be handed into the police anonymously to be destroyed.

I fear that the gun culture of the USA has now been designer wrapped (no pun intended) into the popular culture and that could erode our resistance to general firearms ownership in the UK. The self defeating spiral of owning a legal firearm for self defence will kick into our legislation.

You want me to provide evidence that US cultural norms are successfully exported?

[Darat]

True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia. Much closer than the US.

When you make something illegal, all you're saying is that you'll prosecute those who have the banned item, not that the banned item will magically dissappear at your borders.

The guns are simply there because people wish to have them. It is the goverment that makes them illegal, in your specific case.

Gun ownership (in USA terms) in the UK has been illegal for over 75 years, today there are over 3 million firearms legally owned by private individuals.

UK society does not want guns, successive UK governments have enacted legislation that has on the whole reflected the general view of UK society regarding gun ownership.

[William Rea]

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

Not just the "Gangsta" culture, but yes that is predominant.

I see what you're saying about the Cowboys and Indians thing, I often played soldier games with sticks etc. but I didn't play these fantasy games in late teenage/early 20's years where I believe the biggest problem lies. Despite the Daily Mailesque obsession with painting exceptions to the rule as the norm I don't believe the issue is really about 10 year olds packing heat.

I don't buy into that "Golden age of the 50's" BS anyway.

Love the Daily Mail quote btw.

[William Rea]

Gun ownership (in USA terms) in the UK has been illegal for over 75 years, today there are over 3 million firearms legally owned by private individuals.

UK society does not want guns, successive UK governments have enacted legislation that has on the whole reflected the general view of UK society regarding gun ownership.

Hear, hear.

[The Don]

Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes.

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

[Darat]

...snip...

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

I agree - different strokes and all that.

Whilst the UK and the USA do share a lot in common in regards to culture there are also a lot of rather major differences and these are exposed when it comes to issues like more or less "gun control" (since of course everyone seems to agree that there should be some gun control).

[baron]

To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury.

One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I wouldn't worry too much about the export of this particular part of American culture. We're right next door up here and we have a different view of firearms than American culture does. In Canada, those who oppose gun control usually do so because they wish to have reasonable access for hunting and pest control. In America, opposition is usually based around self-defence and constitutional issues.


Americans tend to get a bit upset when foreign citizens try to tell them what's best for America. Imagine if Charlton Heston came to the United Kingdom and tried to convince you that England needed to relax her gun laws. How would that make you feel?


In my opinion, in Canada at least, a lot of gun control laws are "feel-good" laws that are intended to make it look like politicians are actually doing something about crime. It's an easy answer to a complex problem, and does little to better public safety. Of course some controls are not unreasonable, like prohibiting convicted criminals from posessing firearms, but in North America, and especially the United States, prohibition is ineffective.

[CFLarsen]

True. But obviously there are countries where guns are legal, or at least unregulated, such as Russia.

Wrong.

According to the current version of the Russian law on weapons, citizens have a right to purchase either smooth-bore guns or self-defense weapons, which include gas pistols and revolvers. If a person buys and uses a smooth-bore gun for five years, he or she will have a right to acquire semi-automatic arms. Rifled-bore pistols and revolvers, as well as shortened rifles and carbines are not permitted for open sales.

In Russia, one should have a special license to be able to purchase the officially permitted kinds of weapons. A person is supposed to collect a number of documents, submit them to the adequate licensing department and install a safe to store the weapons in. In the event the department makes a positive decision to issue the license, the future owner of a gun will have to take an exam in weapon handling. The weapons license is issued for the period of five years; it should be prolonged not less than three months before the expiry date. If someone does not want to run from one office to another to collect another package of documents, they can pay from $50 to $500 to a special firm to do all the paperwork.

Moreover, when a person obtains all necessary permissions, he or she will not be allowed to use guns at discretion: every single shot will have to be reported to the nearest police department.
Source (http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9283-10.cfm)

It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.

[Mashuna]

Americans tend to get a bit upset when foreign citizens try to tell them what's best for America. Imagine if Charlton Heston came to the United Kingdom and tried to convince you that England needed to relax her gun laws. How would that make you feel?



Well, I'd be annoyed with him, but at least I wouldn't be able to shoot him for suggesting it. :D

[RandFan]

I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully.How convenient. Blame USA for your problems. Do you have any objective evidence that gun control in Amrica would change anything in your country?

[Darth Rotor]

From the outset, I am English and I oppose general ownership of firearms.
Sheep status noted.
Gun Control is necessary
Indeed. You need to control where your gun is pointed, or you may miss your target.

DR

[RandFan]

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail] Yeah, I'd like some evidence before I started assuming that gun laws or the lack of them in the US had anything significant to do with other countries.

[RandFan]

To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury.

One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? Do you think that it is axiomatic? Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?

[Darat]

An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true? Do you think that it is axiomatic? Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?

Well he did say "To my mind" which I think is indicative that he was expressing his personal beliefs.

However that aside I think there can be in principle a rather simple argument made that it would be,all other things being equal, more rational to have a society without tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another then to have one with tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another i.e.:

People without tools that are designed to efficiently cause harm to one another will be less efficient at causing harm to one another.

[fuelair]

I don't think that is quite what he's saying - I think he's suggesting that the "gangsta" culture is very gun orientated and that is being exported to the UK.

I'm not sure that is the full story however. Back in the 1950s everyone wanted to be a cowboy (or an indian) and yet we didn't have children toting genuine six-shooters around the streets. So there is clearly something else going on. [Daily Mail]I blame the parents/Government/House prices[/Daily Mail]

I blame the Tories!! (No reason - just because everyone else blames Lisa)

[Lonewulf]

To my mind, a civilised society can only progress so far whilst its citizens continue to walk around strapped with lethal armoury.

One way or another, that culture needs to be stamped out. Before the mechanisms for doing so are discussed, people need to realise this basic premise.

I disagree with the premise.

[fuelair]

Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes.

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.
As noted in another thread, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no legal requirement for the police to protect us.

[baron]

An interesting proposition I'll grant you but why should anyone simply accept it as true?

I'm not asking them to. I'm simply saying I don't see a role for killing weapons in a civilised society taken to its logical conclusion.

Is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree?

I expect so, give it a whirl.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Wrong.



It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.



I'm sure Russia has lots of laws regarding firerarms. I'd guess the average citizen could pretty much ignore them, what with the general state of law enforcement in that country.

[Lonewulf]

It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.

????

And Total Gun Control advocates always preach the truth, never use faulty statistics, and never take more out of statistics than is true?

Oooo... kay.

[Lonewulf]

I expect so, give it a whirl.

This is my argument to your premise: If one is armed but does not need to use the weapon that he is armed with, then he may be counted as worse than the man that is unarmed but wants to use the weapon he cannot be armed with, but will accept a substitute.

What makes a society "civil" is not whether or not it's citizens are armed, it's whether or not it's citizens intend to use what they are armed with, and in what manner they decide to. In short, it's attitudes, values, beliefs, and personal desires over what tools the citizens have access to.

For instance, if you have a population of 10,000, and 9,999 intend to only use firearms to defend themselves and are not willing to attack another person without due cause (even if 9,999 of them are armed), with only 1 outcast, then you do not live in an "uncivil" society. If you disagree, then perhaps it's pertinent to understand what "civil" means in this context? (I.E., please define it).

[Metullus]

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.I think that you have hit the nail on the head. There is in the US a strong tradition of self-reliance and self-sufficiency and a disinclination to look to the state for protection. This is reflected not only in our reluctance to disarm but also in our reluctance to turn over to the government responsibility for health care, child care, housing, and the like.

[Tmy]

I think the US gun problem is exaggerated. As for gun control not working, they would work accept you have difft states wh different laws. A strict states laws get sabotaged by the neighboring states weak laws.


We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?

[Lothian]

We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?That is a hideous misrepresentaion. You need to get you facts right. We have a 'football' riots culture not 'soccer'.

[Metullus]

That is a hideous misrepresentaion. You need to get you facts right. We have a 'football' riots culture not 'soccer'."Culture"?

[William Rea]

I wouldn't worry too much about the export of this particular part of American culture. We're right next door up here and we have a different view of firearms than American culture does. In Canada, those who oppose gun control usually do so because they wish to have reasonable access for hunting and pest control. In America, opposition is usually based around self-defence and constitutional issues.

Good point, hadn't considered Canada in the equation.

[William Rea]

How convenient. Blame USA for your problems. Do you have any objective evidence that gun control in Amrica would change anything in your country?

Do you have any objective evidence that it wouldn't?

On the point of blame, I'm sorry but if the cap fits you've got to wear it.

[William Rea]

Here in the UK, we like to portray citizens of the United States as reckless gun toting vigilantes.

I think that this is a symtom of a basic underlying difference between the cultures of the two countries. In the United States you are expected to be self-sufficient whereas there is a greater reliance on the state.

Self protection is a good example. In the United States there seems to be a greater emphasis for self-protection. In the UK we expect the police to protect use. Until we properly understand each other's positions then we appreciate that our basic philosophies are fundamentally different.

UK style gun control simply would not work in the United States. US style freedom to own guns would not work in the UK.

I think it is even more fundamental than all the BS about self reliance etc.

The US preserves the right of an individual to own a gun regardless of the consequences.

The UK preserves the rights of every citizen not to get blown away by a gun.

Neither case being absolutely perfect I know which I prefer. Additionally, it doesn't bother me much how many US citizens blow each other away, that can only assist the gene pool however, I do object to the export of the culture.

That's a coarse way of putting it but reflects how I see it.

The Jamaican Yardie culture isn't much better either.

[William Rea]

I think the US gun problem is exaggerated. As for gun control not working, they would work accept you have difft states wh different laws. A strict states laws get sabotaged by the neighboring states weak laws.


We'll keep out gangsta gun culture as long as you keep your soccer riots culture to yourslef. Deal?

The hooligan culture has largely been addressed at football games. I hate calling them football hooligans because they aren't football fans. I think you need to look to Italy now to see the home of football related violence.

[Irony]

I think it is even more fundamental than all the BS about self reliance etc.

BS? Care to back that statement up?

The US preserves the right of an individual to own a gun regardless of the consequences.

The UK preserves the rights of every citizen not to get blown away by a gun.

False dichotomy. You're trying to make these statements sound mutually exclusive.

Following your logic, does the fact that kitchen knives, scarfs, and hands and feet are legal in the UK mean that the UK does not preserve the rights of every citizen not to get stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death?

[baron]

"Nazi" by post 39, impressive.

[Irony]

"Nazi" by post 39, impressive.

Yeah, I got a little worked up, sorry. I kind of have a personal grudge against racist and racist-like attitudes, but the neo-nazi comparison was a bit much.

[William Rea]

Personally, I don't feel that someone being from a different country is reason enough for me to be so callus about their death. While your opinion isn't technically racism, it shows the same sort of "not our kind" thinking that wouldn't be out of place at a neo-nazi meeting. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as a suggestion that you think about what you are actually saying.

How else am I supposed to take it, should I be gratified that you stop just short of calling me a neo-Nazi?

I thought about what I said and made it perfectly clear where I stood so that there can be no beating around the bush. I get the impression that most USians like direct so, I gave direct instead of my normal liberal hand wringing.

Like Baron said, "Nazi" by post 39 is impressive. I'd add that it cheapens the insult which should be kept for the genuinely dangerous far right and not thrown about like confetti.

[Irony]

How else am I supposed to take it, should I be gratified that you stop just short of calling me a neo-Nazi?

I thought about what I said and made it perfectly clear where I stood so that there can be no beating around the bush. I get the impression that most USians like direct so, I gave direct instead of my normal liberal hand wringing.

Like Baron said, "Nazi" by post 39 is impressive. I'd add that it cheapens the insult which should be kept for the genuinely dangerous far right and not thrown about like confetti.

I appologized above. I assume you didn't see it before you posted.

I still stand by my point though, your attitude towards Americans is strongly bigoted and abhorrent. If you want Americans to consider the actual merits of your argument, then I suggest you stop treating them like sub-humans.

[skeptifem]

I'm not asking them to. I'm simply saying I don't see a role for killing weapons in a civilised society taken to its logical conclusion.


Please define 'civilised society', because I could insert anything I dont like in place of 'killing machines' and have it mean just as much. In my opinion every society has uncivilised people, I dont think much can be done about that.

I find the way you talk about gun owners to be pretty rude, considering how many of them there are here. You are insulting many, many people without meeting them, and it sounds as though you are assuming they are gun nuts who are into 'gun culutre' simply by owning a gun. I dont agree with that at all. Owning turn tables doesnt make someone a dj either.

[Grammatron]

Gun control is necessary, yes, but not a Gun ban.

[William Rea]

I appologized above. I assume you didn't see it before you posted.

I still stand by my point though, your attitude towards Americans is strongly bigoted and abhorrent. If you want Americans to consider the actual merits of your argument, then I suggest you stop treating them like sub-humans.

I saw it after my post.

It's not bigoted or abhorrent, just realistic. My only concern is that they get their house in order to prevent it spreading like a virus in the cultural takeover of the world.

I tend to save my hand wringing liberal sentiments for people dying of poverty and firearms in the Third World who don't have one of the largest economies in the world.

[William Rea]

I have a question to ask about what are termed "illegal firearms" in the UK. When the term "illegal firearms" is used I ask myself if the firearms were produced by an illicit factory somewhere or were they originally legally produced and purchased and then have fallen into misuse? If so then what is the correlation between a vast pool of legal arms being available and the chances of those firearms falling into misuse. It would seem to me that a vast pool of available firearms for self defence is a self defeating proposition because a set percentage will fall into misuse?

Did anyone find any links to answer this?

I thought about it a little and figured that the "illegal firearms" would probably have to be an estimate because by their nature they are not declared. I guess that might make this question difficult to answer.

[William Rea]

Did anyone find any links to answer this?

I thought about it a little and figured that the "illegal firearms" would probably have to be an estimate because by their nature they are not declared. I guess that might make this question difficult to answer.

Starter for 10...

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/faq/faq.shtml

"Estimates show that as many as 32% of crime guns are acquired through theft."

http://www.supgv.org/documents/BackgrounderIllegalGuns.pdf

[Lonewulf]

Do you have any objective evidence that it wouldn't?

Wow, okay, not only asking to prove a negative, but also failing to realize that the onus of evidence is upon you.

Question to other posters in this forum: Will I lose anything by putting William Rea on ignore? Does he have any redeeming qualities?

[gambling_cruiser]

Rea your assumption seems to be that gun ownership transforms civil people into killers.
That's not true, look at Swiss or Austria, we have lots of handguns and our murder rates are low.

[William Rea]

Wow, okay, not only asking to prove a negative, but also failing to realize that the onus of evidence is upon you.

Question to other posters in this forum: Will I lose anything by putting William Rea on ignore? Does he have any redeeming qualities?

Oh go on, just put me on ignore without the theatrics.

I dares ya!

[William Rea]

Rea your assumption seems to be that gun ownership transforms civil people into killers.
That's not true, look at Swiss or Austria, we have lots of handguns and our murder rates are low.

I refer you to a previous response from me in another thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2378809#post2378809

[baron]

Please define 'civilised society', because I could insert anything I dont like in place of 'killing machines' and have it mean just as much.

Good for you. Bear in mind the topic is gun control, however, not "Things That I Don't Like control".

And I said "killing weapons" not "killing machines".

In my opinion every society has uncivilised people, I dont think much can be done about that.

Not giving them a gun would be a good starter.

I find the way you talk about gun owners to be pretty rude, considering how many of them there are here.

So it wouldn't be rude if there was only a few? Not that I actually care, I just wondered.

You are insulting many, many people without meeting them

Yeah, well, saves time.

and it sounds as though you are assuming they are gun nuts who are into 'gun culutre' simply by owning a gun. I dont agree with that at all.

If you've read my posts and it still "sounds" like that I suggest you get someone to explain them for you.

Owning turn tables doesnt make someone a dj either.

It helps, though.

[Ralph]

Of course a total gun ban will eliminate 90% of the legal hunting activities in the US.

You can use a bow on deer. Pheasant might be a little tougher though.

I guess skeet/trap/ and target shooting are out too.

After the world is made safer by the US ban on firearms...where do you go next?

How about the damn Finns and their stinking biathalon?

[Lonewulf]

After the world is made safer by the US ban on firearms...where do you go next?

How about the damn Finns and their stinking biathalon?

They'll ban swimming pools, boats, and automobiles.

[baron]

How about the damn Finns and their stinking biathalon?

If five thousand kids die in the next Finnish biathlon I suggest we seriously consider its future.

[Lonewulf]

If five thousand kids die in the next Finnish biathlon I suggest we seriously consider its future.

So, then, you are for banning swimming pools and boats?

[LuxFerum]

Gun control is not necessary, thought control is, everyone could have a nuke if we could control its thoghts.

[The Painter]

If you don’t want guns in the UK then don’t have them. Why are you so concerned with USA guns? No one is telling you that you must have guns like the USA does. Why do you insist we get rid of ours? Dozens of countries manufacture guns, even yours. Why us? Do you think we are proud of the gangsta mentality? Yes we want to export it. A lot of the gansta crap here came from other countries and is closely associated with drugs. Do you have drug problems in the UK? Where do the drugs come from? I’ll bet the guns come along with the drugs.

I don’t like the fact that you have a Queen. I think it is a frivolous link to the past. All the money it takes to keep that do nothing family going could be used for other more important social issues. You don’t here me ranting about the Queen. Your country has your traditions and we have ours. Our traditional guns won our freedom from your oppressive King.

[Ralph]

They'll ban swimming pools, boats, and automobiles.

If we're going to ban firearms then you're going to have to ban them in other countrys too. With the US supply wiped out--the price of firearms are going to go through the roof. Those countrys that still have them----will be more than happy to help meet the demand at these inflated prices.

Or are there nations where's it's OK for it's citizens to continue to be allowed to hunt & target shoot?

Which ones?

[baron]

So, then, you are for banning swimming pools and boats?

No, but I am certainly in favour of controlling the above with a stringency in proportion to the danger they pose. Safety equipment for a variety of applications is continually being developed and, if effective, made law. The problem with guns is that there is little safety regulation that applies, seeing as they are designed to kill.

[The Painter]

The problem with guns is that there is little safety regulation that applies

Every gun has a safety on it.

[Ralph]

No, but I am certainly in favour of controlling the above with a stringency in proportion to the danger they pose. Safety equipment for a variety of applications is continually being developed and, if effective, made law. The problem with guns is that there is little safety regulation that applies, seeing as they are designed to kill.

Do you favor a complete ban on firearms or just imposing a level of control?

[baron]

If you don’t want guns in the UK then don’t have them. Why are you so concerned with USA guns? No one is telling you that you must have guns like the USA does. Why do you insist we get rid of ours? Dozens of countries manufacture guns, even yours. Why us? Do you think we are proud of the gangsta mentality? Yes we want to export it. A lot of the gansta crap here came from other countries and is closely associated with drugs. Do you have drug problems in the UK? Where do the drugs come from? I’ll bet the guns come along with the drugs.

I'll wager most of the threads you post to here have nothing directly to do with you, so what's up with the hypocrisy?

Anyway, to answer your question, it does affect us. Someone mentioned sheep earlier. That's exactly what many of us in the UK are, sheep. The US does, we follow. Sad but true.

I don’t like the fact that you have a Queen. I think it is a frivolous link to the past. All the money it takes to keep that do nothing family going could be used for other more important social issues. You don’t here me ranting about the Queen.

You're free to do so if you wish. Start a thread on it, I'll happy to join in and wipe out your argument just like I'll wipe out your argument against gun control. Assuming you have one.

Your country has your traditions and we have ours. Our traditional guns won our freedom from your oppressive King.

Best keep 'em well oiled then, no telling if that pesky old king will rise again.

Anyway, getting late. Must shoot.

[baron]

Do you favor a complete ban on firearms or just imposing a level of control?

A very high level of control and a complete ban in urban areas other than highly regulated sporting arenas or clubs.

[Lonewulf]

No, but I am certainly in favour of controlling the above with a stringency in proportion to the danger they pose. Safety equipment for a variety of applications is continually being developed and, if effective, made law. The problem with guns is that there is little safety regulation that applies, seeing as they are designed to kill.

Oh, yay, more laws. Give everyone the padded comfort of living a life without danger, as long as you can't use anything except padded ping pong balls.

[Lonewulf]

Anyway, to answer your question, it does affect us. Someone mentioned sheep earlier. That's exactly what many of us in the UK are, sheep. The US does, we follow. Sad but true.

Right, which is why they banned firearms in the first place. Oh, wait...

[baron]

Every gun has a safety on it.

Not much to show for 400 years development. Now, if bullets had airbags...

[baron]

Oh, yay, more laws. Give everyone the padded comfort of living a life without danger, as long as you can't use anything except padded ping pong balls.

So you don't agree with seatbelts, airbags, child-seats, etc?

I said "proportionate to" the danger. And I meant it. So no, there is no question of a life without danger. One of my pet hates is people who cannot assess risk, and that goes for underestimation as well as inflation.

[Tailgater]

Not just the "Gangsta" culture, but yes that is predominant.


Those pesky rappers!!!! Brainwashing gangstas!!!!

[Lonewulf]

So you don't agree with seatbelts, airbags, child-seats, etc?

I said "proportionate to" the danger. And I meant it. So no, there is no question of a life without danger. One of my pet hates is people who cannot assess risk, and that goes for underestimation as well as inflation.

Seatbelts, I think that people should not be forced to wear, no. It is their personal responsibility. Airbags is an economic concern; consumers are more likely to buy a vehicle with airbags or not. Child seats I'm for, though.

However, plenty of people in this thread that seem to agree with you have seemed to inflate the risks of guns. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to agree with you that what you propose is even doable nor desirable.

We can belabor this point back and forth all day long. I highly doubt you nor I will change our minds, unless we present something to to the table that says, "I will change my mind if you demonstrate... <blank>"

[Ralph]

A very high level of control and a complete ban in urban areas other than highly regulated sporting arenas or clubs.


I live in a small town. You'd be OK with me owning a 12 gauge shotgun and a 30.06 deer rifle then?

How do you define urban? At what point is one citizen allowed firearms for hunting & target shooting and another not because they're too many people living in his community?

If one belongs to a club and lives in an urban area--is that individual allowed to have firearms in his home?

[skeptifem]

Good for you. Bear in mind the topic is gun control, however, not "Things That I Don't Like control".

And I said "killing weapons" not "killing machines".

I guess you missed the point completely. How sad for you.

Do you care to explain what you meant by civilised society? Or do you just want to insult me for asking you to clarify your position? There is really no reason for you to get nasty with me.



Not giving them a gun would be a good starter.

No one ever asserted that giving unstable people guns is a good idea. Nice strawman though.



So it wouldn't be rude if there was only a few? Not that I actually care, I just wondered.

No, just that you are being insulting to people you havent met and implying that people who own guns fit into whatever stereotype you have dreamed up.



Yeah, well, saves time.

I fail to see what I did to you to deserve this type of response. My mother owns a gun and despite what you have been so rudely saying about gun owners I have managed to be much more civil about this whole matter than you.


If you've read my posts and it still "sounds" like that I suggest you get someone to explain them for you.

I like to get clarification on something before commenting, you know, so I dont make an ass out of myself. You should try it some time.



It helps, though.[/quote]

[skeptifem]

So you don't agree with seatbelts, airbags, child-seats, etc?

I said "proportionate to" the danger. And I meant it. So no, there is no question of a life without danger. One of my pet hates is people who cannot assess risk, and that goes for underestimation as well as inflation.


Making gun laws as restrictive as you like increases risk for people who arent criminals. Gun laws arent going to stop someone who doesnt repsect the law, even in places where guns are totally illegal. It just restricts the rights of gun owners who are law abiding citizens.

[Tmy]

I have a question for the eruos.

How easy do you think it is for an American to get a gun? Cause you know you just cant buy them out of a bus stop vending machine.

[Tmy]

Making gun laws as restrictive as you like increases risk for people who arent criminals. Gun laws arent going to stop someone who doesnt repsect the law, even in places where guns are totally illegal. It just restricts the rights of gun owners who are law abiding citizens.

Oh please. If you are a law abiding citizen, then you can get a gun. Its not that hard. Sure you may have to wait a little bit, and god forbid you have to take a safety class. In the end you can get your gun.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Well, I'd be annoyed with him, but at least I wouldn't be able to shoot him for suggesting it. :D


Perhaps a soccer hooligan could hit him with a brickbat instead.:D

[Lonewulf]

Do you care to explain what you meant by civilised society? Or do you just want to insult me for asking you to clarify your position? There is really no reason for you to get nasty with me.

Seriously, we can do with some clarification. And less nastiness in general.

(Yes, I know I'm somewhat of a hypocrite, but I am including myself in this).

[clarsct]

Wrong.



It is not so much that gun proponents spread so many myths and falsehoods. It may be because they are ignorant, lazy, or it is intentional.

It is that they think other people won't bother to check.

Oh do be serious for an instant. I was speaking to what the average Russian actually does, as opposed to what the laws are. As has been pointed out, law enforcement in Russia isn't what most of us here would consider law enforcement. It is pretty well established that Russia is a haven for arms smuggling.

Take the rose tint off your glasses and live in the real world.

As for the UK, well, we took quite a bit of your culture on, yet we seem to see guns differently than you, still. I would imagine all this 'culture war' stuff is just as fallacious on your side of the pond as it is on ours....

[Ranb]

I want the USA to get its gun problem under control because it exports its cultural norms so successfully. I don't want gun culture exported to my country. I completely understand the pioneer culture of the USA but is it really necessary in an urban environment?

You should think of cultural norms as imported into your country instead of exported from somewhere else. Some people want these things, so they are getting them. No one is forcing American culture on the British are they?

Most Americans live in or reasonably close to an urban area, but most of the USA is still non-urban. I hope to live the rest of my life without living in a city.

Ranb

[Lonewulf]

You should think of cultural norms as imported into your country instead of exported from somewhere else. Some people want these things, so they are getting them. No one is forcing American culture on the British are they?

Didn't you know? Ideas are a virus, they infect people, and these helpless defenseless people, that have no ability to make up their own mind on any single issue, are infected with the Gun Nut bug.

Happens all the time.

[Ranb]

The US preserves the right of an individual to own a gun regardless of the consequences.

The UK preserves the rights of every citizen not to get blown away by a gun.

Can you explain these two sentences a bit more? Knowing both countries allow gun ownership, and both have laws against murder and assault, why the opposing views?

Ranb

[Ranb]

Duplicate thread.

[Darat]

I have a question for the eruos.

...snip..


What do you mean "for the euros" ? Are you aware that the "continent" of Europe consists of over 40 differnet countries each with their own distinctive legislation and legal system?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Right, which is why they banned firearms in the first place. Oh, wait...

And when exactly did that happen because I seem to have missed it........??

[CFLarsen]

Wow, okay, not only asking to prove a negative, but also failing to realize that the onus of evidence is upon you.

Are you saying that owning a gun is the default position?

That it is up to gun control proponents to argue that guns are dangerous, and not the other way around?

[CFLarsen]

Oh do be serious for an instant. I was speaking to what the average Russian actually does, as opposed to what the laws are. As has been pointed out, law enforcement in Russia isn't what most of us here would consider law enforcement. It is pretty well established that Russia is a haven for arms smuggling.

You were not speaking about what the average Russian actually do. You were speaking about what was legal and not.

You were wrong. Period.

[William Rea]

Duplicate thread.

Actually no. My intention was to start a new thread based upon my questions because I specifically didn't want to hi-jack the other thread. I am more than happy to close this down because it seems to be overlapping so much. What do others think?

[Lothian]

26 Feb 11.26
How easy do you think it is for an American to get a gun?
26 Feb 11.28
Oh please. If you are a law abiding citizen, then you can get a gun. Its not that hard.

:D

[William Rea]

So, then, you are for banning swimming pools and boats?

To my knowledge, Finnish biathlons, boats, swimming pools etc are not specifically designed to kill or injure living things.

People who endanger their own personal safety without putting other people at risk can go right ahead and live how they like.

Incidentally, I hear lots of people say that cars also kill thousands of people but we don't ban them, in which case I say clamp down on reckless motorists and if necessary remove their right to use a car.

[Mashuna]

Perhaps a soccer hooligan could hit him with a brickbat instead.:D

We only have football hooligans here :D (although Italy now seem to have more).

Traditionally, the Stanley Knife was the weapon of choice - not pleasant :(

[William Rea]

If you don’t want guns in the UK then don’t have them. Why are you so concerned with USA guns? No one is telling you that you must have guns like the USA does. Why do you insist we get rid of ours? Dozens of countries manufacture guns, even yours. Why us? Do you think we are proud of the gangsta mentality? Yes we want to export it. A lot of the gansta crap here came from other countries and is closely associated with drugs. Do you have drug problems in the UK? Where do the drugs come from? I’ll bet the guns come along with the drugs.

I don’t like the fact that you have a Queen. I think it is a frivolous link to the past. All the money it takes to keep that do nothing family going could be used for other more important social issues. You don’t here me ranting about the Queen. Your country has your traditions and we have ours. Our traditional guns won our freedom from your oppressive King.

I don't want you to get rid of your guns, just get them and the gun culture under control like a responsible neighbour.

I am intruiged by your comment that "Gangsta culture" was imported from outside the USA. Can you be more specific?

If I had my way I'd send the Queen and her family over to DC to live so you could do whatever you like with her. I'm no Monarchist.

In the past tense, your guns (along with the French) gained you independence from the English Imperialism. I'm trying to figure out where the Imperialist threat is coming from now? The Bilderburg NWO or the Jews maybe?

[William Rea]

A very high level of control and a complete ban in urban areas other than highly regulated sporting arenas or clubs.

Hear, hear.

[William Rea]

Seatbelts, I think that people should not be forced to wear, no. It is their personal responsibility.

On this I tend to agree with you however, if people accept this responsibility then they must also accept the personal financial liability of the VPF (estimated at £0.5m per fatality) if they die as a consequence of not wearing a seatbelt.

[William Rea]

You should think of cultural norms as imported into your country instead of exported from somewhere else. Some people want these things, so they are getting them. No one is forcing American culture on the British are they?

Most Americans live in or reasonably close to an urban area, but most of the USA is still non-urban. I hope to live the rest of my life without living in a city.

Ranb

I'd force a biometric passport onto the worst apects of US culture tomorrow if I had the power. As soon as it hit UK customs I'd put it on the first plane back to the USA.

Don't get me wrong though, I love the Blues, Jazz and Folk traditions from the USA and was much more impressed with it when I spent some time in the USA than I ever thought I would be.

But you're right that we have a responsibility over here to resist it also. The problem is that it is very invasive and I can easily cite examples of how the US culture has embedded itself into ours with ease.

[William Rea]

Can you explain these two sentences a bit more? Knowing both countries allow gun ownership, and both have laws against murder and assault, why the opposing views?

Ranb

I understand as a previous poster pointed out that they are not mutually exclusive and there are shades of grey between. What I was trying to illustrate (unsuccessfully it seems) was the cultural default positions of the two countries.

I just don't get this US pioneer thing and how it applies to a modern Democratic Republic? Maybe it's me?

[clarsct]

Because the Second Amendment was written when we were colonies, not pioneers. The 'Wild West' thing had its roots in the Louisiana Purchase and spread from there. By the time the colonies had thought to rebel, we had taken care of many of the ...erm....native problems in our own neck of the woods.


The Second Amendment was written at a time when we had just fought a national Militia with the weapons we had at hand. Without the weapons, we couldn't have fought as successfully. Gun ownership, historically, is really about the right of the citizens to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.

One may debate that guns can no longer serve that purpose, perhaps. But that is mainly because of unconstitutional(IMHO) laws that curb the types and kinds of guns that American citizens are allowed.


In America, we believe in freedom at any cost. Even if that cost is our lives.

CFL:
Thank you for reading my mind and deciding what I intended with my posts. You may now screw off.
(Have you won the million yet?)

[The Fool]

In America, we believe in freedom at any cost. Even if that cost is our lives.


Can you think of any american laws that restrict freedoms to save lives?

Your statement seems to me to be an Idealistic slogan. Statements like this last a matter of seconds in the face of the many exceptions that are everywhere.Would it be more reasonable to rephrase it to say americans believe in freedom within acceptable costs (in lives)?

Why do you have road speed limits? I would suggest it is because americans are happy to trade away the freedom to drive however they like in exchange for less road fatalities.

To me it always seems to get down to a ballancing act. "Freedom to" against "freedom from" The rights of citizens to do X against the rights of citizens to not have to pay the consequences of other citizens doing X...

I'm not allowed to crap in the water supply....why shouldn't I if its the most convenient place for me to crap? Society is often about removing individual freedoms to achieve common good. The conflict arises because of differing individual ideas of what "at any cost" actually means.


I would like to end this post by assuring all JREF members that I would not really crap in the water supply even if it were legal...

[William Rea]

Can you think of any american laws that restrict freedoms to save lives?

Your statement seems to me to be an Idealistic slogan. Statements like this last a matter of seconds in the face of the many exceptions that are everywhere.Would it be more reasonable to rephrase it to say americans believe in freedom within acceptable costs (in lives)?

Why do you have road speed limits? I would suggest it is because americans are happy to trade away the freedom to drive however they like in exchange for less road fatalities.

To me it always seems to get down to a ballancing act. "Freedom to" against "freedom from" The rights of citizens to do X against the rights of citizens to not have to pay the consequences of other citizens doing X...

I'm not allowed to crap in the water supply....why shouldn't I if its the most convenient place for me to crap? Society is often about removing individual freedoms to achieve common good. The conflict arises because of differing individual ideas of what "at any cost" actually means.


I would like to end this post by assuring all JREF members that I would not really crap in the water supply even if it were legal...

Hear, hear.

[CFLarsen]

Because the Second Amendment was written when we were colonies, not pioneers. The 'Wild West' thing had its roots in the Louisiana Purchase and spread from there. By the time the colonies had thought to rebel, we had taken care of many of the ...erm....native problems in our own neck of the woods.


The Second Amendment was written at a time when we had just fought a national Militia with the weapons we had at hand. Without the weapons, we couldn't have fought as successfully. Gun ownership, historically, is really about the right of the citizens to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.

One may debate that guns can no longer serve that purpose, perhaps. But that is mainly because of unconstitutional(IMHO) laws that curb the types and kinds of guns that American citizens are allowed.

This is truly one of the more insane claims of gun proponents. You're not the first to claim this, so don't feel I'm picking on you in particular.

But, really: To think you can overthrow the US Military with guns is insane.

There is no other description.

In America, we believe in freedom at any cost. Even if that cost is our lives.

That's really heroic. Are you going to live in the mountains, after the US Military has bombed the living daylights out of you?

[Lothian]

I would like to end this post by assuring all JREF members that I would not really crap in the water supply even if it were legal...You wouldn't ? I recall you don't keep your promises. Running naked round the White House ring any bells?

[baron]

Seatbelts, I think that people should not be forced to wear, no. It is their personal responsibility. Airbags is an economic concern; consumers are more likely to buy a vehicle with airbags or not. Child seats I'm for, though.

You missed my point. I never suggested these things should be compulsary. What I said was, in answer to the question of dangers in society other than guns, that other dangers are constantly being mitigated by introduction of new safety measures. This process does not and cannot apply to guns, on account that their purpose is to kill.

[Ralph]

Hear, hear.


So you agree with Baron? You don't want a complete ban. Just a "measure of control"......for some people...depending on the population density of the area they live in.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE=William Rea;2381969]To my knowledge, Finnish biathlons, boats, swimming pools etc are not specifically designed to kill or injure living things.

Biathlons--Finnish or otherwise--involve the use of a rifle. As you've allready mentioned,rifles are firearms which can kill people.

By your logic-you should have no objection to anybody owning a shotgun specifically designed for trap shooting.

[Mephisto]

Actually no. My intention was to start a new thread based upon my questions because I specifically didn't want to hi-jack the other thread. I am more than happy to close this down because it seems to be overlapping so much. What do others think?

In spite of the fact that I'm an avid (and lawful) gun owner, I think this thread should stand - arguments regarding gun-ownership and gun laws often grow to enormous proportions quickly and it's much easier to remember where you read what regarding the issue. It's much easier than sifting through the ten or so pages composed since you last visited the thread. :)

[Mephisto]

I would like to end this post by assuring all JREF members that I would not really crap in the water supply even if it were legal...

When toilets are outlawed, only outlaws will have toilets. ;)

[Lonewulf]

To my knowledge, Finnish biathlons, boats, swimming pools etc are not specifically designed to kill or injure living things.

Yet, they do. So you're only for things that aren't DESIGNED to harm others being put to use? Only the intent actually matters?

Then why counter pollution? The plants that dump 'em aren't *designed* to harm others. Yet, they cause many casualties.

Do I really need to trump out the statistics of children that die every day in swimming pools and boats? And I'm not talking about Finland. I don't care about Finland. People want to say what the U.S. should or should not do, according to their own cultural standards. Finland can do whatever they want. I'm not trying to change their laws or regulations.

[Lonewulf]

You missed my point. I never suggested these things should be compulsary. What I said was, in answer to the question of dangers in society other than guns, that other dangers are constantly being mitigated by introduction of new safety measures. This process does not and cannot apply to guns, on account that their purpose is to kill.

You're talking about a government ban and compulsory requirements for firearms.

You're talking about an extreme measure that will never pass because of your unwillingness to compromise.

You also seem to forget that some guns are designed for hunting or range shooting. In fact, I'd say that more guns are used on the range than in killing other people. So, no, they are not purely designed for killing.

[Mephisto]

From another one of Mr. Rhea's threads:

Forced conscription of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish will solve the manpower problem. The money could come from reparations from the US of Palestine for liberating them.

I honestly can't understand your opposition to law-abiding citizens owning firearms for home defense or sporting purposes, but you'll force citizens of the UK into involuntary conscription for a war against Palestine . . .

Oh yeah, forced conscription would be a lot more difficult if the Welsh, Scottish and Irish owned firearms. ;)

[Lonewulf]

Can you think of any american laws that restrict freedoms to save lives?

Plenty.

Your statement seems to me to be an Idealistic slogan. Statements like this last a matter of seconds in the face of the many exceptions that are everywhere.Would it be more reasonable to rephrase it to say americans believe in freedom within acceptable costs (in lives)?

Yeah, that's very true. We experienced a major shift in policy during the Progressive Era, which was certainly necessary (what with big business and industrial plants really screwing everything up).

Why do you have road speed limits? I would suggest it is because americans are happy to trade away the freedom to drive however they like in exchange for less road fatalities.

True, but there is a difference between, say, regulating the speed limit (and honestly, a LOT of people in America speed, including the police, but only by about 5 MPH usually), and banning the sale of cars that can go above a certain speed altogether.

To me it always seems to get down to a ballancing act. "Freedom to" against "freedom from" The rights of citizens to do X against the rights of citizens to not have to pay the consequences of other citizens doing X...

That's very true.

I'm not allowed to crap in the water supply....why shouldn't I if its the most convenient place for me to crap? Society is often about removing individual freedoms to achieve common good. The conflict arises because of differing individual ideas of what "at any cost" actually means.


I would like to end this post by assuring all JREF members that I would not really crap in the water supply even if it were legal...

I dunno, just bringing that example up would make me leery about eating dinner with you. :D

(Just kidding, of course).

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

We only have football hooligans here :D (although Italy now seem to have more).

Traditionally, the Stanley Knife was the weapon of choice - not pleasant :(



Oh those wacky Italians! I kid! I kid because I love!