Gun Control

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Shane Mokry]

Hello all,

This is a spinoff of a thread run amok. It started on the jacket vs. knife technique thread and ran away in the wrong place. It needs to go here so I am putting it here.

I would like some feedback on how the Aikido community feels about guns. Any topic involving guns will do.

Right to carry?
Gun laws?
Hunting?
Using firearms for defense?
Target practice?
Shooting as an art form?

I couldn't find any other threads with this topic.

I'm looking forward to some conversation and opinions.

Thanks,
Shane

[Yann Golanski]

Let the flame war begin...

[Dazzler]

Hi Shane

My opinion is that apart from military and law enforcement personell and such like no one should be allowed to own guns. Maybe special licences for farmers but under strict controls.

Absolute powers of search should be granted to police to remove all such weapons from society.

Anyone illegally carrying guns can be used for target practice.

I appreciate this might leave some people feeling a bit vulnerable. ...

As you can see - I'm in the UK so please don't send Chuck Heston around to 'lobby' me.

Cheers

D

[Shane Mokry]

I guess I need to post my views since I started this thread.

I have a concealed carry permit. I carry everywhere except where prohibited...churches...post offices...where they sell alchohol for consumption etc.

I also hunt. I hunt deer, turkey, quail, squirrels, doves, hogs and sometimes ducks and geese. I obviously have to have firearms to do these things.

I love to shoot and do as often as possible.

I don't think it is an art form per say but I do think it is a form of training.

I think of guns as tools. Nothing more. Just like a hammer or power saw. There are safety rules to follow. If you don't follow them you're likely to get hurt or hurt someone else.

Gun control is ridiculous. It's like taking away everyone's car...or just the real scary looking ones, because some people die in car accidents. Or taking away alchohol and cars because some people drive drunk. Where I come from gun control means hitting what you are aiming at and never having an accidental discharge.

Furthermore, anytime there is a firearm accident, it can be attributed to one or more firearm safety rules not being followed.

Shane

[Dazzler]

Well - its your thread Shane.

For me - if there were no guns on the streets there be no shootings.

Take away a car, people can't travel without hassle.

Take away a gun - whats the great loss?

What does everyone else think?

Respectfully

D

[dan guthrie]

There is strong statistical evidence in the U.S. that states with concealed weapons permits have fewer crimes than those that don't. I may be misstating the specifics ( crime versus violent crime) but the general idea is this: more honest people with firearms equals more safety. The most violent and crime-ridden places in the U.S. have the most Draconian gun laws and lowest legal gun ownership.
Rumor has it that Australia's and Great Britain's crime rate has risen since the ban on guns was enacted.
If this is true, what do you think the chances are of reversing the gun ban there? Swords are being banned. Why are people so afraid of inanimate objects?

[Shane Mokry]

Dan,
Thanks for the post. I agree. Just as we in louisiana have seen a drop in violent crime there is statistical evidence that states with concealed handgun permits have seen drops in crime.

As I posted in another thread the example of the car jackings in Louisiana. It got to the point where car jackers were actually walking up to cars sitting at traffic lights, shooting the driver in the head, dragging them out and driving away in their cars. Sometimes there were still passangers in the vehicle, among them babies and children. It's around that time that we became a right to carry state. Also, it was made known that citizens were justified in defending your car as you would your home. In other words, with the use of deadly force if necessary. I have not heard of one more car jacking since then. I also never heard of any incidences of anyone defending themselves from an attempted car jacking after that time. I think would be car jackers realized the odds of success were diminishing.

As far as Great Britain and Australia's violent crime rates...I have heard and read the same things as you. I would definitely like to hear from some of our Aikiweb members that live in these countries and hear how they perceive their violent crime has been affected by their own gun bans, and sword bans. Whether they think it has helped or harmed...

I have however been thinking about the circular aspect of some of these crimes...brought to my attention in another thread. It can be argued that the violent nature of some of these crimes can be in fact escalated just by the presence of firearms in that culture. For example, Let's say I'm a criminal and want someone's wallet for crack money. If I'm in a state that has decided to ban guns altogether, I will probably just use the THREAT of force, i.e. a stick, knife, mace..whatever to get my victim's wallet because the chances ar slim that they are carrying. On the other hand, If I know that more than likely my chosen victim is carrying a handgun, I'm more likely to just go ahead and shoot, stab, or bludgeon first and then retrieve my well earned wallet full of money from a limp body.

Food for thought!

On the other hand, violent criminals of this nature are not as likely to have guns as law abiding citizens in right to carry states. They can still get them but when law abiding citizens who are eligible are encouraged to purchase and carry handguns, for protection, by the state,they tend to do it. Mostly because if the state is encouraging it they obviously see statistical evidence that such measures are necessary. Hopefully, this will lead to a state of advantage in the law abiding citizens' favor where, if guns are present in a society, then most of them are in lawful possession of peaceful, responsible citizens.

"An armed society is a polite society." as the saying goes...

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

Darren,

This is everyone's thread...my topic.

I agree with you too. If there were no guns on the streets there would be no shootings. There would however still be killings, rape , robbery, etc. The rate of these crimes would most likely not diminish either. What do you think?

We can always ride horses. there is always an alternative. Just like there are alternatives to using guns for defense..and offense for that matter. It boils down to the fact that fire arms just happen to be the best tool for what they were designed for...just like motor vehicles.

Thanks for your views.
Shane

[Dazzler]

UK is very different.

Here 99 % of people don't carry guns - those that do seem to be pretty much involved with the gang/drugs game.

Its certainly getting worse - 3 shootings in my city last weekend.

In England it could still be easier to move to a gun free society and those that want to shoot for recreation can do it under licence.

We've also had a spate of accidental shootings involving 'lampers' - fox hunters using lights. All pretty unnecessary.

Like the rest of the world we seem to have a spiralling crime problem - ours is driven by drugs.

Taking away guns won't resolve it but I think it will help.

Obviously we are poles apart in our opinions but thats what makes life interesting.

Respectfully

D

[Shane Mokry]

Hey Daren,

It looks like you are the only one who wants to opine. I do appreciate the conversation.

Where are these drug heads are getting their guns from? I thought y'all gathered up all the guns and destroyed them already.?

Who was shot? Innocent people by druggies or druggies shooting each other? sad....

Fox hunters...I heard that there was a big debate in the UK about fox hunting. Do you know any of the details about that? I was under the impression that fox hunters let the dogs catch the foxes. I didn't think they used guns.

Sure, this is very interesting. I'm genuinely curious about how other people, other than Americans, feel about guns and gun control. I know about the big debate here. I want some input from people around the world who know what it's like to grow up without guns around all the time. For me, it's always been a way of life, guns have always been present and the kids were always taught the respect and responsibility that is required in using such tools.

Thanks,

Shane

[p00kiethebear]

I started writing something really long. But I'm just going to summerize it in a few sentances.

Bottom line, if you're going to own a gun, learn how to use it, and learn to keep your three year old FROM using it. Education and understanding, coupled with respect / reverance, is the most important tool you can offer your children in this case.

In an ideal world, there would be no such thing as guns. But it's too late for that. So let's just try to get smarter about the way we're handling them.

[Shane Mokry]

Well said.

Thanks,

Shane

[Chuck Clark]

Gun control = proper education, good posture, proper connection to the weapon, good sight picture, breath control, squeeze the trigger, good sight picture, count your shots, strategy and tactics, preventative maintenance, appropriate safe storage and carry options, and of course "know yourself" and then continuing good education which hopefully turns into wisdom.

There's lots more but this is a good start...

[Shane Mokry]

Hey Chuck,

Good to hear from you. I was hoping you would reply.

I agree. You are very meticulous indeed. I guess that beats the crap out of my tired old "hitting what you aim at" phrase.

See you next weekend and thanks for the post.

Shane

[vanstretch]

www.tnugent.com go to Ask the Nuge and scroll down about 3/4 to Firearms and happy reading!

[bennettdjr]

Take away a gun - whats the great loss?

D

Well the one thing Great Britain would lose would be a medal or two come the next Olympics (hopefully I will be there for Clay Pigeon Shooting). How would Mike Yardley cope without a gun.
I am 17 and have legally owned a gun for about two years. Recentley I qualified for the Welsh Shooting Team and there is hope that I will qualify for The Great Britain Olympic Trench JR Team next Year and in 4 yrs time go to the Olympics. How would i manage without a gun?
I understand that some people are frightened of Guns but as some one elses said it is only a tool.
Thanks
Dave

[Shane Mokry]

The Nuge is great isn't he? HeeHeeHee.

Regards,

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

That's great David. I've always loved shooting skeet. Last year my brother and I went to a resort called wild wings. We shot a total of 22,000 shells in 2 1/2 days. We also got 150 or so quail and went home with huge bruises on our shoulders.

It was one of the best times I ever had.

Good luck. I'll be looking for you in the Olympics.

Shane

[deepsoup]

Hi again Shane,
Where are these drug heads are getting their guns from? I thought y'all gathered up all the guns and destroyed them already.? Sometimes they're illegally smuggled in from other countries, a lot come from Eastern Europe, the Balkans, places like that. Some are guns that were held legally before the ban and were stolen. Also, 'replica' guns are still legal, quite a few are replicas that have been 'reactivated'. (A lot of the replicas are actually the real deal thats been disabled in some way - there have been a few workshops busted lately where they were being fixed.)
Fox hunters...I heard that there was a big debate in the UK about fox hunting. Do you know any of the details about that? I was under the impression that fox hunters let the dogs catch the foxes. I didn't think they used guns. Thats right, about the dogs. Actually its hunting with dogs thats being banned, it just so happens that its usually foxes they hunt this way. (The ban has nothing to do with gun control at all.) A pack of specially bred hounds track the fox and run it down, while the hunters follow on horses or on foot. When the dogs catch the fox they rip it to bits. Traditionally when a kid is first on a hunt that catches a fox, they take a chunk of whats left of it and smear the childs face with blood. Cute.
Oscar Wilde described fox hunting as "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable." For what its worth, I'm with Oscar on that one, I'll be glad to see it consigned to the dustbin of history.

Before you wrote:As far as Great Britain and Australia's violent crime rates...I have heard and read the same things as you. I would definitely like to hear from some of our Aikiweb members that live in these countries and hear how they perceive their violent crime has been affected by their own gun bans, and sword bans. Whether they think it has helped or harmed... I don't know about Australia, but in the UK our crime rate peaked in 1995 and its been falling steadily ever since.
People always think its going up, I'm not sure why, maybe its just nostalgia - people always seem to think things were better in the past, so they must be worse now, so they have to be getting worse.
Also, politicians like trying to scare people into voting for them and the newspapers love printing crime stories to push up the circulation.
Dont take my word for it, you can find the full statistics for England and Wales here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/recordedcrime1.html
Handguns were already tightly controlled before the latest ban, so I dont think it really made much difference to the stats. It was never expected to have much effect on general crime levels though, it was just supposed to make sure that Dunblane* could never happen again.

*In some ways, Dunblane was the british Columbine: a horrific schoolyard massacre in Scotland in 1996. The shooter had licences for the guns he used to kill 16 children, their teacher and then himself. There was a huge campaign for a total ban, and it was introduced the following year.
You can read the BBC's original news story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/13/newsid_2543000/2543277.stm).

Sean
x

[Jill N]

Hi all:

Being in a helping, healing profession, I don't support anyone having a gun, unless it is necessary for their line of work. I have read too many stories about children playing with guns shooting a sibling or a friend. I have heard about family members shooting each other. I have lost a relative to suicide using a shotgun. Here are a few statistics that support my position. Yes it is a tool, but when your tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. When your tool is a gun...........use your imagination. I'm glad I live in Canada.

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. This statistic is from the new england journal of Medicine

Many teens have access to guns in their homes. A recent study found that 43% of households in the U.S. with children and teens had at least one gun. More than 1 in 5 gun owners with children under 18 said that they stored their weapons loaded, and about 1 in 11 said that their weapons were stored loaded and unlocked. 2 Another study found that parents owned the guns used in more than half of the teen suicides and suicide attempts. from the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.

In 1999, 1,062 teens killed themselves with guns - almost 3 on average every day of the year From the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (US)

e ya later
Jill.

[Shane Mokry]

Hey Sean,

I thought I might find you here.

I have another question about the fox hunting. Do the "unspeakable" plan to eat any part of the fox? I hunt but I always eat what I kill. (I had squirrel jambalaya last Sunday) I did however get deer blood smeared all over me when I killed my first deer. That's not so bad until the "veterans" try to make you drink it. Mmm, Mmm, when you come visit, we're gonna eat GOOD! :)

Thanks for the links. I'm going to find some of the articles that cite rising crime rates in the UK and get them on here.

Shane evileyes :D

[Shane Mokry]

Hi Jill,

Thanks for your opinion. I strongly disagree but I do appreciate it. ;)

I don't know if I'm buying the hammer analogy. Usually I use a hammer to wack stuff with and it's not always nails. So, no, for me there is a very big difference between shooting a target, an animal, and god forbid a person. ( I use person loosely)

I'm sorry you lost a relative to suicide by shotgun. My causin killed himself with a pistol in his mouth. I know it's painful but I think they would have killed themselves even without access to guns.

I do agree strongly with you that way too many children die by playing with guns. I have 3 daughters. 2 of them are already familiar with firearms. They started with target training and safety at 4 yrs old. The one that isn't...well she'll be 2 in January. There are never loaded firearms within their reach and when we do shoot they recite all the safety rules while they are loading up and I supervise. The one loaded firearm in the house is either on my hip or at my side at all times. I let my children see it and examine it everytime they ask. They get to watch a good example of handling a firearm and chip away at their curiosity at the same time.

In my opinion, guns laying around in someone's house is not the cause of child gun deaths. Negligent parents are to blame for their child's fate. The truth is that you cannot trust a child to follow safety rules so until they are responsible enough to recognize the danger of firearms, parents have to protect them. They have to supervise and educate. Most of all they have to lead by example. But how will children learn responsibility if their primary example doesn't have any? :drool:

Lots of things kill childen. They die in car wrecks. They die on rollercoasters. They die from surfing around sharks. Their parents drown them in the bathtubs or lock them in the trunk of a car and push it in the river. :freaky: We can't ban cars, rollercoasters, surfboards or bathtubs. Sometimes I wish we could ban some parents though. :D

Thanks again for your reply. I really do understand your concerns. I have some of the same. I just don't understand your solution.

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

Sean,

I looked up a search on the BBC website to see what crime articles they had. In 2001, BBC printed an article saying the crime rate was at the lowest it had been in 20 years.

The article I found was printed in the NRA magazine a couple of years ago. Interesting how they contradict one another. How the hell are we supposed to sift through all this stuff to find out the truth.

Here is the link: http:/www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=1792

This will get you to the heading of the article. You can navigate and do some searches there too. let me know what you think.

Shane

[Thomas Ambrose]

As a gun-owner and firearms enthusiast, you can probably assume my position here. I am in support of law-abiding citizens being allowed to own and target practice with firearms. I plan on eventually obtaining a concealed-pistol permit, so that I can legally carry a firearm on me. I would probably rarely, if ever carry a gun, but I want to go through the training involved, and have that option should I ever have to be in a "scary place."

That being said, I will agree with anyone that gun violence in my country, USA, is too high. Gun accidents are too high. I don't blame the guns for these problems, I blame many of their users. Some owners are irresponsable, and I would be in favor of mandating safety training as a prerequisite for firearm ownership. Seriously, banning privately-owned guns to reduce gun-deaths is like banning privately-owned swimming pools to reduce drowning or banning free-speech to reduce insults. It may work, but at a cost to civil liberties, and I don't like the precedent that sets. Furthermore, the idea of living in a country where the only people who have weapons are the government and criminals scares the daylights out of me. How should someone defend themselves against either?

Despite common belief, the USA has strict gun laws. sadly these are not enforced. There are no children living in my house. I keep my firearms secured in locked cases. The only way a child or criminal can get ahold of them is by breaking into my house, knowing thier location, and bringing lock-cutting equipment. Supposing I one day start a family, I would get a large firearms safe, to keep them extra secured from criminals, and more importantly, out of the hands of children. Any parent who lets their child have un-supervised access to firearms is criminally liable in most states.

I know how to keep my firearms safe. I follow all of the basic rules, especially keeping ammunition in a seperate place. If I ever have children, they will be taught from day one what a gun is, and how to treat it with respect. My belief is that if people understand what a gun is, how to treat it, how to respect it, and most importantly, how to be SAFE with it, then the only remaining firearm deaths would be those from people killed by outright criminals, whose guns tend to be obtained by illegal means anyway. Most firearms owners and target shooters I have met are equally as responsable as myself.

OK, so this post was a bit longer than I expected, but I guess it hit one of my nerves. Hope you have enjoyed reading it!

[deepsoup]

I looked up a search on the BBC website to see what crime articles they had. In 2001, BBC printed an article saying the crime rate was at the lowest it had been in 20 years.
The article I found was printed in the NRA magazine a couple of years ago. Interesting how they contradict one another. How the hell are we supposed to sift through all this stuff to find out the truth.
Well, the BBC's job is to report the news impartially, and the NRA's job is to campaign against gun control legislation - so my first instinct is to trust the BBC more on this, but...
I took a look at the article on the NRA website, and it just points straight to a short article in the Independent (one of our 'quality' national newspapers - by which I mean its not a tabloid). The newspaper article says exactly what the NRA say it does.
There was nothing about the sources on there though, always makes me suspicious when people talk about statistics and don't tell you where they got them from. So...
I googled for the original research behind it, but I couldn't find it. I think its probably on the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (http://www.unicri.it) website somewhere. (It did occur to me that if the report really, strongly supported the NRA's position they might have linked to it from their website, but thats just my suspicious mind.)

What I did find though, is an excellent website based on all kinds of international research, including those UN crime figures. http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Crime
All the statistics have the sources and definitions available - thats essential if you're going to trust the numbers. There are some graphs on there based on, I guess, the same UNICRI report the NRA are getting at, in particular this one (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_vic). I guess the NRA weren't so keen to publicise this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass) one though. (Actually, I'm being unfair - this (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap) is a more balanced view.)

I don't know exactly why the difference, except that the UNICRI report talks about numbers of victims rather than numbers of crimes - there's something technical behind that, something to do with how they collect the information, but I don't quite get it.

I guess the NRA would like to be able to say that our anti-gun legislation means we're all being mugged the whole time over here because we can't defend ourselves. Seems to me though that the statistics don't back them up on that one unless they're really picky about which stats they show you, and which stats they don't.

Overall though, it looks like the US and the UK overall crime rates are pretty comparable. We have a slightly higher overall (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap) crime rate than the US, slightly more robberies (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rob_cap), slightly fewer assaults (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap), much less murder (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap), especially involving firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap). Cool site, I'm going to enjoy digging around in all that stuff when I have a bit more time.

On the fox thing, no, they don't eat what they kill. Just as well, it wouldn't be easy to dress up what the dogs leave to look good on the table. They just hunt for fun, although they do also describe it as pest control. (The foxes kill small livestock, sometimes lambs, usually chickens.)

I don't think anyone in the UK eats squirrel these days, though during WW2 the government published a squirrel recipe book to encourage people to supplement their rations with a bit of extra protein. Don't kill a deer on my account though, I haven't eaten meat since the start of 1987, you'll have to just go out and shoot some chickpeas. :)

Sean
x

[Shane Mokry]

Thanks again Sean,

Just as I suspected. I will keep looking too. There has to be some truth in the middle ground. But I bet one can find a study to support just about anything they wanted to argue about. I personally don't want to argue...I want the truth.

No problem about the deer. I will kill at least 2 this year because they make such good chili and sausage. We do however have plenty of garden FRESH vegetables too...purple hull peas, cabbage, broccoli,tomatoes, cucumber, snap beans, onions, garlic, okra... We'll find something for you to eat. It'll be fun. All you need is a plane ticket and some clothes. I'll pick you up at the airport...train...beer...hunt...shoot...(no beer)...ride 4wheelers...beer...it'll be fun.

Take care,

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

Thomas,
Thanks. I think you have the right idea. Be safe. Shoot straight.

Shane

[John Lilly]

I suggest you all be very cautious of any statistics in the area of firearms, gun control and the like. I am a law enforcement officer, firearms owner and member of the NRA. There are just too many people who will put a spin on this trying to support their position an unfortunately that includes the NRA sometimes. Further law enforcement statistics are very "fuzzy" in their own right. What is counted as a gun crime in one part of the country might not be in another.
I would agree with the statment that the USA has strict gun laws that are not enforced. In my state (Washington) we had an intiative that provides very severe penalties for armed crime but they are almost never used because the prosecutors don't charge them.
John

[MitchMZ]

I think most assault weapons and handguns should be banned to the public; and only those who use them in legitimate shooting competitions, sports, etc should be able to get a special permit to carry them.

I don't see any problem with rifles and shotguns designed for recreation rather then combat. Personally, I think owning guns is a priveledge, not a right (just like driving). This why it needs to be a little tougher to acquire firearms; combat oriented or not.

I just hope they don't take my airsoft guns away...

[Shane Mokry]

Mitch,

At this point, FOR ME, firearm ownership and use is a right. The battle to keep that right is not only about keeping the right to bear arms. It's about not letting the government take any more rights from the people. In my opinion, if they can get this one....

John,

I agree. The laws are very, very different from state to state...Just look at California...

Regards all,

Shane

[Aikidoiain]

In the UK, the Police are unarmed (although Tactical Firearms Units do exist). The citizens are not allowed to carry firearms.

If any Government chooses to arm its citizens, this is effectively creating an army. So, instead of thousands of unarmed peace protesters turning up at the Government's door - they'll be met with an army instead. This is the first step to revolution and anarchy.

So, what would happen? Would the Military step in and slaughter the very people its Government had armed!? Crazy.

The US has already sold arms to most of the World's terrorist organizations - now look what's happening. Innocent people are being killed every day by US made weaponry. Is it just me, or does this sound a little sick?

In the UK criminals already have guns. I feel that if the people on the street had them too, it would lead to disaster. I should also mention that the "armed" Police units in this country have already murdered innocent bystanders (by mistake!!!).

The whole idea of arming a Nation is tantamount to revolution and anarchy.

Iain. :ki: :mad: :crazy:

[Aikidoiain]

I'd like to add to my previous post :-

There's a shop here in Glasgow (which I shan't name) which sells combat knives (like the ones the Military use), as well as swords (!) - but most shocking of all - replica firearms!!!

I could go to that shop tomorrow and walk out with a very real looking MP5 automatic machine gun! Or, perhaps, I may just buy a couple of 9mm handguns (plus shoulder holsters of course). Why is this allowed?

Trust me, these guns look very real, and as for selling combat knives....well that's just ridiculous. :crazy: Now begs the question - what type of individual would buy such products? And, for what use? Honestly, the mind simply boggles.

You may not know this, but a few years back, a middle-aged man armed to the teeth with real 9 mm's as well as a machine gun, calmly walked into a quiet primary school in Dunblane, entered the gym hall and proceeded to open fire on the kids and the teacher. I can't remember the death toll, but it was high. I think they all died. This is now known as the "Dunblane Massacre".

This act of indiscriminate killing caused outrage throughout the whole World. These kind of incidents happen a lot in this country. Firstly, how did these evil individuals get those guns and secondly Why? Why do people do such things to their fellow human being? I hate guns. I hate gun culture and everyone who indulges in it. Are we not civilized? :disgust:

A couple of days ago in the UK, a 14 year old girl was shot dead while walking home from a night out - in a drive-by shooting! She was shot 6 times!! Why? My deepest sympathies go to her family.

I'm sorry, this subject just gets me enraged. :grr:

Iain. :ki: :disgust: :straightf

[dan guthrie]

Rather than refute some of your claims Iain: you don't know me very well but we've exchanged some private e-mails. I own several handguns and I reload my own ammunition. I'm taking Aikido because it gives me the option of ending conflict without escalating the violence and causing injury.
I love Aikido because of this. If someone tries to harm me, and this is very unlikely considering where I live, I will retreat if possible. I use my handguns for fun.
If you knew me better you wouldn't deny me this hobby.
There are 10s of millions of people like me here and in your country as well.

[Shane Mokry]

I'm one of them Dan!

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

Iain,

Let's not prove everyone RIGHT and get upset. I wanted to prove that we could discuss views rationally as Aikidoka and get a bunch of points of view. So far we are doing fine. :)

As far as arming citizens...you are very wrong in thinking that our protests are not peaceful. US citizens have ALWAYS been armed. We have protests all the time. They do not turn out to be slaughters. HOWEVER, you are right in pointing out the obvious. They could become revolutions...and probably successful ones... but the government hasn't pushed that button yet and the American people generally use all our other freedoms and rights to protest thing they don't agree with. Apparently, we are satisfied with the results of our peaceful ways of changing things we don't like about our laws and government. By the way, I would think that since the military is made up of citizens, most of which fight for the people rather than the government, it would be very unlikely that the military would target its own citizens. I hope!

There are controls on our guns. You can't just go buy what you want. The MP5 is a very nice 9mm submachine gun...and I have shot them. Very fun. I do not however own one and I can't because you have to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to get FULLY automatic weapons in the US. If I remember it is a $200.00 a year tax on each automatic firearm and you have to be willing to submit to annual and surprise inspections of your wepons, which I am not! And...why would you get 9mm's when you can get .45's? :D Just kidding.

I'm sorry to hear about Dublane. It's very tragic. But Iain, We are not all sickos :hypno: ya know. Don't take this the wrong way, because I have a very peaceful nature, but, I can think of much crueler ways to kill a bunch of kids than to shoot them. As a matter of fact, I've seen much crueler stuff in the news. (like beheading people with dull knives! or drowning kids in a bath tub) Compared to that I think shooting is fairly humane. Why do people do it? Who knows. I do know one thing. Having the ability to do harm is much different than doing it.

Peace man :cool:

Shane

[Aikidoiain]

I meant no offence Dan. I'm sure you're right that the majority of handgun users are like yourself - good responsible people. It's the ones who are not that concerns me. I just get so upset when I hear of shootings of innocent people.

And Shane, yes I'm sure there are far more brutal ways to kill children, but the method is not the point - it's the intent. and the outcome that are the real issues.

Quite frankly, if I was a parent of one of those poor children, I would be devastated at their loss. Shooting, stabbing, hanging...what does it matter to the parents? All that matters, is there child is dead.

Sorry if I offended you both.

Iain. :ki: :straightf

[Shane Mokry]

No offense taken at all... debate is good.
I hope you understand that even us gun nutsget outraged at the murder of children. We just don't want to see our guns taken away because of some lunatic who hapened to use a gun instead of a ball point pen.
I have children too...I'd lose my mind!

Shane

[dan guthrie]

No offense taken Iain, this isn't the first debate I've had in this area. When I get a chance to talk with someone with your position I take it as an opportunity to sneak inside your armor, tell you you're wrong and give you a big hug. Then I put a "kick me" sign on your back and run like hell. :D

[MitchMZ]

Airsoft guns, and many paintball markers, could potentially be considered replica firearms. Although, these do have legitmate sporting purposes and really are fairly harmless...even when compared to a bb gun. Simply put, using these guns as blunt weapons would probably be more dangerous to someone than the actual projectiles.

I'm actually not a huge fan of real guns, but I love airsoft and paintball. These activities truly are great for team building and self esteem when done safely and properly (just like martial arts). I use a tremendous amount of common sense when hauling my airsoft guns, as they look like real firearms. Replica firearms serve a purpose for me, and many law enforcement personel. In fact, I've heard of some airsoft and paintball CQB fields using civilians as the opposition for the training of law enforcement tactical teams. If you ever get the chance, try paintball or airsoft; they are a blast and usually the people are really great. If we are allowed to train in the ancient arts of combat, shouldn't we also be able to train in the modern?

[Shane Mokry]

Good point Mitch,

Is it expensive?

Shane

[Lan Powers]

Offline Re: Gun Control

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>quote
In the UK, the Police are unarmed (although Tactical Firearms Units do exist). The citizens are not allowed to carry firearms.

If any Government chooses to arm its citizens, this is effectively creating an army. So, instead of thousands of unarmed peace protesters turning up at the Government's door - they'll be met with an army instead. This is the first step to revolution and anarchy < unquote

One of the very first steps in Adolf Hitlers programs of his "New Germany" was to disarm the public.

(Actually the treaty's after WW2 limited the military arms.... just not private ownership)
There is a quite well known quote on this topic... can anyone recall the actual wording?

If the government has all power and the public has no means of personal protection, then it can lead to the rampant growth of totalitarianism. Doesn't have to ...Look at UK - can though... Look at Germany in the '30's.

Having a firearm, and the gut to use it, was a factor in being able to "save" my younger siblings once.
I don't think many will willingly surrender their RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS *constitutionaly guarantied.
I won't.
Lan

[Aikidoiain]

I don't think I'll be visiting the US of any other country that allows its citizens to carry firearms. I find it all a bit "odd", and threatening.

Incidentally, Adolf Hitler was a Psychotic Megalomaniac - so I would never use him as an example! :crazy:

To each their own, I suppose.

Iain. :ki: :straightf

[Thomas Ambrose]

Iain, there is a large variety of laws throughout the US, so if you still wanted to visit and see out beautiful country, there are plenty of options where guns are either not allowed, or at least heavily restricted ;) That's the beauty of Federalism!

Throughout the US, gun laws are very different. In Texas, you can own and carry just about anything. In my state, Michigan, you can own anything that is, but you can only carry a handgun, providing it is concealed and you have obtained a special liscense and passed safety courses as certified by the state police department. Of course, this doesn't apply to military and law enforcement. Nowhere in the US, can a citizen own a fully automatic weapon, with a few very restrictive exceptions. So one bullet per trigger pull, max.

In Washington DC, you cannot have a handgun, period. I think the same goes for New York. In Chicago I don't beleive you are allowed to own any firearm. Incidently, these are some of the highest crime areas. People could argue in circles about which is a cause to what?

Does the lack of armed law-abiding citizens increase violent crime because the citizens are undefended, or does an increase in crime cause local government to increase the implementation of gun restrictions and bans? It then gets reduced down to a useless "chicken and egg" argument. It probably is fair to say that current bans are not truly effective against crime, as blunt objects and knives are still common weapons of violent crime.

You can also trace many gun crimes back to someone who obtained a firearm illegally. Columbine: the kids either were given access to parent guns, or bought some guns at a pawn shop I cannot remember which, but illegal either way since they were minors. The dealer who sold the rifle to the "Beltway Sniper" did not follow up on records and paperwork, and that shows questionable motives. I think we ought to try fully enforcing the current laws before passing outright bans. Just my thoughts!

Personally, I am in favor of allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms, the so-called assualt rifles. No rocket-propelled grenades or machine-guns or anything. I am a tall guy and have the hardest time comfortably holding a traditionally stocked rifle. I feel much more comfortable with a pistol grip. The gun I fire at the range is a Romanian WASR-10, which is basically the same design as an AK-47, only not automatic. It fits my body perfectly, is reliable, fun to shoot, and very easy to clean and take care of. Since I do target practice with it and I can purchase five-round magazines to make it legal to hunt with in my state, I suppose it has a "legitimate recreational purpose." On the other hand, because it "looks" like an AK-47, many want to ban it.

Anyway, those are my meanderings and a few answers to some people's posts. Hopefully I am showing that firearms-enthusiasts can be well educated and respectful people!

[MitchMZ]

Shane, Airsoft is very reasonable and the people have some insane equipment. A good Automatic Electric Gun (AEG) with all the essentials is probably around 300 USD, although much cheaper equip can be had. The ammo is crazy cheap tho, probably around 12 USD for 3000 bbs or more. A decent spring rifle with bolt action can be had for as low as 130 USD.

example of good AEG: http://www.cobraairsoft.com/images/AE-043-TM.jpg

[Taliesin]

Interesting Debate. I live in Nottingham UK where there has been yet another shooting. So I have been following this debate with great interest. For myself i have a few views.

1. Guns are made to fire bullets not stop them. (I do go with the if you have a hammer every
problem looks like a nail.)

2. The problem with lets call it legitimization of gun ownership. Here the problem is not the
responsible citizens, but all the others who think a gun in itself is a quick fix. I don't even think
that mandatory training is useful - here in the UK we have to have a driving test - but a huge
number of those who drive legally are dangerous drivers.

3. The greater number of guns and the lessening of restrictions simply means everyone has easier
access to guns. The good, the reckless, the bad, the psychotic.

4. Assuming that criminals want an 'edge' means that shooting someone rather than threatening
them is likely to become the preferred choice.

5. Violent crime in the UK. whether it is on the increase or not depends upon whether you are
more inclined to believe the British Crime Survey or Reported crime. After all an increase in
reported crime may be down to an increased willingness to report it. In any event most violent
crimes have more to do with alcohol than anything else (The Saturday Night Punch-up and
Glassing).

6. Sport - Shooting is not a Sport it may be a competition but it is not a sport. (Sport is where
heart and guts and sheer bloody minded determination to keep going when you have pushed
yourself to the limits can lead to triumph over more skilled opponents).

7. Killings/Murders As far as I can see most killings are not by career criminals but by ordinary
people who loose their temper and snap. I shudder to thing of the number of domestic violence
death if guns were legitimized in the UK

8. Liberty and Rights - A social contract argument we agree to give up some of our liberties in
exchange for a 'safer society' (Sound Familiar)

In additon to this last point I would say where the current society is about howit is OK to detain someone who might be a threat. Giving up something whose sole purspoe is to injure and kill is not an unreasonable one.

[Shane Mokry]

Mitch,

Your link didn't work. I was denied access.
I'm going to look at some of them. I may be able to gather up a game of tag in the off season on the hunting lease. that would be a lot of fun and some good training.

Thanks,
Shane

[Shane Mokry]

David,

Believe it or not I agree with alot of what you say. The one thing I do not agree with is giving up our only means to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government for a "safer society". I'll have to agree with Lan on that one. Once the government has its people completely disarmed it can pretty much do anything it wants. Including killing citizens for whatever reason. I've actually seen pictures of Nazi soldiers rounding up jews and their rifles were on safety or not even loaded. Some of those Jews may have been able to escape had they recognized the opportunity. It had been so long since any of the people living in Germany at the time had been allowed to own firearms they didn't even know how they operated.

Anyway, Thanks for the posts and keep them coming! I am learning alot about all points of view and also about what my own motivations are for being pro-gun.

Shane

[Thomas Ambrose]

8. Liberty and Rights - A social contract argument we agree to give up some of our liberties in
exchange for a 'safer society' (Sound Familiar)

In additon to this last point I would say where the current society is about howit is OK to detain someone who might be a threat. Giving up something whose sole purspoe is to injure and kill is not an unreasonable one.

David, I respectfully disagree with you here. As Ben Franklin supposedely said "Anyone who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."

In a post Sept-11 world, the US government has taken steps in the name of security that have tread dangerously close to, if not outright taking away many civil liberties and rights. There is the increase in deportations of Arab-Americans, increases in detainment of the same group of people, and then god only knows what else in places like Guantanomo Bay. If one asks me, this is a step in the wrong direction. I am all for increasing law enforcement, and airline security, and the like, but on the other hand I do not want to cross the line of arbitrarily discriminating against individuals who have done no wrong.

I do fear that one day my government may go too far, and fall down that slippery slope. Any denial of the freedom of law-abiding citizens is a step in this direction, including banning weapons. Rather than an all out ban, why not simply increase law enforcement measures that people with a violent criminal record from owning weapons?

The only people in society who should lose their personal liberties are the criminals who do crime. Those who respect society and abide by laws should be allowed freedoms.

[Taliesin]

Shane

This is where background experience comes in. It is never a simple enough situation to say giving up freedoms for security deserves neither. I appreciate that your Constitution does, at least arguably, enshrine the right to bear arms, however for any society to exist there must be accepted limitations on freedom. Because the answer to does the end justify the means? is always what is the end and what are the means. Almost everybody in a civilized society had agreed in effect not to commit murderer.

The question is whether giving up your, arguable, constitutional right is justified is two fold. Would giving up your guns make society safer. personally i think so given that we have had only two 'shooting-spree type murders in Hungerford and Dunblain. So I think the biggest threat is not from the career criminals so much as the reckless, careless, stupid and those who just snap (AKA Going postal).

If the answer to this part is yes, which in my own opinion (and admitted as such!!) it is. There is a second question of whether it is proportionate and reasonable. Again I would say yes.

Admittedly in the UK we have a legal constitution base upon civil liberties rather than constitutional rights, so the argument that you are free to do whatever the law does not prevent you from doing is our yardstick. In America it appears to be more your constitution and it's interpretation.

[dan guthrie]

Just a historical note, in U.S. history, the original motivation for serious gun control was to keep recently freed blacks from getting them. It was conservatives, not liberals, behind segregation and gun control.
"Restricting Handguns, the liberal sceptics speak out," edited by Don B. Kates, jr. copyright 1979.

[Shane Mokry]

I agree with Thomas. Thanks.

David,

Interesting point of view. We, as Americans, and as Aikidokas for that matter, seek balance. I always look for balance in my life and decisions. I will consider your reply. I like to hear different points of view. I am in fact always saying "convince me". If you can I will change my views and common sense tells me, hey, this guy's right, I'll be the first to admit it. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. I think there should be limitations on freedom...especially those dictated by individual responsibility. I just don't know. I ove shooting and carrying firarms. I don't (believe it or not) sit around dreaming about the day when I can be the hero and shoot the bad guy, saving the family in danger or whatever. I dread the day I am faced wth a mortal decision. I only prepare and hope i make the right one. But, again, I will not sit defenseless against criminals , who intend me harm, or a government who intends to take away all rights from everyone and rule undisputed. Surely, even the UK guys can identify with that. That is my major concern today. You think y'all hate the US government? The citizins of the US are increasingly wary and suspicious of this government. We don't always know its motives either.

Thanks for the post...I will consider this.

Shane

[Taliesin]

Shane

I think we can agree it is all about the balance between freedoms and necessary restrictions. Where we disagree is what the right balance is. A far as distrust of Government I agree with that as well. Although it does appear the worst of those laws are the ones sold to the public that they will only affect a vulnerable minority and then are extended to cover everybody( eg Nuremberg Laws(Jews), Alleged Terrorists (Irish/Arabs), 'enemy combatants',(Arabs), . A restriction against everybody in one particular freedom is far less dangerous as it has to be clearly accepted and openly agreed upon. Rather than laws against groups who the majority do not belong to and either don't care about or actively dislike - that is where the most horrific legislation is passed. Any anti-gun legislation would certainly not be in this category

I also accept that laws that limit some freedoms are justified. I believe that laws that limit the freedom to own firearms is one of these. As I have stated previously this is because the greater risk from individuals who are not as careful as you or who may snap outweighs the risk for individuals.

As far a self defense is concerned there are two points. firstly guns are made to fire bullets not to stop them. Secondly is the point about escalation of violence. The more guns around the more likely the philosophy of shoot first ask questions later (which brings us neatly back to guns are made to fire bullets not to stop them!!!).

[Shane Mokry]

Good points David,

Thanks. I understand where you are coming from. I am very careful. I may also be the one that snaps. I think anyone can snap under the right circumstances... I only hope I am not faced with those decisions. If I am, I hope I make the right choice... human nature

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

I guess this is over....

ok

Shane

[Bill Danosky]

I think the mere availability of weapons does not cause people to use them against each other- Unresolved anger and frustration do.

I think guns are fun. I don't believe American citizens should have to prove the necessity of ownership. I know I can safely own and use a firearm because I've taken training, I'm respectful of the power and I'm not violently disposed.

As I've stated in other forums, I think peace is within the domain of everyone's thoughts. When no one is thinking violent thoughts, the violence will stop, even if loaded machine guns are falling from the sky.

Now obviously, the trick is that we have to get everybody started thinking in this way. Here's my plan: I'll start first, then you. On your mark, get set, GO...

[Taliesin]

Bill

The problem is that as far as I am able to see gun related deaths are mostly with the people who just 'snap' and shoot. I remember seeing a news report about there being 600 gun related deaths in Florida and the Casualty (ER) Doctor noting that the vast majority of these were from domestic violence shootings rather than crime or gang related. This is a limitation for the good of all, unless you can assure me that you and everyone else who owns a gun thinks peaceful thoughts all the time.

The availability of weapons is totally relevant to people using them against each other. Unresolved anger and frustration may cause people to lash out with whatever is to hand, and when guns are to hand, that's what's used. And personally i think people lashing out with guns are more dangerous than people lashing out with their fists. But then I'm funny like that.

By the way I am not advocating anyone prove necessity of ownership of a gun. I am advocating a ban on private ownership of guns. Because if safe individuals like you don't get guns, the irresponsible don't get them either. Otherwise you both sorts getting them, leaving you in a very bad situation indeed.

As far as being trained making you safe to own a gun that argument didn't work with Charles Whitman (the 2nd most prominent example) and as stated before there are thousands of people who have taken instruction and passed their driving tests that are anything but safe drivers.

Although I take your point when we all achieve the serenity of saints in a totally Utopian world nobody will use guns (so use would not need to be limited). Unfortunately that's not where we are. This is a limitation on all for the safety of all.

[Bill Danosky]

My point is that the circle of anger and violence is it's own cause and effect. Whether it's with guns, bombs, jet airliners or paper clips, you can never take away enough objects to solve the problem by force. (Which is probably a bad approach to begin with.)

They've already outlawed the kind of behavior we're trying to prevent. So laws aren't solving the problem. The answer must be in the enlightenment of the minds attached to the trigger fingers. It's no more a fanciful notion than thinking we can get every gun off the street before Y3K comes.

As Aikidokas, we're supposed to be promoting peace, nonviolence and harmony. That's another way I know I'm not going to 'snap' and shoot anyone. Charles Whitman was trained to shoot, but he was unenlightened and violently disposed. So is everyone else who initiates the use of force, which no person (or country) has the right to do.

[Taliesin]

Bill

There is a huge difference. There are a huge array of techniqes you can use to defend yourself from knife, club, bottle or glass. You can run away from peole who have these weaopons. But I don't know anybody who can outrun a bullet.

As far as solving the problem is concerned a good start is ensuring that that when people lash out they cannot do so with lethal weapon. which probably explains why the UK and Europe have a hugely lower murder rate than the US.

There is a no contradiction between teaching people to be more peaceful, and removing the weapons they have - they are complimentary approaches. So lets reduce peoples capacity to commit murder first rather than hope they don't kill someone before they attain enlightenment. In other words lets make it a hard and difficult as possible to break the law rather than as easy as possible.

Charles Whitman was trained to use weapons, he was also driven to his actions by a brain tumour, and to be honest people who admit they could snap worry me far less then people who appear to believe thye are above such actions.

and even if you are going down the unenlightened route. If preventing the enlightened from having guns means the unenlightened, reckless, violent and plain stupid don't get them either that's fine by me.

[garry cantrell]

i grew up with shotguns and hunting rifles - and i currently own a shotgun or two. never had much interest in handguns. maybe because i'm such a lousy shot. never felt the need to carry any weapon in particular. that being said, i think its interesting that george w. made concealed handguns a cornerstone of his governor's race here in texas - but, next time he shows up in your town to give a speech, just try walking in with your handy dandy 9 mm and see how the secret service reacts.

[Bill Danosky]

Martial artists have a higher potential of harming others if they 'snap' or 'lash out'. Next thing you know, you'll be having to justify the necessity of practicing aikido to people who believe banning it is okay, because it's "a limitation on all, for the safety of all".

[Taliesin]

Bill

You can still run away from a Martial Artist, but not a bullet. And unless you are very VERY special indeed, you are unlikely to be able to go on a killing spree, like you can with a gun.

Besides you seems to have missed my point that it's better that when people lash out they don't do so with something so deadly and that has no other purpose. It's there that I believe the balance lies.

[Bill Danosky]

The balance, I believe, lies between force and counter force. It's now been proven in the middle east, that the circle of anger and violence escalates from thoughts and feelings, to insults and threats, to rocks and sticks, to guns and molotov cocktails, through car bombs and airliners to WMD, ad infinitum.

The solution we need is one that neutralizes, then reverses the escalation and that can't be done by force. Only by enlightenment and progressive idealism.

With all the guns in the world, it's impossible to take them all away now. Making them illegal will not deter the people who are taking illegal actions anyway. And, as a side-note, it would almost certainly raise their black market value and put more US$$$ in the hands of the bad guys worldwide. That would create more profit, and therefore more arms trade, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In my humble opinion, of course. ;)

[Thomas Ambrose]

Bill

You can still run away from a Martial Artist, but not a bullet. And unless you are very VERY special indeed, you are unlikely to be able to go on a killing spree, like you can with a gun.

Besides you seems to have missed my point that it's better that when people lash out they don't do so with something so deadly and that has no other purpose. It's there that I believe the balance lies.

It is true that you can run from a martial artist. But if a martial artist has the desire to kill you "personally" then you won't get a chance to run, as you won't realize you are a victim until it is too late. The same is true for firearms. If you aren't the first victim, you can run.

Also, should a person randomly pull out a gun and start to shoot people, I would prefer that some rational person (police or civilian) nearby has a fiream who may be able to put an end to the situation. So in a sense, a firearm in the hands of a well trained and rational person can prevent "further" deaths.

Just some thoughts I thought I might add! Very interesting forum to follow and I appreciate hearing everyone's opinions!

[Taliesin]

Thomas

Armed police, yes i agree with - we do have them in the UK, but only in an official capacity and whose actions are reviewed thoroughly, rather than just having individuals having guns. But I would regard that as very different from individuals having easy access to guns.

[Thomas Ambrose]

David, thank you for your thoughts. I would like to respectfully offer some counter arguments. I understand the need for armed police whose actions are reviewed thoroughly, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of living in my country where only the police, military, or other parts of the government are the only ones who are armed. If only the government has that power, the citizens are required to trust the government with everything. Even if a government's police organization's actions are completely reviewed, what good are those reviews if the government itself does the reviewing, and has absolute power anyway? The people can vote for elected officials and participate in the electoral process, but ultimately if the government and criminals have firearms, and law abiding citizens do not, then there is an imbalance of power, and the citizens are at the mercy of both the government and the criminals.

I would prefer to live in a society with NO weapons, but no matter what, there will always be those with weapons who wouldn't play along. Governments will never give up that power and criminals wouldn't respect the sanctity of law. At least here in the USA, police CANNOT do everything and be everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the police, but they can only do so much. Due to recent experiences I have witnessed, I know that I cannot completely trust the police with protecting my life at all times.

As far as easy access is concerned, in the USA it isn't easy to obtain a firearm through legal means. I have six firearms. For the two handguns I own, I had to obtain a special liscense to purchase each one, and then have each one registered with my state police department. To obtain the liscense there was a criminal background check through the police and I had to pass a "Firearms safety" test that made sure I had a competent knowledge of laws and safety etiquette. Handgun control laws vary throughout my country. My state, Michigan is somewhat moderate with them. For rifles, anywhere in the USA, there is a criminal background check that is phoned in through the FBI, records kept by the dealer, and of course ID must be shown each time a rifle is purchased. This includes everything from bolt-action rifles to semi-automatic rifles. The point is, that though firearms are legally available in this country, only adult citizens with clean criminal records and no major mental health issues are allowed to purchase them.

Anyway, just so more thoughts to put out there!

[Thomas Ambrose]

Sorry if I sound like I am beating a dead horse, but this is an issue that I am very interested in, and I am very glad to read everyone's thoughts to far. I also thank the orginal thread's poster since I wouldn't have had the guts to do it myself, being very new to the aikiweb system. I will ask my question and then stay silent :D

Here is something I am curious about. To me guns often seem demonized while other weapons are more commonly used in crime and not regulated at all. I believe but am not certain that I read a stat at the Center for Disease Control that "blunt objects" are the most commonly used weapons in violent crime. Part of the difficulties here is "How do you define weapon?" Obviously guns were designed to shoot, blades to cut, etc, but a baseball bat is still a very LETHAL weapon when used in an innappropriate manner.

Anyway, here is my question... What are your thoughts on other weapons? Should swords be outlawed? Or bows and arrows? Or baseball bats? I know it may sound flippant to mention, but I think my point is valid. Someone could cause a lot of death and damage with a katana, even more so than some of the guns that I own. I don't know much about the status of bladed weapon laws in other states or even other countries, but I know that if I had a couple thousand dollars to spend, I could get an authentic katana or other sword with NO background check or other intervention from the government. I might have to show an ID to verify I am an adult. Or I could buy a fake dummy katana (but still dangerous) for less than $50 at just about any flea market.

My opinion is that anything that could be used as a weapon is both an offensive and a defensive weapon. The line is very difficult to draw at what should or should not be banned. Banning citizens from owning and using weapons in a legal manner should not be the goal, but defining what behavior is and is not acceptable, safe, and responsable with weapons or other objects should be the goal of these laws.

Guns: take them to the range to shoot, hunt with them, keep them safely away from other people (especially children) when not in use, require people to prove knowledge of safety before owning or carrying a firearm for self defense.

Swords: take them to the dojo to train with, keep them away from other people (especially children) when not in use... etc

Baseball bats: take them to diamond or batting cage or wherever to practice with... etc

Rather than banning objects, the government should focus on definining uses of the objects in question that are acceptable to society. If a person abuses an object and puts society at risk, then that person should be punished. If a person continues their hobby in a safe and legal manner, then the government should let that person do as they please.

Just my thoughts! I will be quiet now and lurk around reading responses ;)

[Shane Mokry]

Man, I thought this topic had died! I'm glad to see everyone is still keeping everything above the belt.

I think everyone knows my opinion on this so I won't keep you... carry on.

Shane

P.S. You are welcome, Thomas. I was just curious about the overall opinions on gun control in the Aikido community. I also have a tendency to stir sh**. I don't stir too often though.

[Bill Danosky]

Love us or hate us, but I think most Americans are basically heros waiting for opportunities. I was reading all the posts about running away from this and that, and thinking that we don't tend to run away from problems here, especially when they're emergencies.

This is probably the reason we don't have as many gun control laws in the US. (In fact, with the expiration of the assault weapons ban in July, we have one less.) Our kneejerk reaction is apparently to "handle things" as was evidenced by the passengers of Flight 93 on 9-11.

This is not being violent, or even thinking violently, but not being tolerant of violence. Again, my criteria for use of force is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force.

(Hey, Shane. How's this for stirring it up?)

[Taliesin]

Thomas

The huge problem, as far as outside reporting is concerned, is that you have a hugely greater number of gun related murders and deaths in the US than we do in the UK. As far as unarmed opposition to Government being unable to effect change, you might want to look at What Gandhi did in South Africa and India and what Martin Luther King.Jr did in the states. Neither they or their followers needed weapons to make very significant changes in their societies. Besides which if everyone is armed then is a matter of who has the better weapons. That sort of escalation makes me very nervous.

As far as why guns are demonised. Well guns are made to fire bullets, end of story. Knives are used in kitchens, baseball bats in baseball, bottles hold beer (a very valuable function I'm sure you will agree) Even swords are used for martial arts training. Although there was a thread here about some Australian state banning swords. Personally I put the balance like this. If it is reasonably possible to defend against a weapon, it shouldn't be banned. If it is impossible, it should. If an object has a legitimate alternative purpose it shouldn't be banned. if it doesn't it should That is where guns lie.

However I would be prepared to accept the Chris Rock compromise - bullets at $10,000 each.

Bill

The idea that any nationality are 'hero's waiting for opportunities' is one I find very worrying. What if you had a President like that?? Looking to invade another country just to look like a hero. Unfortunately you do.

There are hero's in all walks of life and of all nationalities. But the thing about hero's is they don't go looking for opportunities, they rise to the challenge. That's a huge difference. And to be honest an assumption you can 'handle things' without consideration is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing.

The problem with saying no one has the right to initiate force is impractical. It's like saying you cannot defend yourself until after your face has been torn off with a broken bottle. The question is whether reasonable force was used.

[Bill Danosky]

Hi, David.
My criteria for use of force is universal in it's application. I can't think of a situation in which it wouldn't be valid. This includes countries and heads-of-state.

Example: Saddam Hussein initated the use of force when he invaded Kuwait, therefore the use of counterforce was justified. In the recent Iraq invasion, our government initiated it, so that was not justified. Sorry, everyone- this is my opinion.

In Aikido, we strive to catch an attack before it's fully launched. Force has been initiated, counterforce is applied. This is not the same as waiting for your face to be torn off. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is what the Common Law system mandates, too.

As to being a hero- Anyone who's ever seen an action movie probably knows the difference between looking like a hero and really being one. It's choosing to put your own self on the line for the good or protection of your fellow man. I like your definition of heroes (rising to an occasion), but I think if everyone waited until they'd considered that they could 'handle' a situation, no one would ever get saved. I've heard it said that it's the decisions we make in the blink of an eye that define who we really are. And yes, hero work is dangerous!

As to raising the price of bullets to $10,000 a piece, and assuming there are something like a billion rounds of ammo in the world, I think that would make the arms dealers the richest people on earth- I'll bet that's not something you want.

By the way, in discussing Martin Luther King, jr. and Mahatma Ghandi, vis a vis, nonviolent protest, you're helping make my point about progress through enlightenment. Don't feel bad, though- you're still disagreeing with Thomas!

[Bill Danosky]

If an object has a legitimate alternative purpose it shouldn't be banned. if it doesn't it should That is where guns lie.


I forgot to ask- Does this mean guns for hunting are okay? :eek:

[Bronson]

bottles hold beer (a very valuable function I'm sure you will agree)

No it isn't. I see no good reason for people to have access to alcohol. If I was given the choice of deleting from the face of the planet firearms or alcohol it would be alcohol without a second thought.

But that's just me.

Bronson

[Shane Mokry]

Shame on you Bronson! Beer has a right to live too. :D

I would delete bottles. ;)

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

Wait... I take that back... then I wouldn't have anything to shoot at.

Shane

[Thomas Ambrose]

Sorry about this, but I have to jump in really quick! Then I will return to lurking...

As far as why guns are demonised. Well guns are made to fire bullets, end of story. Knives are used in kitchens, baseball bats in baseball, bottles hold beer (a very valuable function I'm sure you will agree) Even swords are used for martial arts training.

Many hunters and marksmen would argue that guns can be used for hunting, or even target shooting. True they ARE designed to fire bullets, with one of many intended results is to kill a person, deer, or paper target. I will not disagree. Although, fully automatic weapons are banned, because there is no reasonable "sporting purpose," and this I accept that.

Swords are designed to be used to cut flesh, end of story. Using a live blade for martial arts is like using a firearm for target practice. Instead, you can get all of the benefits of sword training using a safer wooden bokken, so why not ban live blades? One could argue that using an authentic sword is different than using a bokken (I wouldn't know, I am NO expert on swords), but I DO know that using an actual firearm is VERY different than using airsoft guns, pellet guns, or any of the other "substitutes."

In my opinion, target shooting is similar but different to martial arts training. You are learning how to use something, be it a weapon or your body. You are probably learning to use something that can can be used to damage a person, or worse. In so doing, you learn the proper etiquette, safety, and respect that goes with such training. You may also chose to learn philosophy, ideology, etc at the same time. In the end, I don't want to judge someone else's hobby, martial art, or sport. I enjoy aikido, and I enjoy shooting. I do not particularly enjoy baseball. I won't say that shooting and aikido have more validity to exist than baseball, I just won't play baseball. I expect baseball players to be as careful with their bats as I am with my firearms.

[Thomas Ambrose]

No it isn't. I see no good reason for people to have access to alcohol. If I was given the choice of deleting from the face of the planet firearms or alcohol it would be alcohol without a second thought.

But that's just me.

Bronson

Isn't the Bells Brewery in Kalamazoo? They make some of the best beer in the state of Michigan and indeed in the whole USA! For those of you who get a chance to, try Bells Oberon next summer. It is my favorite "local" beer and one of the few beers that the United States can be proud to produce! :cool:

OK, now I will go back to lurking....

[Bronson]

Isn't the Bells Brewery in Kalamazoo?

Yep, sure is. Evil den of iniquity that it is :D

Bronson

[Taliesin]

Bill

In response to your posts

As far as Common law in the UK is concerned. An initial strike can be recognized as self defense if someone has an honest and reasonable belief they are about to be attacked.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. Hero's looking for opportunities implies to me a person looking to rush into a situation to look good, rather than some one who rises to the occasion and acts instinctively because they find themselves in a situation. Personally I think they are different circumstances and whilst I support the latter, I do worry about the former.

As far as would i want arms dealers to be rich. NO. However I would rather they made their money from larger profits from smaller sales than smaller profits from larger sales. Given this would financially reduce availability of guns. and reduction of guns is something I do want.

Is hunting a sport. - Definitely not. Is it a legitimate pastime? I'm not convinced. Although the evidence of hunters being involved in shooting fatalities may change my mind

Thomas

As far as swords are concerned. One big difference between training with swords as opposed to guns, is that training with guns means training to fire them. Training with swords is just as much about dealing with an attacker who has a sword. This is something that training with a bokken is not adequate for, the same as training with a wooden tanto does not equip you for Jiyu Waza with a real knife. The psychological difference is significant. (Trust me on this).

Which still leaves me in the position that guns are something you cannot reasonably use a technique against and who have no other purpose than to fire bullets and therefore should be banned.


Bronson

Can you confirm whether you posted on the favorite Beer Thread. If not then I'd say the positives slightly outweigh the negatives as far as alcohol is concerned, but that's another debate.

[Bronson]

Can you confirm whether you posted on the favorite Beer Thread. If not then I'd say the positives slightly outweigh the negatives as far as alcohol is concerned, but that's another debate.

Nope, I didn't.

I don't see it as a different debate, just different objects we're debating about.

I believe you are saying that the presence of firearms in a society is too big of a risk even though the majority of people who own them never commit a crime/harm another with them.

I would say the same thing for alcohol. The majority of people who use it do so responsibily. The ones who use it irresponsibily not only destroy their lives but they become a danger to the people around them.

And, I believe, that if you took away alcohol you'd lower many of the rage related crimes that firearms are used to commit.

It seems to come down to this: I enjoy firearms training/practice so if it is taken away it will negativley affect me. You do not enjoy it. You will not be negatively affected by its removal and see no reason for it to remain. It's the same with me and alcohol. I don't partake and see absolutley no reason for it to exist in society. The difference lies in that I feel this is a personal choice. I don't like it so I don't do it, you are free to as long as it is responsible use. If you don't like firearms you shouldn't own one, I should remain free to as long as I use it responsibly.

But again, that's just me.

Bronson

[Thomas Ambrose]

Bill
...Which still leaves me in the position that guns are something you cannot reasonably use a technique against and who have no other purpose than to fire bullets and therefore should be banned...


What about marksmanship as a hobby, is that legitimate? It is physically demanding on the body, requires great concentration, and improves a person's mental awareness and ability to focus. Reason being, you know that a gun you are shooting is a deadly weapon, and you act accordingly. It may not have the exact same benefits as kenjutsu or iaido, but it does have at least those that previously mentioned. I guess my point is that if a gun's "other purposes" besides killing are outweighed by it's capacity to kill, the same is true of a sword and they should be banned as well.

As to techniques against a firearm. I can think of one off the top of my head. Like any defensive technique, it will not guaranteesafety, but it will certainly decrease the odds of the bullet hitting you. Turn sideways, decreasing the profile of the target, making you MUCH more difficult to hit, especially if the attacker is just an untrained but armed thug. This might work, it might not, but if it did it would buy you an extra few seconds to either run away, draw your own weapon, or other possibilities depending on range. As I said, it won't guarantee survival, but it does increase your chance of living beyond zero.

Also, suppose I catch a burglar in my house and he has a lethal non-firearm weapon, such as a crowbar. He gets startled, panics, and attacks me with that weapon, I would prefer to have a firearm (that I am competent and well practiced to use) over almost anything else to stop his attack, because I would have the highest chance of survival.

Anyway, just thought I would ponder the legitimacy of weapons, and share some thoughts about defense against a gun, and defense with a gun. Since I enjoy a respectful but spirited debate, I won't say I am a lurker anymore, as I cannot resist sharing my thoughts on this topic. :p

[Thomas Ambrose]

Thomas
... As far as unarmed opposition to Government being unable to effect change, you might want to look at What Gandhi did in South Africa and India and what Martin Luther King.Jr did in the states. Neither they or their followers needed weapons to make very significant changes in their societies.

In the spirit of offering counterpoints :) , here is a quotation from Mahatma Ghandi's autobiography:


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.

It is on page 372 from The Story of My Experiments with truth - An Autobiography authored by Mahatma Ghandi. I found this quote in an online version of the text posted at...

http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?book=bg0001&link=bg&id=1&lang=en&cat=books

...in case anyone would like to verify the authenticity of the quote, and read the context. Just follow that link and type 372 into the text-box for "page."

The quote is on page 446 of later print versions of the text.

Through the context of the quote, it actually refers to the arms possessed by the entire subjugated country, and not just necessarily those possessed by individual subjects, but I think that it does offer a recognition on the part of Ghandi himself that arms can be a source of power for the subjugated. Furthermore, since the British had disarmed all of India, armed resistance simply wasn't an option.

I think my point here, and what I think the point that Ghandi is trying to make, which was earlier articulated by Niccolo Machiavelli, famed political commentator from the early 1500's, is that a government who disarms its subjects shows a lack of trust to those citizens and a sense of hatred towards the government from those citizens will result.

But when
you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you.
This can be found in Chapter XX of The Prince, which can be found here...
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext98/tprnc11.txt

I would concur that Ghandi, King, and Mandela all did great things through non-violent methods, and do serve as great leaders and models for us all. I still believe that in a democratic country, or any country for that matter, a government that bans it's subjects from owning firearms cannot be trusted by those subjects.

Why should a people trust a government if the government does not trust the people?

Anyway, just some additional information and unique historical perspective on the whole matter! Hope you find it interesting! :)

Wow, I need to find a way to cut down the size of my posts! :blush:

[Shane Mokry]

Hi again everyone.

I think I'm starting to understand why people want to ban guns. I still don't agree with them...but I'm starting to understand the logic.

I find that people who would like to see firearms banned usually have not spent any time around them. I grew up with them around... using them. I, in turn, feel very comfortable around them. Just like people feel around automobiles. They are very dangerous but people have gotten so used to using them, they hop in, crank them up, and proceed to eat a hamburger going 70 mph going down the interstate?!. Hopefully we never get this comfortable around guns.

My point is this...I know lots of people who are so unfamiliar with helicopters that they would never dream of getting in one because they are afraid. I would go so far as to say they would even advocate banning them since they do have several crashes a year. After all, they have no use for them. They are afraid of them and no more helicopters in the sky would mean absolutely nothing to them...they travel by car or commercial jet when need be. They would probably save a lot of lives of people who would otherwise die in a helicopter crash. I travel to and from work in a helicopter. It is the fastest and most economical way for me to get to my oil and gas facility in the gulf of mexico. We can't put a runway out there, it is economically impractical to do so. Furthermore, boats are very slow and can take days to get to some locations. So, I ride. I enjoy it too. If I hadn't started flying in them as young as I did, I probably wouldn't risk it now.

Is this making any sense to anyone. I think that many people, through lack of exposure to firearms, and overexposure to firearm horror stories, have developed a real fear of them. The problem with this is that they never hear about the generations of people who have used them and enjoyed them incident free. Those stories are boring and they certainly don't make the news. I have tons of them.

Maybe one day when you hand someone your gun to look at and they freeze as if you just handed them a bomb with the fuse lit you'll know what I'm talking about. If you think about it, most people who don't trust you with a gun are the same people who don't trust themselves with a gun... for good reason. :confused:

Anyway, I've rambled long enough. :D

Take care all,

Shane

[Taliesin]

Should Heavy Metal Fans be specifically banned from owning firearms. For myself I say yes the same as everyone else. It is a tragic example of why I believe private ownership of firearms should be banned. As far a Governments not trusting their citizens - that's the entire basis of the rule of law.

Shane as far as your ignorance of guns argument I'd say this.

I know guns fire bullets. I know when fired bullet hit people they often kill them. I believe, based on information provided that most gun related 'homicides' are committed by 'normal' people who snap.

By the way feeling comfortable holding a gun is a given. What I don't feel comfortable about is other people holding guns - a very different ball game indeed.

[MitchMZ]

I don't know how I feel about this topic...anyone that argues guns don't make it easier for someone to commit murders is dreaming...but, in the same sense...why does the government have the right to tell me what weapons I can own and what weapons I can't? On the flip side...where does it stop? If you had people running around with HK XM29 OICWs http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm that have a 20mm semi automatic grenade launcher...do you think anyone would defend themselves? These guns tell you where incoming fire is coming from and allow you to "blind shoot" with sight through the camera on the top. US Army plans on using then around 2007. I love guns, but I don't think our forefathers could have possibly perceived how deadly technology would make firearms. Even 40 plus year old technology like the Ak-47 is still VERY formidable! a 7.62mm by 39 round can punch through a 1/4 inch of steel at 100 yards...you can get 75round drums for under 100 bucks online...

[garry cantrell]

shane

plus there's that louisiana law that requires all citizens to own at least 3 firearms :D sorry - i've spent a lot of time in louisiana (often flying on those helicopters out of intracoastal city!) - and my comment is only partly in jest. there are plenty of places in the u.s. where the idea of not owning a shotgun is simply too foreign to consider. certainly everyone - and i mean everyone - in my familial roots region of eastern tennessee owns several guns. similarly, when i went away to college, i was shocked to discover that my next door dorm neigbors from new jersey had never touched a firearm. and so it goes. regionalism is a powerful force.

i'm wondering whether there is any statistical data available comparing rural shooting deaths with urban and suburban shooting deaths.

[MitchMZ]

Yeah, I'm originally from North Dakota...and the gun laws are WAY LAX there. Everyone owns a gun...its no big deal. But, because there are hardly any people...there is hardly any crime up there. Guns don't create crime...they merely make violent crimes easier for those willing to commit them. Lets face it, technology has mades us less creative, lol.

[Bill Danosky]

The preposition of the anti-gun lobby is that banning guns will solve the gun problem. If that's the case, why don't they just ban the criminals?

[Bill Danosky]

Now my serious post...

I'm concerned about the gun control issue because I think it would create a new class of criminals. Many people I know to be good and morally upstanding in any other regard would staunchly defend their right to own firearms. Even after they were banned.

Now you have exemplary citizens, maybe in their seventies, who have gone their entire lives, attending church on Sundays, enjoying their families, never having committed a crime and we're going to instantly turn them into felons?

How about all the law enforcement officers who have to go collect these people from their homesteads? Not a good day at work for most cops. This is not a good solution.

The US Constitution guarantees and outlines our various freedoms. As the world knows, we Americans are pretty serious about freedom. This is probably the reason something that may be practical in the UK, for instance, would cause a near civil war here.

Almost everyone wants a feeling of peace and security and I think taking away rights regular people take for granted is no way to achieve this. My argument here has always been that the feeling preceeds the actual peace.

Buddhism, anyone?

[Taliesin]

Mitch

Accepting that a democratically elected Government, or even the US Government (sorry couldn't resist that) has the authority to pass laws is the entire concept of the 'rule of law'.

Bill

That's an interesting point, however you starting point is stopping individuals getting more weapons would be a start in conjunction with banning the sale of ammunition (or as stated before bullets at $10,000 each), plus an 'arms amnesty' for people to hand then in. That sort of gradual squeeze is perfectly viable way to disarm a population (or even money for guns)

BTW I still don't know whether anyone here thinks Heavy Metal Fans should be banned from carrying guns.

[MitchMZ]

LOL. Yeah, I guess I have trouble with the concept of modern civilization sometimes. It'd be kinda fun if things were more like the wild west! Go get me a lever action rifle!

[Bill Danosky]

David,
So we'll just dupe everybody into handing over their weaponry? The biggest thing the pro-gun lobby fears here is the "thin end of the wedge" and I don't think anyone is dumb enough not to see the end coming in that scenario. On the other hand, I'll bet better than half the (legal) gun owners here have reloading presses and beaucoup components, so hopefully your ammo pricing plan will become law.

Let's see.. at $10 grand apiece, I could probably sit at my bench and double my retirement fund in no time flat. Maybe you have something there. Then I'd be able to afford that Browning Automatic Rifle I've been wanting...

Just wondering, if they decide martial artists are dangerous, will we start having to pay $10,000 an hour for our Aikido lessons, too? Hurts when it applies to you, don't it?

[Ron Pyle]

Haven't read the whole thread yet. Got to the point on the "statistics". Here's a great book. He reveals the half truths in statistics that the liberals have fed us. Excellent book...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882639030/qid=1103034011/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-5939587-8089527?v=glance&s=books
An excerpt from the review...
Did you know that every 13 seconds one of America's 70 million gun owners uses a firearm in defense against a criminal? That American women use handguns 416 times a day in defense against rapists, which is a dozen times more often than rapists use a gun? That a gun kept in the home for protection is 216 times as likely to be used in defense against a criminal than it is to cause the death of an innocent victim in that household?

I myself grew up without any guns around. Decided to try them out before the liberals in California banned them all together. Found I loved shooting. I now live in South Dakota. The most permissive gun laws in the country. Our only problem is the cops don't have enough better to do, so we get pulled over on the smallest things....oh well. I have a concealed carry permit. They hand them out like candy here.

[Bill Danosky]

It seems there's some justification in those statistics for the posession of actual weaponry (as opposed to hunting firearms). The cause of the higher rate of violence in the US is subject to argument, but the reality is undeniable.

I, for one, am not going to get hung up on preparedness or turn my home into a fortress. I believe in the eventuality of a society free of violence. But I feel that having a trenchbroom handy allows one to disregard any unreasonable anxiety they'd have over home security. And I think freedom from fear contains the seeds of peace.

As long as a true state of detente exists between law abiders and law breakers, violence is arrested. Then we as a society can go to work on our social issues. The difference of opinion everyone is having is over how we achieve that detente.

Disarming everyone equally will level the playing field only as long as we citizens are prepared to learn, practice and work out at the same rate as the average prison inmate.

Having an adequate amount of firepower safely locked away in one's residence is therefore prudent for modern Americans. Assuming adequate training and consideration of fields of fire and overpenetration, of course!

[garry cantrell]

Bill

Why the distinction between "actual weaponry" and "hunting firearms" ? As I've said before, I'm a lousy shot with a pistol on the best of days and, if I were to decide I needed to shoot at someone in a self defense situation, I'd be much better off with a shotgun. That's me. But, at the same time, I'm having a hard time imagining a situation wherein anyone would be better off with a handgun. I don't think its reasonable for a homeowner, recently awakened in the middle of the night, to risk a precision shot that couldn't be made with a shotgun (as an aside - I just read in the newspaper about a little old lady and her husband near here being awakened in the middle of the night last night-maybe hte night before- by 2 guys cutting their phone line and trying to break in the front door. The little ol' husband shot a .38 through the wall the little ol' lady wife shot at the second guy through the window with a .22 - and struck him the forehead - killing him - don't know if the .22 was a rifle or a handgun - obviously she didn't have precision shot problems but, had she missed, .22 bullets can travel for a good mile or so) Shotgun pellets aren't going to carry through your neighbor's wall and kill them as well.

[Thomas Ambrose]

For home defense needs, I would not trust my life to my pistol abilities... yet. I train with a Beretta 9mm pistol and a Walther .22 caliber pistol at the range. The 9mm i can hit my target somewhat consistently at extremely close range, and the .22 at a farther range, but .22 doesn't really have stopping power (unless the shot is perfect) and my abilties with the 9mm pistol need MUCH improvement before I can trust it with anything.

My long rifles (I collect historical military firearms, mostly post WWII) are too long and bulky to effectively use for "in-door" home defense, and living in the suburbia, outdoor use of any rifle is far too dangerous to neighbors, etc, as previously mentioned. Plus my long rifles shoot 7.62 and 8mm with large powder cartridges, so they would certainly penetrate the walls, and thus are good for sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting alone. So if there is ever an armed robber in my house, these and the pistols will stay securely locked away in my safe.

At the present moment, I think my preferred firearm for "indoor home defense" would be a carbine 9mm rifle, or a shorter rifle that takes handgun ammo. I am a good enough shot with a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine that I would trust it in home defense. The shape of the round and the length of the barrel make it so that it won't travel too far, even if it were to make it through a wall. Plus the shorter barrel makes it easier to use indoors. If the first shot missed the target, the magazine carries 10 rounds (if I remember right) and it is semi-auto, meaning I just have to pull the trigger again for another shot.

Eventually I would like to get a shotgun and learn that as well, but until I have experience with one, I certainly wouldn't use something I have no expereince with in a defensive situation. Since I would probably use it for hunting eventually, I would want to get a really nice one (Mossberg, Beretta, Benelli) so it may be while before my "funds" allow me to do that. :)

[Keith_k]

If this is a rational discussion, we would want a rational reason to ban firearms. The case against firearms, presented as a formal argument, looks something like this:

1st Premise: The legal availability of firearms increases violent crime (especially murder)
2nd Premise: Violent crime (especially murder) is bad
Conclusion: Firearms should be banned to reduce violent crime

So in order to argue against the banning of firearms, I must show one of the premises to be false, or show that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Certainly violent crime certainly is bad. If legalization of guns does indeed increase violent crime then the conclusion is sound. But the legal availability of firearms does not increase violent crime.

In the US, there are states with stricter gun laws than others. California and New York have some of the strictest gun laws, yet some of the highest crime rates. Texas and Florida have looser gun laws, and high crime. Northeastern states, such as Vermont or Connecticut, have strict gun laws and no crime. Midwestern sates, such as North and South Dakota, have loose gun laws and low crime. In the US, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between strictness of gun laws and rates of violent crime.

The UK is often sited as having much lower murder rates than the US and much stricter gun laws. It is rarely noted, however, that the UK had much lower murder rates than the US before their strict gun laws were introduced. The correlation between the UK's gun laws and low murder rates cannot be drawn.

Now here's the kicker: every adult male in Switzerland is legally obligated to own and keep in good working order a fully-automatic, military grade assault rifle (Switzerland has no standing army and relies on citizen-soldier for defense). What are the murder rates like in Switzerland compared to the US? Much lower.

I do not see how the conclusion that banning guns will reduce violent crime can be logically obtained. It may be one of many factors, but clearly not a significant one. The banning of any item without public gain is nothing more than an arbitrary limitation on personal freedom, based on the passions of the mob and not on reason.

edited to correct spacing

[Taliesin]

I'm not in a great position to argue the stats, but guns are still a huge factor in murders and killings.

[garry cantrell]

david,

no doubt about it - an awful lot of folks die from gun use...particularly here in the u.s. what i wonder, though, is what is it about the u.s. that makes us want to shoot each other so much? by way of example, u.s. combat related deaths in iraq from the beginning of the war through sept. 8, 2004 average 1.4 per day - while the murder rate in detroit, for the same time period, was about 1.0 per day (note - the murder rate is higher in the summer than the winter and this time period includes 2 summers, so its artificially higher than a pro-rated yearly murder rate). don't know how many of the detroit deaths were from guns but i suspect (and not unreasonably) that a high percentage are gun related. on the other hand, windsor, canada, just across the river from detroit, has an almost non-existent gun murder rate ("bowling for columbine" says its zero - but i've seen stats that say that's incorrect). as an aside, windsor, colorado also has a nonexistent murder rate (pulled up those stats by mistake). and, as pointed out by keith, the swiss, armed to the teeth as they are, don't seem nearly as inclined to shoot one another.

[Thomas Ambrose]

One key difference to look at is poverty levels and increased crime in general in Detroit. I have lived in Michigan my whole life, so Detroit and Flint are near and dear to my heart. The inhabitants of Detroit who are armed to the teeth are the members of gangs, drug dealers, etc and their weapons are typically illegal black-market guns. The inhabitants of Colorado who are armed to the teeth are for the most part law-abiding citizens who like guns, and own guns that were legally obtained.

Detroit is a troubled city, with rampant poverty. This creates a setting of desperation where crime becomes much more common. When criminals arm themselves, and commit crimes to arm themselves with cheap and illegal black-market weapons (which gun control can never prevent) the natural conclusion is that those illegally obtained firearms will be used in crime. So in Detroit, you have many desperate criminals illegally arming themselves without background checks, etc. In Colorado, you have law abiding citizens arming themselves through legal means, with background checks and everything.

Here is some "gun control" that I would absolutely agree with.

1) Close the Poverty Gap: I know, easier to say than to do, but give youth attractive alternatives to crime and gang-life. Hopefully we will improve life in places like Detroit, etc. (As a side note, Detroit is trying to re-work herself into a better city and has made some great progress).
2) Actively track down and eliminate the illegal arms market: Have police be even more aggressive in their campaigns against drug dealers and weapons traffickers who illegally sell weapons. If only law abiding citizens are can get weapons, it becomes much more difficult for criminals to obtain them and the murder rates will decrease.
3) Enforce existing gun laws more aggressively: Use maximum penalties against criminals who use firearms. Criminally prosecute all who commit crimes with guns.
4) Education and Community Outreach: Add a curriculum of safety to our schools. Public school students currently learn about "Safe-Sex," Drugs, Alcoholism, Nutrition, etc in health classes. Why not also include a basic curriculum on firearm laws and safety? The NRA offers objective and non-biased programs on gun safety and offers free information to schools and parents. The Eddie Eagle Program, http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ is just one example. Over 18 million children have been through programs like this offered by the NRA. Police departments have also been involved with community outreach.
5) Close the "loophole": Here is where I will disagree with my beloved NRA. Guns sold from one private citizen to another do not require a background check if both citizens reside in the same state, usually. State laws can vary. There should be some easy and inexpensive way to transfer firearms for private (non-dealer) citizens where a background check is used. Although this could create difficulties for me, since my father and I share rifles when we go to the range. Perhaps create buying permits that exempts the user from new background checks each time, but being renewed annually with background checks then. Just some brainstorming:).

Anyway, just some thoughts and ideas! I think the focus should be on the crime itself, and its causes, not on legal weapons that are owned by non-criminals. OK, yet another way too long post! Back to quietly lurking! :D

[Keith_k]

I'm not in a great position to argue the stats, but guns are still a huge factor in murders and killings.

Maybe they are, but in what context? Are the guns used bought legally? Would the murder have taken place without a gun available?

As I stated in my previous post, there doesn't seem to be any logical coorelation between gun laws and reductions in crime. Just google "Gun laws" or "gun ban" and see what you come up with.

[Bill Danosky]

Bill

Why the distinction between "actual weaponry" and "hunting firearms" ? As I've said before, I'm a lousy shot with a pistol on the best of days and, if I were to decide I needed to shoot at someone in a self defense situation, I'd be much better off with a shotgun. That's me. But, at the same time, I'm having a hard time imagining a situation wherein anyone would be better off with a handgun. I don't think its reasonable for a homeowner, recently awakened in the middle of the night, to risk a precision shot that couldn't be made with a shotgun ... Shotgun pellets aren't going to carry through your neighbor's wall and kill them as well.

Gary,
a.) I could teach you to be an awesome shot with a pistol in one afternoon. That would come in handy if, for instance, bad guys are holding a gun to someone's head and you want to perform surgery. I recommend Glaser safety slugs for home defense. They are designed to fragment when they make contact with any object, so they won't go through a wall, assailant, etc. and continue on. Since they deposit 100% of their energy when they are retained in the target, they are also very effective man-stoppers.

b.) I distinguished between weapons and hunting firearms because I didn't want to split the issue. People usually make that distinction when they're getting ready to say hunting guns are okay, but assault weapons have got to go. I don't hunt because I'm too "soft-hearted" (according to my redneck friends), but I like to shoot the kind of guns they go after first.

[garry cantrell]

and so now i know. thanks bill!

ya'know, i've gotta say, this website is a gem. the general civility and thoughtfulness of the posts and replies is very refreshing.

[Short_Stack]

People should be able to carry guns. cause "bad" people will still be able to get guns! guns are for protection besides fr hunting. i think you should have to go to a gun class and pass in order to carry. it is a form of art. If you are allowed
to carry a knife you should be able to carry a gun. There will all ways be a back market. if someone walk in my house with a gun and trying to still something or hurt my family i will shoot him without a doubt. Its called PROTECTION! and If you have a gun in your house you need to teach your kid to never touch the hun unless allowed to by Parents my dad had guns and bows in his room and i knew that if i played with the guns/bow without his permission i would get in HUGE! trouble. so there for you should teach your kid this if you have a gun. not evey one is nice like some people so there will allways be crimes and if someone does a crime to me they will get killed. So either they kill you or you kill them sucks but i dont want to die and i dont want my family to so i will allways have a gun and be prepared
"All ways expect the unexpected"

[Taliesin]

The problem is guns are made ro fire bullets not to stop them.

[Shane Mokry]

David,

That's not necessarily true. Guns are a very effective way to stop others from shooting at you. (Cover fire) As long as there is a chance that me or my family will be shot at, I will carry.

I understand your point but have to agree with Randy....be prepared!

Thanks all,

Shane

[Bronson]

I support the right of an individual to carry. One thing I find puzzling though is that while I can get a permit to carry a lethal form of self-defense (firearm) I don't think my state, Michigan, allows civilian carry of several forms of less than lethal weaponry such as stun guns, collapsible batons, or pepper spray that carries the recommended level of capsaicin to be effective. I find it a little strange that in a self-defense aspect we go from hand-to-hand to deadly force without anything in between.

Bronson

[Thomas Ambrose]

Bronson, you are correct. Here in Michigan you can't even own stun-guns, tasers, police batons, automatic knives (switchblades), "metal knuckles," or self-defense sprays over a certain concentration (2%, but I am not sure on that number), let alone carry them. You also cannot carry a fixed blade unless it is while hunting and used as such, so that rules out carrying a katana (not that anyone would, just a tidbit). So basically you can only carry weak sprays, folding knives, or with proper training and liscensing, a handgun. I agree with that it is ironic, and only allows citizens only to use the most extreme level of force to defend themselves.

Luckily they don't classify all blunt objects as police batons... otherwise bokken and jo classes would be non-existent as nobody could legally own them!

[garry cantrell]

sorry guys. i appreciate the arguments - and i'm a general supporter of firearms, particularly hunting rifles and shotguns. i don't have any particular opinion about assault style rifles - they seem esoteric enough to not warrant an immediate threat (though 3 bank robbers near dallas recently used automatic weapons and sprayed the police cars that were giving chase - the video from one of the cars that was hit was pretty darn intense-and i bet the cops involved have some strong opinions about same) - plus, because i like live blades, i have difficulty making an intellectually honest argument against them. that is, are they necessary? no, probably not, and neither are swords. are they dangerous? yep. more so than swords, but that's just arguing degree over substance.

geez, lost my train of thought. its around here somewhere. oh yeah. here in texas you can carry a shotgun just about anywhere - including down the middle of the street in downtown dallas. perfectly legal. that being the case, why would a concealed handgun be necessary? from my perspective, i'm comfortable with a bunch of pickups with gunracks. handguns, particularly concealed handguns, make me nervous. o.k. - enough of that speech - i've made it before.

as to the weird illegal weapons laws on the books. nunchuckus are defined as an "illegal weapon" in texas - but - as i said above, carrying around a 12 gauge pump is perfectly fine. doesn't make much sense to me - but i bet the rationale is pretty much like the rationale for disparate sentencing guidelines for crack possession verses cocaine possession.

[garry cantrell]

after posting the above, i thought i'd better clarify - i think the rationale is that the folks who write the laws know lots of folks that they, the lawmakers, perceive to be good law abiding citizens who tote around shotguns, etc. - while its only those scummy lower class dangerous folks who can't afford a mossberg who would carry around a set of nunchuckus, etc. plus shotguns have history in texas while nunchuckus, swords, gravity knoves, etc., don't (though corps members at a&m carry them around for official functions).

[Bill Danosky]

Actually, it's that the people who make the laws get to carry guns regardless, so it's a sure bet they want to be the only ones. .

Just in case you want to know my opinion, the real villain in our society is our so-called Mental Health system. So many times when people have violent episodes, they're found to have been pushed around the system for years, in and out of hospitals, carrying case files with 100 signatures on them. Next thing you know, they're off their meds and pushing someone in front of a subway train or going to Mc Donald's with a machete. If they had the money to pay for some decent therapy, they'd have a much better chance to be fixed or at least stabilized.

That's starting to sound like one of those countries with socialized medicine, though. Hey, aren't they the ones with the really low crime rates?

[garry cantrell]

might be on to something there.

[Thomas Ambrose]

Bill, to be honest, I have always been a bit leary of the government having too much involvement in a person's healthcare, or other bits of their personal life. I am in a bit of the "My body, my life, my right to decide!" school of thought. On the other hand, you do raise the grim truth about the status of healthcare in the USA and I would agree with Garry, you are on to something. Sometimes it takes someone willing to point out the obvious that the rest of us (or at least myself) normally don't quite notice. To make a long story short, I agree with you.

btw, I would also like to point out that this thread, despite its obvious politically heated nature, has remained VERY respectful and open minded. In these rarest of cases I am comfortable posting my own opinions, and don't feel offended when reading the various opinions of others, and feel better educated in the topic than earlier. In other words, keep the good conversation coming :).

[Bill Danosky]

Well, it's not that I think socialized medicine is necessarily the answer. I just think there should be more equanimity in the care that's available. Even the most selfish people want psychos off the street- they just usually want them locked "away".

It would be interesting to hear from some of our friends in Canada, Britain, Scandanavia, etc. about how their healthcare systems might have affected violent crime in their countries. (Are you there, David-san?)

Also, I'd love to hear what Lynn Seiser-san has to say, as an enlightened mental health pro. I'll pm her and see if I can get her interested in this. Our education continues...

[Taliesin]

In the UK there has been increased reporting of violent attacks by Schizophrenics, leading to a public panic and outrage at a proposed 'pre-emptive detention order puly from diagnosis. We already have the provision to 'section people if there is reason to believe they are a threat to themselves or others".

Ironically the number of attacks by Schizophrenics has actually decreased. Unfortunately increased reporting does not automatically mean increased attacks. It may mean increased newspaper sales though.

Back to the main thread though. And leaving aside my personal concern that carrying a gun doesn't stop someone shooting you. Unless you see what is happening first and are actually the 'fasted gun in the west'. I would be interested in the fatality statistics of gun owners. As i have a strong suspicion that guns provide a false sense of security and a real danger.

[Bill Danosky]

carrying a gun doesn't stop someone shooting you.

Man, you are right about that! If you shoot someone directly in the heart, it takes them about seven seconds to lose conciousness. That's way more than enough time to fill you full of holes if they have the presence of mind to do so.

The approved method goes like this: If you're within three arm lengths, you leave your gun in it's holster and use your hands. What you really want is to get control of that weapon.

If you're farther away than that, you first change position, seek cover if possible, then draw, choose your target(s), look at your front sight and shoot until the threat is neutralized (or you are).

Gunfighting has been described as the American martial art. It can be dangerous here, and I think it's only prudent to know how to react to any threat you're likely to encounter.

However, I don't carry one, because I'm just not going to have a stream of conciousness where the wolf is always at the door. My general plan is not to piss people off and avoid whatever situations I can that are likely to end violently.
:ai:
:ki:
:do:

[James Giles]

Americans need guns to protect them from the CIA and other secret police. You know the ones that GWB has unleashed upon the Americans by signing the Patriot Act II into law. These new age nazi stormtroopers will think twice before they try to kick someone's door in and take them away to a concentration camp.

[Bill Danosky]

Americans need guns to protect them from the CIA and other secret police. ... These new age nazi stormtroopers will think twice before they try to kick someone's door in and take them away to a concentration camp.

No they won't, and there's no protection from "them" either. If The Man comes to get you, you're gotten, whether it's now, or at the end of a brief siege.

The odds are excellent that if you're posting sentiments like the above, they already have you on a watch list, so be very careful what you think, because as Thoreau said, "The ancestor to every action is a thought."

He would know! He was notorious in his day and was considered by the US government to be very dangerous because of the things he was saying and writing. And subsequently, he was imprisoned on tax evasion a short time later. This was in the early 1800s and things haven't changed that much since then.

So you have to decide, is what you're standing up for worth what you'll go through to deliver the message? What are you standing up for, anyway?

[SeiserL]

Also, I'd love to hear what Lynn Seiser-san has to say, as an enlightened mental health pro. I'll pm her and see if I can get her interested in this. Our education continues...

Thanks for the invite. I don't usually jump in on gun control because IMHO, most people have their view and are not really open to input. Gun control is an emotional issues, not an intellectual one.

Slight correction, Lynn Seiser is a 6'4", 220 lbs, male, ex-biker from the Detroit area (Ponitac), who knew Nugent when he played for the Amboy Dukes, veteran, and now 27 years working clinically in the area of violence, trauma, and abuse. The Ph.D.stands for "piled higher and deeper". Truly not enlightened or trying to be.

IMHO, there are more then enough gun control laws that are not enforced. Gun control only addresses the legally owned guns. The illegal guns in the hands of criminals is still unaddressed. In some crimes guns are used as the weapon of convenience, but in absence of a gun anything else would be used for similiar intent and purpose with probably the same outcome.

I would support the idea that guns do not kill people but the people using them do. Controling the weapon would not control the fear and pain behind the anger that fuels the trigger finger. Besides a good knife fighter will take a gunmen at 20 feet before his gun clears a holster. Anything is a weapon the the hands of someone intent to do damage.

While idealism and enlightenment are not criminology or mental health terms, there is some evidence that shame and remorse are the only means to reduce recidivism. Control, judgement, and punishment, appears to reinforces rather than reduce crime.

Buddhism and cognitive-behavior psychotherapy indicates that it is the mind that produces our individual and collective suffering. Until we control and change the internal cognitive map, we will never control the guns.

[Bill Danosky]

Okay, I 'm reading through Lynn's post live, as I type:

Right, yes. Oh! Sorry about the whole gender-mistake thing! :blush:

Right. Totally right. Absolutely. Definitely. Way true!

Right. Definitely right. I said that, too.

Well, you get my drift that I'm in perfect agreement. Sorry again about the mistaken identity, but reading your mini-bio, it strikes me you're emminently qualified to write on this subject, or at least the spin we have given the tired, old issue.

Everyone's opinion is welcome here and most especially when they make mine seem right!

[Shane Mokry]

I think I need to be more specific about guns stopping bullets.

What I should have said was redirect...I'm sure we can all understand that.

In other words...There is a VERY good chance an assailant (and defender) will miss their target while dodging lead or being pinned behind cover. Someone could create a chance to escape a violent firearm attack with cover fire.

There have been many firefights documented by police...at no further than 10 feet...where two people have emptied their weapons and never hit their targets. The stress must be overwhelming. A good friend of mine on the Baton Rouge police department told me that one of his fellow officers drew on an already drawn gun and emptied all six rounds of his revolver into the ground before he lined up on the target. Surprisingly, the officer wasn't hit either. This, to me, is very valuable information.

Thanks for the posts...very interesting...health care and violence,

Shane

P.S. I agree with Lynn about the fighter with a knife. He could only have a cup of coffee in his hand for that matter...it's all about intent and training.

[SeiserL]

It has always been amazing to me what poor shots most people are. Instead of ready-aim-shoot, its usually just aimless shooting when no one is ready.

IMHO, weapons (guns and blades) have a fear based intimidation factor that may be more dangerous than the actual potential of an attack.

Statistics from the United States suggest that less then 10% of the population is criminal and less than 3% is violent. We do have to train wisely for that 3%, but lets not over estimate the chances of being confronted by a loaded weapon in the hands of someone intent to use it. Even those "accidents" that happen within relationships, if we had our heads together we may not be in that situation or picked that mate to begin with. You cannot stop someone from being violent, but you can stop yourself from being in the vicinity or in a relationship with someone who is.

I was raising thinking gun control meant being able to hit what you aim at.

Einstein said that the type of thinking that creates a problem is never the type of thinking that solves it. Since violence and the control of violence are both fear based, we may need to look for another solution, because IMHO, this one is not working too well.

Violence is a message. Who sent it? Where does it come from? What is the message? How can we learn to hear it, not fear it, and respond appropriately.

[Bill Danosky]

I understand there's a motto within the Secret Service to the effect that if any shots are fired, someone has failed at their job. They are trained to "spot the loony" within a crowd of people and are expected to- reliably.

I knew a prison psychologist who claimed he could ask a person any question and gauge their sanity, not by their answer, but by observing their reactions, non-verbal cues and general visage. It sounds far fetched, but it's probably the first, fundamental step to self defense and is something that's probably understood by most prey animals.

As to the emptying of your gun at point blank range and not hitting anything: Six words- Front sight, front sight, front sight!

BTW, I'd be interested in knowing what happened in the incident with the Baton Rouge police officer after both guns were emptied, wouldn't you?

[Shane Mokry]

Bill,

From what I understand, the officer reloaded and apprehended the assailant. In this particular situation the criminal didn't have a reload on him. I suspect most thugs don't carry an extra magazine or speedloader with them. :crazy:

I shoot often and can hit my targets in excess of 25 yrds. I still don't know if I could be as proficient while someone I can almost touch is emptying a gun at me....I hope I never find out either. :)

Shane

[Bill Danosky]

Me, too!

Hey, I realize I haven't practiced any gun grabs since I have been in Aikido. Do they exist or is this an individual dojo issue?

That might be a way I'd be in favor of gun control. :)

[Keith_k]

I've been taught some gun grabs in my hapkido classes, but they aren't part of the normal curriculum.

[SeiserL]

We have occassionally practiced gun take aways in Tenshinkai Aikido.

[Bill Danosky]

I think I'll ask about it at practice tomorrow. It's one of those issues where if you teach it and someone gets themself killed you'd have a lot of guilt. But OTOH, it could just as easily save your life.

However you feel about the guns themselves, it seems prudent to have as many options as possible if the situation presents itself.

[SeiserL]

IMHO, remember the 3 Cs of weapons defense; clear, control, and counter. Clear the line of attack, try to deflect and redirect upwards so they don't shoot the person beside or behind you. Control the weapon, not just the hand or arm. Counter it and take it away. Using it on them is optional.

[Taliesin]

Late update on the Schizophrenic angle. One such individual went amok in London with a knife and killed, wait for it one person. I'd dread to think how many it would have been if he had a hand gun. Yes anything can be used as a weapon, but i don't think the casualty rate would have been nearly so low if he had a firearm

Lynn, since this is your area (or at least a lot closer to your area than mine) what is your view on this particular point.

I'm not overly impressed with the 'fear-based' angle. The entire point is to establish a safer society and the balance between restriction and freedom (as with all laws). Arguing between philosophies as to how to reduce unnecessary harm cannot necessarily be regarded as fear based.

For myself you points about response to weapons which at my dojo we do occasionally use. It doesn't help if the gun is fired at you first which brings me back to my favorite point about guns not stopping bullets. And that fact that guns can be taken off you by people who know what they are doing makes them even less reassuring as a tool for self defense.

With criminals there is still the escalation issue (ie if you are likely to have a gun, I'll bring a machine gun etc). This is far more complicated as you are entitled to a reasonable defense. And the guns in the home issue. Although, for myself I much rather use a teargas grenade that a gun in the home. I very much doubt anyone would be thinking about shooting if they can't breathe.

As far as 'gun control' means hitting what you aim at - that is not a reassuring philosophy if what is being aimed at is you.

So I'm still not convinced on the self-defense argument against 'gun control'

However I am interested in your views on the proportionality and Constitutional arguments against gun control. (I'm not American by the way - just interested in how great a role it plays in such debates).

[SeiserL]

Believe me, I am very law and order. Getting guns out of the hands of the criminal and insane population is very important. Legislating gun control can be a part of that. The problem I see is that there are already a lot of gun control laws, some enforced and some not, which IMHO have not greatly impacted the problem. While governemnt has its place, I don't believe you can regulate or legislate a change of heart and mind. Legislation usually only works for those willing to abide by it.

We all have our opinions about this stuff, and most of those opinions are valid based our our own personal experiences and perspectives. We each have a right to see it differently. That's why I usually don't enter into these debates.

IMHO, the best self-defense always starts with awareness, humility, a sense of humor, and good manners.

[Taliesin]

Lynn

Good points, but your last sentence reminds me of the Monty Python "Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition" sketch.

The best self-defense starts with awareness, awareness and humility etc.

It's a lot better than my approach. The rules of self defense.

1. Don't go to place where people want to hurt you (apart from the dojo)
if you cant do that
2. Get as far away from places and people who want to hurt you as quickly as possible (apart from the dojo and your sensei)
if you can't do that
3. Stop them wanting to hurt you (doesn't work for Senseis
if you can't do that
4. Stop them getting close enough to hurt you (doesn't work for Sensei's)

If that doesn't work your self defense skill have failed. Now you are going to have to deal with things physically.

[Bill Danosky]

I think there are social differences that make this an apple/orange comparison.

Ralph Waldo Emmerson, America's teacher, felt that the American psyche demands self reliance. If you accept that with the number of illegal guns already in circulation, a threat exists which is probably impossible to completely eliminate, then you must allow for a reasonable self defense.

Part of the problem is practical, part of it is honestly an identity issue. Until you can absolutely and permanently end the threat, you'll never get people to give up their defense, perceived or real.

Even then, I think it would be like asking the Japanese to give up katanas. It's a symbol of their heritage and character and even though it has no practical purpose, it still has a revered place in their society. They've been prohibited there twice and yet they still have them today.

They say the British and Americans are two peoples, divided by a common language. Obviously, that is not the only difference so I guess I just have to say, "It's a Yankee thing- you wouldn't understand."

BTW: I don't think you want to pop any tear gas grenades inside your house unless you have a.) a gas mask and e-suit and b.) the desire to wear them for 6 months until you get all the particles and/or residue cleaned out of your carpet, walls and furniture.

[Justin Gaar]

Thing is in the US (Source: Columbine Documentary) The US has over 10,000 gun murders a year. While Canada has 61 a year. On the columbine documentary the guy spoke with a canadian cop that stated that they hadn't had a murder in months until some nutcase from michigan came over with a gun and killed a cop. Ironic isn't it. The US are the only ones that can't control themselves. You can blame it on the media, video games, Rap, Rock, Britney Spears ( :rolleyes: ) It doesn't matter. We are the ones in the end that can control ourselves.
Sayonara,
Justin Gaar
:ki:

[Lorien Lowe]

"Guns don't kill people - people kill people."

"Guns don't kill people - they just make it really, really easy."

Although I also don't trust my government, I seriously doubt hunting rifles will make much of a difference even if everyone owned them. The government has an army armed with automatic rifles, daisy cutters, tanks, jets, 'smart' missiles, etc. And as for whether the army will turn against the citizens, look at the tapes police/national guard turning water cannons on protesters, or batons on protesters, or guns on protesters, or tear gas on protesters, or dogs on protesters, as recently as the WTO meeting in Florida.

a thought on airport checks:
nearly everyone where I work (a hospital) knows enough anatomy to kill someone with a sharpened pencil. Why do they take away fingernail clippers and not pencils?

I don't mean to present a dogmatic view one way or the other on this issue (guns, not pencils) - I'm honestly torn.

-LK

[cck]

I am a Danish citizen, living in California. Denmark has lots of alcohol-related violence, gang violence, spouses killing spouses, rapes etc., but not a lot of gun violence. Guns just aren't that available. I haven't done the research and wouldn't be able to give you statistics.
The Danes vote in every election, we have around 80% participating. You are not required by law to vote, but people take their right and duty to participate very serious. I don't know who was the last president of the United States to claim election by a majority of the citizens (and not just the people who could actually be bothered to vote).
So I just don't get the fear of government and the need to arm yourself against the threat from "the Man" - why don't you assert your right and go VOTE??? Participate, for crying out loud. Teach your children that it's their country and their responsibility, instead of making them bloody victims of a predatory state.
I think that's a big difference between some European countries and the US - generally, we like to talk about stuff and we admit our own responsibilities. We don't necessarily agree with our governments, but we know that our votes do count, and we MAKE them count. In Denmark specifically, any party with app. 2-3% of the vote is represented in parliament. This forces consensus - government is usually made up of 2-4 parties. Some of them are of course idiots and blustering politicians (a local comedian was elected from my town - he promised more wind in the back for bicyclists, more rococo-furniture in Ikea etc), but with a high voter turnout you have to accept that we as a people elected the parliament and government that we have, and as such we agree that it is legitimate. A lot of Americans seem to have a problem with that - but on the other hand, they can't be bothered to get off their bums and go vote. They prefer to think that all government is predatory and that they have to defend themselves. This leads to those incredibly funny signs on the highways: "Your tax dollars at work" - amazing that you have to be reminded that you pay tax for a reason - common good!
Why do a lot of Americans not vote?

[Jim ashby]

Another thought on airport checks, would you rather face me if I was armed with a (VERY) small nailfile or face me if I was armed with the jagged broken whisky bottles that I bought in duty-free?

[Lorien Lowe]

Why do a lot of Americans not vote?

I suspect that the people who complain about the government the loudest are not the ones who do not vote.

One of my co-workers said that she dosen't vote because she 'dosen't see how it has anything to do' with how she conducts her daily life.
Until things get really, really bad, a lot of people will just take the government for granted.

-LK

[Shane Mokry]

It's funny you should mention pencils on a plane Lorien. As a matter of fact, I usually don't carry a pen unless I'm getting on a plane. Go figure.

As far as citizens' deer rifles not being significant...there are 80 million gun owners in the US. Look at the trouble the US military is having in Iraq with just a couple thousand insurgents (maybe less). Think again. The real reason it wouldn't (not couldn't) happen is unity and organization. Americans are lazy and comfortable and have forgotten the sacrifices given for our freedoms.

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

Camilla,

I do vote.

Shane

[Shane Mokry]

BTW Lorien,

The gov. can't use those big destructive weapons on it's citizens... If they kill us all...who's going to pay the taxes? Why do you think they are so "concerned" about our health?

Shane

[Taliesin]

Interesting points - but there seem to be two different threads. Firstly violence and ability to kill - here my belief is that any society that reveres use of force and lack of self disciple will inevitably be a violent society (as i understand it the four elements of violence are: - arousal, weapon, target, trigger) and the more acceptable lashing out is in that society or culture, the lower the trigger level (something that makes the attacker believe their attack is 'justified'), the more violence there is.

Then you have firearms. Weapons made for the sole purpose of firing bullets. Over the last few weeks there has been a spate of shooting sprees in the United States. This is where limitation of ownership of firearms comes in. America appears to promote both this reverence for the use of force and lack of self disciple (or restraint) and easy access to firearms making these horrific events occur with terrible frequency.

Given that this philosophy seems to be spreading and violence spreads with it - my philosophy is to limit as far as possible access to firearms because they making killing so easy (and give a 'power' high) - Because imposing self restraint on a culture that is constantly urged to 'let out their emotions' is going to be even more challenging.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I am not one that would be considered "NRA" worthy material and do not really think we need MORE guns in the U.S

Certainly at some level access to firearms in an issue and there should be reasonable laws to prevent access to them to people that should not have them.

Guns are not made with the sole purpose of firing bullets. They are made for many purposes, the end result is that they fire a bullet. The purposes could be for personal protection, law enforcement, hunting, skeet shooting, marksmanship, military applications etc.

People desire guns for many reasons. Personal protection, professional reasons (law enforcement), sportsmanship/contest, collectioning, military force....these are the good reasons. Other reasons would be to commit crimes, revenge, etc.

As I am sure has been pointed out before, guns are not the culprit, it is the people or actions in which they are employed.

Are the laws in the U.S tough enough? In my opinion NO. There is much we can do to improve on accessibility. I own several firearms and have taken extreme measures to ensure they are safe and unaccessible. (I have a young child and another on the way). Bolts are removed and locked in separate combination box. Trigger guards are installed, they are locked in a gun safe which is locked in a safe room, and no ammo is stored near or with them. It would take a great deal of effort to get to my guns and use them for negative purposes.

I think liberals (yes I am one btw) sometime focus too much on guns and the right is slamming them to death on the issue. There are other things we should be focusing on such as modifiying human behavior to reduce the propensity of violence.

Reducing gun violence needs to be a multifaceted approach. Reducing access to firearms to those that should not have them is one thing.

The other is focusing on human issues. The kid that killed those people in the U.S last week would have found another way to do what he did without guns. Yes, access to weapon was an issue, and I don't think you will find any of the "PRO GUN" crowd to argue that was an issue in this case. The gun owner was irresponsible. But so are drunk drivers, does that mean we should ban cars, the tools that people use to drive drunk?

I don't think it is the weapon that makes it easy for people to kill, but the conditioning process which is a social issue. Television, societal pressure to be successful and accepted...you name it. We are conditioning our people to believe life is cheap.

Ability to kill is one thing. I consider myself somewhat of an expert in ability. Desire and propensity is quite another matter. Just because I spend my professional life as a soldier training to kill does not increase my propensity to kill....that is quite another process indeed.

The problem is that in our society we are failing to acknowledge people as human beings with compassion and love. It was very evident in the lady in the last month who used just that to save her life and convince her "killer" to turn himself in. Her ability and courage to take the time to understand the "killer" and show him compassion was powerful. It is through this example that I think we can learn the most out of in how to solve the problems we have...not through focusing heavily on gun control, it simply will not work. The problem is much more complex than removing gun ownership.

[garry cantrell]

BTW Lorien,

The gov. can't use those big destructive weapons on it's citizens... If they kill us all...who's going to pay the taxes? Why do you think they are so "concerned" about our health?

Shane


Haaaa!!!!!!!!! :p :D :p

[Kevin Leavitt]

Dave Chalk said: "America appears to promote both this reverence for the use of force and lack of self disciple (or restraint) and easy access to firearms making these horrific events occur with terrible frequency. "

I think your statement is an over generalization and a false correalation. Many Americans do hold high what many consider to be a constitutional right to bear arms. I would not equate this to "reverence for use of force".

Also, as I tried my best to explain in my last post, I do not think "easy access" caused the problem. Certainly a factor in the event, but not the cause.

Not sure that "self disciple" are the right words. I think the killer had a great deal of self discpline and conviction in commtting the act, what would have been a lack of commitment and self discipline is having the desire to do it, but being too lazy to actually carry it out.

You infer that these "horrific events" occur and an "increasing frequency". Certainly I find it horrific, but not sure the actual frequency is increasing. Not even sure if you can draw a statistical correalation or significance at all.

Not to nitpick, but it certainly is easy to get emotional about these events, they are horrific and unfortunate, but certainly not endemic or headed toward a national crisis in which to overreact by enacting knee jerk legislation.

Each event, while tragic and similar in fashion where isolated and had their own issues surrounding them. To solve them we need to get to the root of the problem, not through emotion, but through rationality.

I certainly wouldn't infer that Americans are headed downhill and our society is corrupt and we have a propensity towards violence and killing as a whole.

[Taliesin]

Kevin

A few points

1. Guns are made to fire bullets. - why you want to fire bullets is a different issue.

2. There is a reason the word 'appears' was included in my conclusion - because that's how it
looks.

3. Given the number of shooting sprees in the USA reported here and elsewhere in the last few
weeks it's not an unreasonable conclusion that they appear to occur with increasing frequency.
(BTW - I said 'terrible frequency'.)

4. As far as the 'it would have happened anyway' argument that's very weak given the last killing
spree we had in the UK was Dunblane some years ago, whilst the USA seems to have them at
least annually.

5. So you have ease of access of lethal weapons plus far larger number of shooting sprees. That
may not be a causal relationship - but it certainly is a strong consequential one.

6. On the other hand over here we have more difficult access to Lethal weapons and less killing
sprees. The access does make a difference - when a schizophrenic went on a rampage in London
a few months back only one person was killed. It's hard to imagine fatalty rates that low in the
USA

7. As far as your Constitution is concerned are people protesting the repeal of prohibition??

8. Given the image the USA promotes as a country that believes force is the answer to
everything, and that restraint of emotions is a bad thing that's not an unreasonable conclusion
either. (BTW It ain't just an American problem, or a gun problem - in the UK we have a huge
problem with violent attacks at present)

9. As far as the USA being corrupt I didn't even imply that - although now you mention it given your
representatives are far more beholden to big money contributors than constituents that's not an
unreasonable arguement either.

[Bill Danosky]

Well, if you're a person who's at the end of a downward spiral of depression or desperation and you're about to lash out, not having a weapon won't slow you down long. If you have easy access to firearms, (as in the case of the Minnesota shooting) or if you can overcome restricited access (as in the Georgia shooting) you're probably going on a shoooting spree.

If you don't have access to firearms, you might commit an axe murder (as happened two weeks ago on a sidewalk in London's "fashionable Regent's Park").

I think it's different living in a society than observing or judging example: America. You just can't believe the press- If aliens were judging our value through our entertainment and commercials, we'd all be doomed. I think there's a tendency to judge societies by their TV. That's the place where we really fall victim to our stereotypes and generalizations.

I've lived my entire life in the Midwest, but I'm pretty sure Jerry Springer doesn't represent an accurate cross section of the population, with the panel or the audience.

People in modern societies are subjected to a lot of stress and over-stimulation. In Japan, there's an "apparent" epedemic of suicide. IMHO, this is the same problem, manifested in a different way.

I think that's one of the reasons we're seeing a return to quiet contemplation. The samurai's answer was Ikebana (flower arrangement), Chanoyu (the tea ceremony) and Zen. Modern capitalist warriors have been soothing themselves with yoga, massages, spa treatments and the like in increasing numbers for years now. Some of the ones who didn't jumped off buildings or became drug and alcohol addicts.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but this is my explanation for the "apparent" cracking at the seams our societies have been suffering. It's time to start the de-escalation process, if there is such a word.

[Taliesin]

The problem is we can only make an assessment on the information we have - and that info isn't reassuring. Todays Times reported 'shot for refusing a kiss' another American story.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Dave,

Lets talk statistics.

From London Times article
March 27, 2005 "Violent crime still on the rise"

Figures obtained last week from 25 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales show that the biggest rise in violence against the person - a category that includes assault, wounding and murder, but not robbery - was in Leicestershire. Murders and assaults in the county went up from 4,426 in the three months from October 2003 to 5,769 in the same period last year, a rise of 30%.

also from same article:

A report to be published next month by the charity Victim Support London and launched with the help of Cherie Blair will claim that 62% of crimes in London go unreported.

I have seen other articles that elude to the fact there is a disparity in the way crimes are reported in the U.S. and in U.K.

What is your point? Is it that crimes occur because we have more access to guns? Some statistics I have seen point to crime rates going up in U.K after gun control. Not that I would draw this conclusion at this point of my research, but one might infere that STATISTICALLY crime and violent crime is on the rise in the U.K because of gun control.

Yea we have problems, but so does everybody else. I am sure if I spent time looking I could find an example of a similar crime occuring in the U.K.

Again, I am not advocating that we relax gun control in the U.S, but not really sure what your point is either.

[Thomas Ambrose]

...
7. As far as your Constitution is concerned are people protesting the repeal of prohibition??

8. Given the image the USA promotes as a country that believes force is the answer to
everything, and that restraint of emotions is a bad thing that's not an unreasonable conclusion
either. (BTW It ain't just an American problem, or a gun problem - in the UK we have a huge
problem with violent attacks at present)...



7. As far as the prohibition is concerned. Our constitution itself outliness a process so that it can be modified to fit with the changes in social morals and ideas. It isn't easy, and there is a very involved process to do so. It has been changed for example, to forbid slavery, allow all citizens over 18, regardless of race, sex, etc. the right to vote. There are others.

The prohibition was one such change. The change was a failure, and was not supported by the people, and the repeal of the prohibition was another such change. Point is, that change in the constitution was done via a process outlined by the constitution, so it is legitimate. If such a change was made to outlaw guns, though I would be VERY much against it, it would be a legal and and legitimate change.


8. The USA does NOT believe that force is the answer to everything. There are a few among us who do. The vast majority do not. If you are referring to Iraq War, there were a few at the top beating war drums, a large number who reluctantly went along with it, and an almost equally large number of people who were against it. I am not trying to talk about that war, but rather to show the nature of American politics

The truth is that Americans as a whole do not believe that force is the answer to everything, any more than the British, Japanese, etc do. It is unfair to classify an entire Nation of people by the actions of the few in power within the government. To be even more fair, those who are more hawkish in the government, I think honestly believed military force was their last resort.

I do believe the answer to all of this is restraint, discipline, and humility; all worthwhile traits for all to have. It would create more benevolent government, a more responsable citizen, and in times of conflict, a more peaceful solution. Restraint and discipline I have learned in all of my work with firearms. Restraint, discipline, and humility I learn through my experience at the dojo.This is probably something we can all agree on :)

Anyway, just addressing a few points that raised my eyebrows. Good thread to read!

[Taliesin]

Nice try Thomas

But.

What I said was "the image the USA promotes"

The Constitution point was that a stricter system of gun control would not necessarily impinge on anyones Constitutional rights because the Constitution can be changed.


Kevin

As far as the culture of violent attacks did you miss the part where I said "BTW It ain't just an American problem, or a gun problem - in the UK we have a huge problem with violent attacks at present"

The point there is while we have huge problems with alcohol fueled attacks which, aren't nice, it's still much better to be punched, kicked or even glassed than shot.

(For the purpose of this debate I wish to point out that violence is an emotionally driven and undisciplined application of force to a given target, whereas brutality is a disciplined application of force to the target - which is why lack of restraint is such a huge factor in the UK it's the difference between S20 and S18 GBH.)

BTW 'violent crime' is a broad term which includes 'assault' - defined as 'causing an individual to fear immediate unlawful violence' 'common assault' (otherwise known as battery) - defined as "the least touching of another in anger", 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' (otherwise known as ABH which is something like a bruise), Assault occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm under S20 OAP 1861) - which roughly translated means recklessly causing Serious Harm, Assault occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm with intent under S20, plus 'voluntary' manslaughter - where a charge of murder is reduced to manslaughter because of provocation, diminished responsibility, suicide pact or infanticide and of course murder.

To put things in perspective shooting somebody other than in self defense would automatically be S18 GBH at the very least - so do you want to factor in the number of people who were shot and lived into the equation

[Kevin Leavitt]

David,

If I understand you, your point is that you feel that the U.S. presents an image of violence. Is that correct? Certainly you are entitled to your view.

Glad to hear you feel violence is a problem that is shared throughout the world.

Maybe it is semantics, but I don't really agree with your definition of violence. It is entirely possible to be unemotional and disciplined in approach. Many people plan and commit acts of violence and murder very methodically and calculating.

The act of violence is any use of force or preceived use of force with the intent to harm, maim, or kill. Emotions and discipline are not part of it. Certainly there are people that commit crimes of passion. This is why we have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Degree murder laws in our country.
.

[Lorien Lowe]

BTW Lorien,
The gov. can't use those big destructive weapons on it's citizens... If they kill us all...who's going to pay the taxes? Why do you think they are so "concerned" about our health?
Shane

I didn't mean to imply that the government would/could 'kill us all,' only that they can very quickly, very effectively stamp out any little pools of resistance (a la waco, etc - *not* to imply that I sympathize with that particular cult).

re. rifles in Iraq, my impression (feel free to correct me) is that the insurgents also have fully automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade launchers.

-LK

[Taliesin]

Kevin

Yes I do think that is the image the USA promotes.

As far as definitions of violence. It's a little more than semantics. - What I call violence, comes under the category of S20 GBH what I call brutality comes under the category of S18 GBH (the more serious. it is also useful it establishing appropriate preventative measures (and fits the psychological elements as I understand them). BTW Brutality is the more serious of the two.

As far as your point about intent - that's too vague. There is specific intent - to deliberately cause injury/death or there is general intent - to 'hurt' or to 'harm'- are vague concepts indeed. All your examples are examples of specific intent. Fair enough but what about matters committed through general intent. That's why there is a distinction. BTW as far as crimes of passion are concerned - for the most serious there is the defense of provocation.

[Thomas Ambrose]

I believe to define violence as emotionally driven is a bit misguided. I think intention or choice is a much better way to define violence, at least on the moral or criminal level that we use to judge society.

In the USA, many violent crimes are done without emotion as a driving factor. Armed robberies are what come to mind. A person wants money or whatever and uses violence as a means to achieve that end. The violence comes as a chosen method, yet in my view at least, is just as hostile as attacking someone during a "crime of passion" where emotion is the driving force. In both of these cases, one individual deliberately with intent chose a victim.

If a person is attacked in the street and forced to defend themselves via whatever they can do in that situation (martial arts, pepper-spray, concealed handgun, etc), that would not be by their own choice, and such an action would not be hostile, since the victim (defender) had no choice in the matter. Fear as an emotion would be among the defenders driving forces, but in a situation where it saves their life, it should hardly be considered hostile or criminal.

In both cases I have outlined, the choice was the attackers, even though in the second case, the defender may have caused damage or even death to their assailant.

[Taliesin]

Thomas

It would help if you actually READ what I say that way you can know what you are disagreeing with. You clearly did not read why I distinguish between brutality or violence - you missed the point about brutality being the more serious offense. You talk about robbery - which is not a great example given robbery is theft using either force or threat of force - if force is used there is clear intent, but to what extent?? (UK Law presumes to the extent of harm actually caused)

The problem is the term 'violence' is far too vague - use of force is not violence and a response to attack is not itself an attack so is also not violence.

I will repeat for your information why I make this distinction. I will write slowly so you have time to read it. Violence is an emotionally driven and undisciplined application of force (lashing out in anger) - this definition fits psychological elements of violence, it also fits the criteria for S 20 GBH in the UK (the less serious)

Brutality is the disciplined application of force and is therefore far more serious (this also fits the criteria for S18 GBH - the more serious).

Given this I have a big problem with using the term violence as a one size fits all definition, particularly as it does not help to prevent either violent or brutal attacks on people.

Now I don't mind you disagreeing with me but if you do, can you please follow Kevin's example and consider what I'm saying first?

[Justin Gaar]

As far as the culture of violent attacks did you miss the part where I said "BTW It ain't just an American problem, or a gun problem - in the UK we have a huge problem with violent attacks at present

I agree whole-heartedly. Although lemme elaborate and correct me if i'm wrong. But this isn't just a problem in the U.S. or the U.K.. This is a human problem. The problem is being human gives us certain flaws and certain strengths. For at least 91% percent of us, one of those flaws is impulse control. For get shopping impulsively, i mean instant anger beyond control. Give someone a gun, and then they get angry, they will lose all rational emotional control. This is proven. Gun Control is no longer an issue simply because you cannot control them. I am not for or against gun control i am 110% neutral. For centuries we have lived upon the constitutional right to bear arms. No body in the government can take the steps to take guns out of the hands of civilans. I'm sure thats what alot of us want, but that just can't happen. Gun Control can go much farther in the right direction. We can keep making background checks more and more in-depth each time the issue is brought up, but what more can we do. Psychological evaluations, maybe. But what more can do after that?

Justin Gaar
:ki:

[Taliesin]

Justin

It's a bit unclear from your post whether you mean it is not physically possible for a "Government body to take the steps to take guns out of civilians" or whether it is not Constitutionally possible. The latter is definitely wrong since your Constitution can be altered (by a specific process) If it's the former why not?

As far as what more can you do - sue anyone who sells guns if the make is used deliberately or recklessly to cause harm, bump up the price of bullets and remove the means to manufacture them - there are things that can be done - it just ain't going to be easy or perfect. But I hope you manage it.

[Thomas Ambrose]

You clearly did not read why I distinguish between brutality or violence - you missed the point about brutality being the more serious offense.
David,

Please understand that I did read and fully consider what you said. I just respectfully disagree with your distinction between your definitions of violence and brutality. My conclusions are different from yours, but that does not mean I do not understand your point of view. I simply hold a different point of view that is in disagreement with yours, and I voiced it as my own.

You made a distinction between violence and brutality, and then you defined the distinction on a motivation level. Raw emotion is the motivation for the action, or the action is a pre-meditated, deliberate plan where emotion plays little to no role whatsoever. I got that. I understood that. I disagreed in the need to treat them seperately.

To elaborate my point of view, I don't think it is right to consider one attack to be a more serious than the other if the assailant made the decision to attack. In either case, a person makes the choice to use force against an unwilling victim. Their motivation doesn't matter to me, but the fact that they made that choice does. In my opinion, an attack out of passion should be considered to be of equal severity to an attack of planning. I don't like the idea of seperating the motivation on a moral or legal level. Otherwise it feels to me like we are using passion or emotion as an excuse for criminal violence.

[Justin Gaar]

:ki: David,
I guess i was a little cryptic on my post. I was in a hurry. The ultimate problem with sueing the gun companies is simply this.
Money may help, but it will not ease the pain of whatever loss the plantiff has suffered. You cannot go around sueing company after company into bankruptcy one by one until there are none left. But i guess this is a triviality. What i am trying to say is that there is only so far gun control laws can take. Sure, they can only take is in the right direction. But at what cost? Guns will ALWAYS be in the hands of people that will use them to harm people. When i say people i mean civilans not law enforcement.

[Taliesin]

Thomas

I'll try again - the difference between emotionally driven and undisciplined attacks and those that are disciplined is in the intent. - An intent to 'hurt' is vague. An intent to break someones arm is 'specific'. You do not appear to appreciate the difference between general and specific force.

If we were to follow your argument pushing somebody which results in their death because they have a heart condition or hit their head or whatever would be equally liable with someone who deliberately shot them dead. That's the difference between general and specific intent, that's why, in the UK, at least that legal distinction exists. It's no good talking about intent unless you are clear what the intent is - is it a specific form of harm or is it a vague desire - both are intent - and they are not the same.

BTW Motivation is why you want to do something not what you want to do.

[Bob Stevens]

Hi Shane Great thread very controversial. I happen to be Just about to graduate from the police academy and have an opinion. I believe taking away honest peoples guns just opens them up to be taken advantage of by the dishonest people.I as a police officer feel OK with the general public carrying firearms. I live in Michigan where it has only been legal with a license for a little while but I am OK with it. I am not worried about the law abiding people carrying guns because it's not them that are going to shoot me.If anything that means I might have a whole lot of backup! I believe that the most important safety device that a gun owner has sits on top of his shoulders.The gentleman from the U.K. I have some thoughts on that to. I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever but the laws in your country regarding firearms are ludicrous. I would not in a million years walk out on the streets in a uniform and try and enforce laws with nothing more than a stick. Have you ever heard the term bringing a knife to a gun fight or in there case a club. Trying to ban all firearms in any country is bad news because yeah it might make it harder for the criminals to get guns, but they will and then there the only ones who have them, how do you defend against that? It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.And if the United States ever try-ed to give police the power to just enter your home and take your guns I would quit.Mainly because there would be a huge amount of dead officers out there and I do not want to be one of them. I would like you to know that I respect your views I just do not share them, and as harsh as some of my comments may be I mean no one with a dissenting view any disrespect. thanks.

[Taliesin]

Robert

Our gun laws may be 'ludicrous' but we have far fewer murders and far far fewer fatal shootings. So if you go by practicality I'm sure you can appreciate why we think they are going in the right direction.

As far as your comment that "the most important safety device that a gun owner has sits on top of his shoulders" I agree with. I just think relying on such a frequently faulty safety device is a bad idea. As I have said before it's a choice of the lesser of two evils, either dedicated criminals get the guns or criminals and the reckless and the stupid and the irresponsible and the careless and anyone who over-reacts to a bump in the night and anyone who wants to 'go postal' who gets guns. (And some of these are likely to be the back-up that makes you feel safer???)

You may be happier knowing that you are far more likely to be shot at than us Brits (BTW our police have armed response units so it isn't like taking a knife to a gun fight)

As far as your point about defense - guns are made to fire bullets not to stop them (How many times have I said that)

[Kevin Leavitt]

Robert

Our gun laws may be 'ludicrous' but we have far fewer murders and far far fewer fatal shootings. So if you go by practicality I'm sure you can appreciate why we think they are going in the right direction.

(cut)

You may be happier knowing that you are far more likely to be shot at than us Brits (BTW our police have armed response units so it isn't like taking a knife to a gun fight)

(cut))

David,

I have no problem with your opinions, but I really would like to see some statistics that back up your statements.

I believe I posted some that showed the exact opposite, that violent crime is on the increase in Britian.

I am not correalating that to your gun laws, but one might draw that inference. At least if you are going to make the inference that U.S. has more murders because of our laws, it would be nice to see some stats back up your statements.

Of course we have more murders, we have more people. Yes, we have more murders per captia than the U.K., but the TREND is on the decline, NOT on the incline as it is in trend as it is in the U.K. I am sorry I don't have time right now to dredge up this fact, but if necessary I can. My point is that you keep making statements, but offer no basis.

I have no problem debating issues, frankly love to with the right topic, but it is pointless if there are no facts.

[deepsoup]

Hi Kevin,

Shane and I talked about these statistics way back at the start of the thread, we covered pretty much the same ground that you and David are going over here.

If you look back at post #25 you'll see I posted a bunch of links for statistics comparing crime rates between the UK and the US.

Also, if you're interested, you can find detailed official UK crime statistics at www.crimestatistics.org.uk.

Sean
x

[Kevin Leavitt]

Sean,

Thanks for the info. I am not so much interested in who is right or wrong, just that an intelligent conversation take place with facts to back up statements.

[Thomas Ambrose]

Robert, where in Michigan is Ludington? I grew up in the Flint Area and now live in Ypsilanti, near Ann Arbor. I agree with your assessment. I have great respect for police officers, but I know that they cannot do everything and be everywhere. If I am confronted by a violent person breaking into in my house, I would rather have a firearm that I know how to safely use, than have to wait in fear for a police unit to show up.

I have a question for you, from a law enforcement perspective. How do you feel about so-called "assualt-style" weapons? I don't mean fully auto or anything which are already banned, but things like a semi-auto rifle, with pistol grip and detachable magazine.

Reason I ask is I fire a WASR-10 (legal version of AK-47) and after the sunset of the assualt weapon ban, there was a lot of media coverage of various points of views, and I was curious to hear the opinion of someone in law enforcement "straight from the horse's mouth."

[Bronson]

I still think Keith made some very good points from waaaay back in post #96.

The problem lies in the first line of Keith's post. This is NOT an easy topic to have a rational discussion about. It is an emotion filled topic for many people, and logic will never move someone from a position they've reached through emotion.

If this is a rational discussion, we would want a rational reason to ban firearms. The case against firearms, presented as a formal argument, looks something like this:

1st Premise: The legal availability of firearms increases violent crime (especially murder)
2nd Premise: Violent crime (especially murder) is bad
Conclusion: Firearms should be banned to reduce violent crime

So in order to argue against the banning of firearms, I must show one of the premises to be false, or show that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

Certainly violent crime certainly is bad. If legalization of guns does indeed increase violent crime then the conclusion is sound. But the legal availability of firearms does not increase violent crime.

In the US, there are states with stricter gun laws than others. California and New York have some of the strictest gun laws, yet some of the highest crime rates. Texas and Florida have looser gun laws, and high crime. Northeastern states, such as Vermont or Connecticut, have strict gun laws and no crime. Midwestern sates, such as North and South Dakota, have loose gun laws and low crime. In the US, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between strictness of gun laws and rates of violent crime.

The UK is often sited as having much lower murder rates than the US and much stricter gun laws. It is rarely noted, however, that the UK had much lower murder rates than the US before their strict gun laws were introduced. The correlation between the UK's gun laws and low murder rates cannot be drawn.

Now here's the kicker: every adult male in Switzerland is legally obligated to own and keep in good working order a fully-automatic, military grade assault rifle (Switzerland has no standing army and relies on citizen-soldier for defense). What are the murder rates like in Switzerland compared to the US? Much lower.

I do not see how the conclusion that banning guns will reduce violent crime can be logically obtained. It may be one of many factors, but clearly not a significant one. The banning of any item without public gain is nothing more than an arbitrary limitation on personal freedom, based on the passions of the mob and not on reason.

edited to correct spacing

Bronson

[Taliesin]

Kevin

You get an 'A' for effort. But your assertion is that you posted stats showing violent crime in the UK is on the increase. Given how broad the range of violent crime is (according to the legal definitions) The fact that we Brit's are now apparantly more likely to threaten, push, punch, kick or glass somebody, which isn't certain since stats only give the record for reported crime, and the procedure has been changed to so that TIC's (taken into consideration) are now identified as seperate offences and the British Crime Survey that helps identify the crime shadow is only published every two years.

An assertion that violent crime is on the increase in the UK even if true (which I believe it is) still does not refute the assertion that we have far fewer murders (why you want to see stats if you accept the point is beyond me). And the fact that your murder rate is on the decline and ours is increasing still doesn' t refute the assertion unless you also identify the original starting points of increase and decline.

And for Everyone

The issue is firearms and their use and whether the number of killings and serious injuries from shootings justifies stricter gun control. Violent crime is a far broader issue than that, Although I accept it does overlap, that Britain apparantlyhas increasing violent crime is no good unless you identify the 'violent' crime you mean. (Using the term violent crime to also include what I personally would define as offences of brutality)

[Bob Stevens]

Kevin,
I did not know your police had armed response units but think about what that means (response unit) When there is a need for a response unit that means it's probably too late. If you can find out I would be interested to know the amount of officers killed last year or if there is a trend since Britain banned fire arms. As far as our country having more murders we also have a lot more people here and a lot more inner-city ghettos and gangs. This is unfortunate but the numbers have to be considered relative to the population.
Ludicrous was probably a strong word because to be honest I don't have much knowledge of your countries gun laws but would be interested in learning more.As far as the defense issue I'm speaking about defending your home. If someone enters your house with a gun and starts shooting at your family and you and they are trapped and the police are fifteen minutes away how would you "defend" against that?Not being trained in aikido but wishing I was I take the stance that most Americans are known for, that is get a bigger gun ;) Its just that if I can't get cover I really truly hope I can shoot back. Yes stupid reckless people get guns but it is my opinion that most of the people with the "Faulty Safety" are going to steer well clear of the police as much as possible so my guess is they won't be backing me up. And trying to take there guns away is only going to create a whole lot of barricaded gunmen that we have to worry about.

Thomas,
Ludington is between the second and third knuckle of your pinkie finger if you count from the finger tip but closer to the third ;) In response to your question about assault weapons. I don't really have a problem with them I own an s-117 bushmaster bull pup myself. I believe they are as dangerous as any other firearm in the wrong hands.We just have to work harder to keep them out of the wrong hands and a gun ban won't do this.

[deepsoup]

If you can find out I would be interested to know the amount of officers killed last year or if there is a trend since Britain banned fire arms.

If I can butt in again for a moment...
Its very unusual for a police officer to be killed on duty in this country, and extremely unusual for one to be shot.

As far as I could find out with a quick google, the last time a police officer was shot in this country was PC Ian Broadhurst, in December 2003. Ironically, for this discussion, the shooter was an American, David Bieber.

I haven't been able to find any news coverage of a police officer being killed more recently than that, but then I didn't spend very long looking. Maybe you can look for yourself though, if you're interested. You could start here (www.justfuckinggoogleit.com).

There were some statistics mentioned on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3350127.stm) early report on the murder of Ian Broardhurst. Theres no mention of the source, but they seem to indicate a downward trend. That could be more to do with the peace process in Northern Ireland than anything else though, impossible to say without knowing the source of the statistics.

As far as our country having more murders we also have a lot more people here and a lot more inner-city ghettos and gangs. This is unfortunate but the numbers have to be considered relative to the population.
The numbers I quoted way back in post #25, which I guess might be the ones David (not Kevin) is referring to, are per capita (relative to the population) figures.

If someone enters your house with a gun and starts shooting...
That old chestnut. I got into that discussion in some depth with Shane in the thread that this one spun off from, I can't be bothered to rehash all that, except to say:
That is an exceedingly unlikely event. I can't speak for David, but if I was going to worry about that, I'd also be sleeping in the cellar in case a plane crashes on the roof.

Sean
x

[Taliesin]

Sean

Thanks for the support.

Robert

As far as your scenario is concerned - Firstly preventing access to firearms minimizes the likelihood of it occurring.

Secondly - if they come in shooting, owning a gun ain't going to stop all the bullets hitting you, nor is there a guarantee that you'll be able to get to your gun. Nor is there any guarantee if you want to aim it at the attacker, since it is still likley to expose you to being shot, which isn't a great response unless you believe shooting blind is a good thing.

My preferred response would be a tear gas grenade and possibly a taser. (that way if you over-react to someone coming into your house late at night you don't shoot your daughter dead, because you assume she is a burglar)

As a student of Aikido you should appreciate that matching force with force is not necessarily the best or most effective means of defense.

It would help if the message could get out that guns are not the only response, let alone the best response for home safety.

I'm not convinced that guns are the best means of defense is a 'home defense' scenario' . I'm just a simple soul who doubts that escalating a problem is the same thing as solving it. - I'm funny like that.

PS

The assertion that 'the stance that most American's are known for - namely get a bigger gun' merely shows that people FEEL safer owning a gun - not that they or their family actually are safer. And as far as I'm aware feeling safer than they are is what often gets people hurt (it's called the risk compensation factor).

[Bob Stevens]

David you make some good points. I want you know I don't believe guns are the only or the best way to defend your home. I believe having a plan for your family to move to a safe location wether it be inside or outside the home and calling the police is the best way, and they teach that in the concealed carry classes at least in michigan. I believe in any situation using a firearm or deadly force it should be your last option and only to save yours our anothers life. As a police officer I loath the day I may have to take anothers life but when that situation or a sitution when someone threatens my family or myself I want to be as prepared as I can be. I realise your points on opening yourself up to get shot but my point of view is from someone who has some training on how to take cover and return fire so maybe my point of view isn't valid for the average person.

[Bob Stevens]

sean thankyou for your candor. I am just weird in the sense that I like to be prepared for anything. I realize it's unlikely and I'm not a worry wart but when you don't have it is when you wish did.

[Bronson]

Ok, a little levity :D

Bronson

[makuchg]

I'm a gun owning, second amendment supporting individual. I also believe in gun control. Now this may sound contradictory, but I believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to own a fire arm, for whatever legal purpose they desire. Now for my gun control beliefs, I think the government should enforce the laws already on the books and "control" who can get guns. The problem seems to me to be the criminals, not the lawful citizens. How does banning my guns (since I have never committed a crime) help prevent crime? You are punishing me for something I may do, although have never done. The problem is guns in the hands of criminals. The real issue is how do you keep the guns from the wrong people?

As for crime in England, here are a few links I found interesting. They are a few years old, but still applicable:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3112818.stm

Finally, nice to participate in a civilized discussion with varying views.

[Thomas Ambrose]

Gregory, I agree with you. I am fine having background checks, and not allowing felons to have guns. Sadly, the common answer in the USA to gun crime is "More laws!" Actually, the current laws are only loosely enforced at best, and that is a problem. So I thought I would "echo" your point.

Bronson, the right to bear arms means we can wear tanktops too, right? or is that the right to "bare" arms :D

[Huker]

Ah, guns. I wasn't going to get involved but I'm studying and need a good distraction. I got caught up on the very long thread and now I can't help myself.

For starters, I think guns are absolutely pointless. They are dangerous, they hurt people, they make people scared, and they are of no value to a civilized society. Yes, that's right. Our society is far from civilized.

I keep seeing the same logical flaws on this thread, and threads like it, over and over (no offence to anyone). I'll go through a couple here.

Flaw the first: If guns can kill people, so can baseball bats or swords, so shouldn't they be outlawed?

No. Guns were originally created to kill people....as weapons not tools. They were used to gain supreme military power over nations that did not yet have them. The musket and its predecessors were used to whomp hordes of people carrying swords and axes. Baseball bats were made for baseball, not for skull-crushing. They are a tool for entertainment whose use has been perverted by some of the more violently-inclined, same goes for ball-point pens, steel-toed boots, etc... Knives are also a tool...I mean, you can't really shoot your steak into little pieces. As for swords, they were also invented for war. Sould they be outlawed? They are. You can't get a concealed carry permit for a sword. If I were walking down the street with a katana in my hand and a cop drove by, I could expect some consequences. Some can carry swords, with proper permission, to and from places designated for their use (dojos, etc...). With guns, you CAN get a carry permit, you CAN walk down the street with one (in the US), you can also bring it to most places you go. Are swords any better than guns? No. But, guns can be taken almost anywhere. Therein lies the problem.

2-Guns are used for protection.

Yeah, I can see that. The best defense is a good offense, right? But, people use guns to protect themselves from people with other guns. So, if we got rid of guns altogether, we wouldn't have people carrying guns, so people wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves from people carrying guns, so people...the loop goes on.

3-We need guns to protect ourselves from the shadow government (oops, did I say that on the net...oh no... :D)

Maybe. If the public gave up its right to have guns yeah, we could be seriously taken advantage of by people in power. But, the people in power are only so many. In the developed world alone, there are roughly 2 billion people. There are 1.5 billion of "us" and about 5 million of "them". Lets not forget the other 4 billion who I'm sure would love to get their hands on certain world leaders. Without guns their would be serious casualties on the "us" team. So, maybe the best solution is to get rid of the concealed carry idea and just keep the guns in the home. By taking away the immediate means, this would help to minimize the damage done by stupid people who feel the need to rampage. Of course, it doesn't help the snapped guy who wants to shoot his family, but we are making an omelette here, right? Then again, if we did take guns away from the public, then the government-supporting public body would also be disarmed...

4-Guns for hunting.

Use a bow. Fewer accidents, the animal actually has a chance, its more fun, you learn some real skill (come on, I could hit a target with a gun no problem by the time I was 11). And, your suicidal family members would have a helluva time getting an arrow in their mouth. This leads to 5.

5-Suicide

Many suicides are a cry for help mixed with proper means. "If there is a means, there is a way". Sure you can kill yourself without a gun, but most won't. Statistically, people are more likely to cut their wrists or take pills than anything else (less painful, less gore), even if there is a gun available. However, the wrist cutting and pill taking is, more often than not, ineffective and the person can be saved. With a gun, it only takes one, since the easiest way to turn a gun on yourself is to point it at your head or heart (most won't want to go out on a stomach wound).

In conclusion, the problems with guns and people arguing for them are many. The only benefit I can see is protection against the people who really are out to get us, but that isn't a solid reason to have guns IMO. Sorry if I touched a soft spot with anyone. My deepest and most sincere sympathies go out to both the people whose loved ones have fallen to guns and to those who are so afraid that they feel they need guns (you're not cowards, I honestly understand, but there are other ways). I usually keep opinions to myself, especially on such controversial topics, but I am very bored (thanks to exams) and thought I'd give my 2 cents. There is a lot more that I could say, but I just don't have the time right now.

G'day.

[makuchg]

Tanner,

Have you ever hunted? I'm an avid bird hunter, especially ducks. I couldn't imagine hitting one at 40 mph with a bow and since falconry is really limited in the U.S. (which is how birds used to be hunted before guns) I'm limited. Now of course I don't HAVE to hunt, but I enjoy it.

As for your other posts, I won't perpetuate the cycle and continue to argue points we both contend have no answer just opinions. Thankfully, my government supports my opinion (at least at this time), so thankfully my guns are safe.

[Huker]

Yeah, I've hunted before. Birds mostly, and usually on the ground. That is the easiest time to get them. I've seen them shot in mid-air too, although less often. I agree, it is a tough shot to make, but bullets fly 400+ mph and birds fly a tenth or less of that speed and they have nothing to shoot back with. I shot a bird once. Didn't feel like there was any 'sport' in it at all. Probably didn't even know what hit it. From that moment on I decided no more hunting for me.

I don't disrespect hunters, many people in my family are hunters, that's how I got exposed to it. I just don't like to do it myself. So hunt away.

There are reasons the government likes you having guns. They're only 'safe' while they work in their favor.

[James Davis]

Gun control, yeah! We can pass a law saying that everybody who has a gun has to register it with the government. After that, we can show the populace all sorts of statistics as to why guns are bad for them. Then, since we have the names and addresses of all of the gun owners, we can just pass a law saying they're illegal, go to their houses and collect the guns, declare that only the military is allowed to have them, and then we'll have a greater degree of control over the population...
All of this sounds really familiar, doesn't it? Hitler already thought of this stuff, and everything didn't turn out okay, did it?! Have enough love for yourself to want to defend yourself, and have enough love for other people to let them defend themselves. We live in a world that has murderers, rapists, mad dictators, etc. The right to protect our families isn't something we should so readily throw away.
Be good.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

Just a few points for now:

A gun in a home is 40 times more likely to kill a member of that family than an intruder

There is absolutely no statistical evidence to support a concealed carry law. Theories on how if there are more people with guns then criminals will be scared to commit crimes are nice but faulted. Hypothetically, if someone decides to defend themself with a gun then we have a shootout, which in my opinion is not better than the criminals getting away with some money from a bank or with your or my money. Criminals do not typically set out with the intent to murder because then they can face murder charges in court. Unless someone is set out to kill you in which case the probably wont approach you from the front and wait for you to get out your gun.

There is one piece of statistical evidence to support concealed carry laws however it is faulted so it does not count: a study conducted by two professors from Michigan University I believe. They did a study in Florida where they "proved" that concealed carry laws decreased crime rates. What they did in fact was conduct an improper study at a time when a lot of old Jewish people were moving into the neighborhood. They ignored the decreasing yearly crime and the old Jewish people (who do not commit a lot of murders) and attributed those factors in the decreasing crime rate to the concealed carry law which did nothing.

On another note: Why would you even want to carry a gun around? you couldn't go most places because a lot of building ban concealed weapons. Unless it just makes u happy to walk around with a gun of course.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

On the issue of trusting the government, I do trust my government. I trust this government especially.

I trust that this government will do their best to rig elections and put in place racist judges like Charles Pickering. I trust that this government will go to any means necessary to hide the truth and portray themselves in a false light as they did when they paid off reporter Armstrong Williams or made the pre-recorded news tapes to play after invading Iraq (I was under the misconception that news is reported after it happens, at least in America. This is apparently not true). I trust that this government will deceive the American people into believing that there is a simple answer to every complex political problem that ca be repeated over and over again as a sound byte without having a real argument. I trust that this government will use the religious right to gain support in their greed motivated actions. I trust this government to violate the establishment clause and support the Christian Conservative Right. I trust this government to do their best to take away rights of women and gays.

I do not trust that any gun, be it a revolver or an assault rifle, any martial art, or even a nuclear (pronounced new-kleey-er, not newk-ya-ler) missile will protect me from this government merely because of what i think they will do. Unless the fear is that all the men and women in the national guard will be turned against their families and America will become a military dictatorship. Just don't forget that its the government thats allowing people to have guns weapons in the first place, and if this were their objective they wouldn't be supporting pro-gun legislation.

There are many reasons to be scared of this government. Guns will not aid you in protecting yourself from them unless they become intelligent beings that can speak many languages and take part in political lobbying. Also, the government is not some foreign body that we have no control over. We are the government, we elect our leaders. If you do not trust the government then support a candidate you do trust, and lobby for that candidate, instead of deciding that the answer is to arm yourself while you walk around town.

[Taliesin]

James

Whilst I appreciate your deep and abiding love of assumptions why do do something new and actually consider matters.

1. Quoting Hitler is not the automatic answer. On at least one matter Hitler and Oliver Wendel Homes had exactly the same idea.

2. The right to defend your home is not the same thing as carrying a gun.

3. Guns are not necessarily the best way to protect yourself or your family. As I have repeated
frequently on this thread GUNS ARE MADE TO FIRE BULLETS. They are not made to stop
them. Carrying a gun does not stop a bullet that has been fired at you from hitting.

4. There are alternatives to guns for self defense in the Home - my own choice would be tear gas
grenades.

5. Increasing the chances of your family being shot is hardly a sign of loving and wanting to
protect them.

Now you do not have to agree with all these points but please consider them.

And please don't insult people with your assumption that carrying guns means you love your family and want to protect them. I think you'll most posters on both sides of this debate accept that it's nowhere near that simple. Actually i wouldn't be surprised if most of those against gun control are embarrassed by you.

[James Davis]

It wasn't my intention to insult or embarass anyone. There are plenty of reasons that a person might want to own a firearm. I don't hunt. I go to the grocery store. If I were hungry, and I didn't have a choice, I would probably shoot an animal for food. Some people collect guns. I am not a collector, but I don't want to deny the right to do so to anyone else. I do own firearms, but don't assume that I carry them around with me; I don't. Before I started in the martial arts, a friend and I were jumped by six or seven guys in a pickup truck while we were walking down the road minding our own business. Thanks to God, we weren't permanently injured. After getting to know me well, roughly half of the girls I know (some of them my students) confide in me that they were sexually assaulted in the past. While I choose not to carry my gun everywhere, I'm not going to tell other people how to live their lives. We are in a situation in which the criminals of society are arming themselves. Many question the motives of those that are in power. Countries are constantly fighting one another, resulting in the mistreatment of innocent civilians. I don't know if I would ever shoot another person, but if someone is going to hurt my fiancee, I want to have that option. I don't know any of you who answered my comments, but if you needed me I would help you too. This, IN FACT, is my reason for choosing to own a gun. Please don't label me a "gun nut". You can know what I write, but don't pretend to know my heart.

[makuchg]

I think the gun control argument is one that will always bring out emotion from people. Never the less, I'm going to keep this one going. I'm not going to pretend that guns are the most effective method of protection. I train personal protection and executive protection canines and I'll tell you, at 2:00am in a dark house my dogs will be much more effective than I am (and I'm an excellent shooter). I choose this option for home protection because I recognize the weakness of the home defense gun argument isn't the firearm, it's the operator. Unfortunately, most gun accidents happen because owners know everything or don't follow basic safety. I have three children and all know I have guns in the house. They also know where they are and have seen the THREE safety locks on each! I have the gun locked, the case the gun is in locked, and the ammunition locked seperately.

The gun control advocates, and to an extent I can see their points, use accidents and need as a basis for many of their points. No one "needs" a gun and gun accidents account for unwarranted deaths, often in family members. There are many things in our society that are needs that also fit in this category. Let's look at SUVs. How many gun control advocates drive SUVs? They consume more fuel-so are unhealthy; have a higher incidence of roll-over-often resulting in innocent unwarranted deaths, and they are dangerous to other vehicles in an accident due to size and weight. Now we don't need SUVs, minivans accomplish the same objective without the dangers. Should we ban these vehicles? Of course not. I would venture to say more people die accidentally in SUV accidents than by guns.
Now the best research I could find says 456 people died in SUV accidents in 2004, with more than half from vehicle rollovers.
In 2004 182 children were killed accidentally with firearms (now statistics only track children under 18).
In 2004 972 children (ages 0-7) died in vehicle crashes (SUV's included)

Now when we look at accidents I know the old argument, there are more cars than guns. Are there? The bests estimate the government can give is about 235 million guns. However there are only 204 million vehicles (cars, SUV, light trucks) in the U.S. Why isn't there more outcry over needless deaths caused by automobiles, especially unneeded SUVs?

Please feel free to check my numbers, I used the most anti-gun site I could find for the gun numbers and the U.S. government for the vehicle numbers.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

With regards to SUVs, a lot of people do think that we shouldn't have them simply because they are so bad for the environment. While I am an environmentalist I do not take a strong position of this subject. SUVs are much more useful than guns however. Guns fire bullets. Guns can't carry my kayak and skis or lots of luggage. Guns can't be used for transportation. Using such logic one could argue that if guns are illegal because they can kill people then needles must be illegal because they can transmit AIDS, knives must be illegal because they can stab people, etc. I would assume however that you people who favor concealed carry do not think we should be able to have bazookas and missile launchers. These could be used for protection, hypothetically. If there was no need to protect ourselves because we lived in a utopia, then having concealed weapons (not hunting weapons; concealed weapons) would serve absolutely no purpose whereas every other thing that people have suggested we would need to ban if we banned guns would still be useful. Obviously we don't live in a utopia, however the point is that guns can only be used for a very narrow range of things whereas other items that can kill people are very useful. Take a pencil for isntance- It's very possible to kill someone with a pencil, but that is neither a common nor intended use for them. I am not arguing that we should ban all guns, simply that we should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

So far the arguments ive heard have been:

i need a concealed weapon to protect myself on the street

if everyone has a gun on the street no one will want to commit a crime because then a gunfight will break out. (I think we had a time like this that we like to refer to as the wild wild west. im fairly certain there were not lower crime rates in this era because everyone had a gun)

Its my 2nd amendment right


If you ban concealed weapons u must ban everythign that people can get killed with

I already responded to the last one. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." first of all we don't need a milita, we have an army. second of all in the strictest interpretation this would mean we can have any weapon we want. Obviously no one thinks americans should have nuclear missiles because its too dangerous. So why not let people 'bear arms' in their own homes and keep them off the streets because they are too dangerous. this seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

With regards to the theory on 'if everyone had a gun...' and 'i need to protect myself' I've already said that there is no statistical evidence to support this and hypothetically its faulted. If your gun is situated so that u can quickly whip it out on someone then there is an extremely high chance of an accident happening. Also, if u are allowed to carry a gun to defend yourself then u must be allowed to use it. If you use it on someone then i guess you should be able to claim self defense. But what if u kill someone, take their money, put a knife in their hand and then say you shot them in self defense? There are too many practical prooblems with this for it to really work.

If anyone has anyother arguments i would love to hear them

[Huker]

All of this sounds really familiar, doesn't it? Hitler already thought of this stuff, and everything didn't turn out okay, did it?! Have enough love for yourself to want to defend yourself, and have enough love for other people to let them defend themselves. We live in a world that has murderers, rapists, mad dictators, etc. The right to protect our families isn't something we should so readily throw away. Be good.

Hitler, rapists, murderers, molesters, the list goes on. Then there's people like Gandhi who put an end to tyranny without rasining a finger in violence. So don't feed me garbage about Hitler trying to break into my home in the dead of night and me having to shoot him as the only means of defending my family. Give me a break. There is no reason for people to believe that guns are necessary. Messages of fear are being communicated on a massive scale and people are eating it up. That is the root of the problem.

And SUVs? They hold 7 people. If an accident happens in an SUV full of kids, 1 accident=7 deaths (6 kids) -- if two SUVs like this collide, 1 accident=14 deaths (12 kids). This won't always happen, but people don't usually buy large vehicles like that unless they have a lot of passengers, like a family. So think about the statistic before taking it as gospel. The thing with statistics is that they prove more about the bias of the 'scientist' who came up with them than the actual matter at hand.

Just one last question about locked guns. If your ammo is locked away, and the gun is locked away, and an intruder breaks in, how do you intend to use your gun to defend your family? Just curious.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

Just one last question about locked guns. If your ammo is locked away, and the gun is locked away, and an intruder breaks in, how do you intend to use your gun to defend your family? Just curious.

exactly my point about practicality. thanks for that tanner

[makuchg]

My point about SUV's was that they are "wants" not needs. Other transportation (safer transportation) can be used instead. My guns are for hunting and recreational shooting, as my post indicated my dogs are my primary protection for home. As for the correlation between banning one you must ban the other is illogical. My points were that guns are emotion, that is why they get the attention they do. In reality, there are much more prevelant ways to kill or be killed that don't get nearly the attention because we accept them as a society. SUVs are just part of everyday life, we don't think how much more dangerous these monster vehicles are or how much more danger they place other drivers in. Statistically, and I know we can find statistics for anything, you are more likely to be killed by an SUV than a gun and guns are much more prevelant.

Now I'm not advocating banning SUVs, I'm just saying lets look at this from a rational stand point. If you want to control items that are dangerous (and I'm not talking about the lets ban baseball bats, etc), lets look at the really dangerous items. Accidents for automobiles declined in 2004 yet SUV accidents increased. Now there are more SUVs on the road, but I have to believe it has a lot to do with the feeling of power that comes from driving one of these vehicles. For me to carry a dangerous weapon (gun) I have to attend special training, for you to drive an SUV there is no additional training.

[James Davis]

hello, all. try doing a google search for "police protection". the fourth site down has some past court cases that are pretty scary. I know it starts with "taking on gun control", but don't ignore it. we need to know this stuff!

[dan guthrie]

This link

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

gives a good thumbnail sketch of the statistical argument favoring concealed weapons permits. It seems counterintuitive but so does the idea that the places with strict gun laws have more crime than places with lax gun laws.

From the first paragraph:

"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes."


I have received some handgun training and I have been a shooter for all of my adult life. I would recommend a good, hands-on firearms safety class to everyone.
Owning a gun doesn't make me more likely to murder. Owning a camera won't make me a pornographer.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

I've only seen statistics on this subject from John Lott and sometimes his associate David Mustard. There is no statistical evidence in support of concealed carry other than these faulted numbers.

Owning a gun doesn't make me more likely to murder. Owning a camera won't make me a pornographer.

That may be true, however a gun makes murder much easier and a camera makes it much easier to create pornogrpahy. Unless you can create picture quality paintings in one sixtieth of a second.

It's not counterintuitive. More guns means its easier to kill people. You cannot assume that there will be no accidents, people will use guns responsibly, and criminals will be scared to commit crimes out of fear of being shot. What if it makes the criminals decide to shoot anyone who reaches into their jacket out of fear of being shot. What if a hostage decides to open fire on his captors and suddenly a gunfight breaks out inside the building. Then the police cannot negotiate and everybody dies. There are too many possible scenarios to try to prevent crime by turning everyone ignorant overweight american into a lethal weapon.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/ayres%20donohue%20on%20guns%20-%203-021.pdf

That is the 33 page report refuting John Lott's study. It is done by a Yale Law professor and a Stanford Law professor. Clearly it is not propaganda and its from a reliable source. Does anyone have any real evidence supporting concealed carry?

[makuchg]

You cannot assume that there will be no accidents, people will use guns responsibly, and criminals will be scared to commit crimes out of fear of being shot. What if it makes the criminals decide to shoot anyone who reaches into their jacket out of fear of being shot. What if a hostage decides to open fire on his captors and suddenly a gunfight breaks out inside the building. Then the police cannot negotiate and everybody dies. There are too many possible scenarios to try to prevent crime by turning everyone ignorant overweight american into a lethal weapon.

You've made some very broad assumptions yourself. First, why are we prohibiting something because of what might happen, but has rarely happened? Second why can't we assume people will use guns responsibly (the founding fathers did) and hold those that don't accountable? Finally, carrying a gun into many places (banks, bars, etc.) is already illegal, so the likelihood of a law abiding citizen who took the time to purchase, register, attend classes, and get a concealed carry license getting into a gunfight in a hostage situation is slim. Has this every happened? In fact, I can't find a single instance where this has happened. As for your "everyone dies" line, a little melodramatic don't you think?

Now I do agree that not everyone should own a gun or carry one concealed. There are already laws and standards in place to prohibit criminals from possessing a firearm and concealed carry standards (which vary from state to state, but have some training and certification requirements). Why not enforce the laws in place and let law abiding citizens carry if they so desire?

Here is an interesting study: http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm

[makuchg]

Sorry, one more link for the Canadian anti-gun crowd:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Selick/off-mark.html

[dan guthrie]

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

I've only seen statistics on this subject from John Lott and sometimes his associate David Mustard. There is no statistical evidence in support of concealed carry other than these faulted numbers.



That may be true, however a gun makes murder much easier and a camera makes it much easier to create pornography. Unless you can create picture quality paintings in one sixtieth of a second.

It's not counterintuitive. More guns means its easier to kill people. You cannot assume that there will be no accidents, people will use guns responsibly, and criminals will be scared to commit crimes out of fear of being shot. What if it makes the criminals decide to shoot anyone who reaches into their jacket out of fear of being shot. What if a hostage decides to open fire on his captors and suddenly a gunfight breaks out inside the building. Then the police cannot negotiate and everybody dies. There are too many possible scenarios to try to prevent crime by turning everyone ignorant overweight American into a lethal weapon.


The difference is this, I'm not a criminal. I won't commit crimes. If I owned a nuclear weapon or a .22 caliber single shot handgun the world would be in equal danger - none. Most legitimate gun owners fit the same bill.

The "Lott refuting" study you cited seems to make the same mistake. In your examples you give a gun's presence more weight than what it is: an inanimate object. I have not read the entire study but I have seen a debate between Lott and others who attack his research (perhaps it was your citation's authors). I wasn't convinced Lott's methods were flawed.
On the contrary, the absence of trumpeting by people who want to eliminate handguns convinces me even further.

I will agree with you that guns make it easier for me to defend myself. You described it, if I may, as "more guns means it's easier to kill people." Tomato tomahtoe. :D

I will concede several things, guns make accidents more serious and it's too easy for nuts to get them. Guns are stolen, although I think this danger is serious, but this is not a good reason to confiscate all firearms.
I think concealed weapons classes should be rigorous and licensees should have to pass mental and legal tests.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

Greg-
Our laws are preventative. The idea isn't that we wait to make a law until some really bad incident happens but rather to keep them from happening. Yes, i was exaggerating but the point is that its a possible scenario that we should try to prevent.

If it were ridiculously hard to be able to carry a concealed wepaon then i might feel differently but the government will never really be efficient at keeping wackos from getting guns.

Dan-
If your .22 caliber handgun misfires the damage will be virtually nothing. If your nuclear warhead is set off then that might be a bigger problem

In your examples you give a gun's presence more weight than what it is: an inanimate object.

The fact that a gun is an inanimate object means nothing. Think about where we would be without inanimate objects that we created. Imagine what the world would be like without buildings or cars or weapons or computers. Big difference. A gun's presence bears a lot of weight.

http://www.reason.com/hod/debate1.1.shtml

heres a much shorter analysis of Lott's data done by a professor of physics. It is vey scientific and shows the flaws in Lott's calculations.

I have not read the entire study but I have seen a debate between Lott and others who attack his research (perhaps it was your citation's authors). I wasn't convinced Lott's methods were flawed.

A lot of people im sure would like to debate Lott. I don't think he ever debated those authors. But if you want to refute law professors from Yale and Stanford you're going to have to provide some pretting good, specific evidence.

[dan guthrie]

This article is in a series of debates:

http://reason.com/hod/debate1.2.shtml
Lott's response to your prof's article. At the top of the page click on "debate" for the series of four. I'm not edumacated enough to understand the fine points of statistics. I think this series of articles proves Lott is better at explaining statistics than Ehrlich. I would imagine Lott would have trouble explaining plasma physics.


The point I was trying to make about the nuke vs. .22 is that it's the operator that is the only important factor. Mass murderers John Wayne Gacey (sp?), Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer never used guns.
I use my guns to punch holes in paper targets. I wish I was better at it.

If countries with high gun ownership rates, like Finland or Switzerland, had high crime rates or if states with right-to-carry laws, like Arizona, had high crime rates I'd take Lott with a bigger grain of salt. New York City has a high crime rate and restrictive gun laws.
I don't know if honest people like guns or if concealed guns scare away criminals. It doesn't matter to me which is true.

I hope you'll consider my point of view more favorably in the future. I am conscious of the subtle wave of anti-gun feeling in this country. I believe that within 100 years private ownership of guns will cease in the U.S.
You may not believe me when I say this but I regard my hobby as just that: a hobby. The idea that I would use a gun to commit violence is nightmarish to me. Multiply that by a few million people and you might begin to understand why gun owners react the way they do.
I don't think I can convince you of my feelings. All I can do is ask you to keep an open mind.

[Nathan Gusdorf]

Dan-

I don't think Lott or Ehrlich really did a perfect job of explaining statistics to a normal person. Lott merely tried to refute Ehrlichs points usign somewhat less complex language however without a good background in statistics this information would be hard to completely understand.

I agree that the user is the main problem, however nothign happens for just one reason. I think that the acessibilty of guns is getting so great that its like we are reverting to a much more primitive state. I don't think that anyone with a gun is automatically a criminal. I think that we should try to keep guns away from these people and deal with them using our law enforcement officers instead of using some guy in the street with a gun. The police are not completely worthless just because of a few horror stories about some negligent cops. I don't think you would try to commit a crime or are a bad person because you own a gun. My main problem with the concealed carry law is not that i think it will cause normal people to become criminals but that the potential for accident is much higher. I do not have the time to study statistics and analyze for myself Lott's data studying techniques. I believe that he is playing off of the American love of guns with his books and such to make money and get fame. I am not convinced that he is legitimate. And by the way there is no wave of anti gun feeling in this country. There are liberals who think that we shouldnt allow people to run around with guns because someone could get shot and conservatives who think that everyone should have the right to run aroudn with a gun in case they need to defend themself. Saying private gun ownership will completely cease is like saying that the media spreads liberal lies or that 150,000 innocent people have been murdered in Iraq; its the kind of illogical conclusion that both sides have created and that need to be stopped. I have no faith that it will ever be only responsible people with guns, and even a responsible person can make a bad decision. Don't Senseis always teach that its better to give a mugger your money and stay alive than to try to unnecessarily defend yourself and get shot? why should it be different if you have a gun? You don't need to convince me of your feelings because this debate isn't about you, its about people in general. My point here is that it is highly impractical to assume that we could implement a system that would effectively keep guns in the hands of responsible people who wouldn't make a mistake with them. If you want a gun to defend your home go right ahead. Just dont walk around on the street with one because there are too many things that could go wrong. And while so many Americans are concerned with having a president who tries to keep people theyll never meet from getting married becuase the bible says its wrong, and tries to regulate what a woman does with her own body, and tries to make it so everyone can be a cowboy again, he is helping large corporations outsource their jobs and spendign all our money on a pointless war; leaving a huge mess for for our country to clean up.

[MM]

There is one unequivocal truth in the world that I have never found an exception -- one can never change a liberal's or anti-gunner's mind with debate. Which is fine with me. They have their theories and their thoughts and live in that world. Whenever reality intrudes, it's typically a whole different story.

So, I don't usually debate them. No, I let reality do that, usually very harshly. After all, when it's night out and there are few lights along the street and three or four people show up intent on bodily harm, or that psycho shows up going nuts and intent on killing, well ... you have the liberal and anti-gunner standing there yelling for the police. They end up hurt, maimed, or dead. Then you have the law abiding citizen there with a concealed carry permit who saves lives, sometimes at the cost of his/her own. So, I like to tell the liberals and anti-gunners to keep at it. Keep going with their nice theories and I encourage them to walk down NYC or DC or Chicago at night in a bad neighborhood. Heck, with the state of the world, why not just pick any spot like say behind a Court building in the parking lot or a university. Oh, oops, my bad. Those places had concealed carry people saving the day.

Mark

[Nathan Gusdorf]

Mark-
I will try to stay out of the bad neighborhoods so i don't get mugged. When i see a psycho go nuts and a concealed gun carrier shoot him and save everyone with my own eyes i will go out, buy a gun, and send you some cookies. (Healthy cookies made with whole wheat flower of course)

[deepsoup]

So, I don't usually debate them. No, I let reality do that, usually very harshly.

Harsh reality cuts both ways.

When someone keeps a gun in the home, not locked away but loaded and ready to go so he can use it to protect his family, and then that very weapon kills or maims a member of that very family by accident, or in the heat of passion, the horrible irony is all too obvious.

Unlike you, the <ahem> "liberal anti-gunner" takes no satisfaction in finding their views vindicated by "harsh reality", there is nothing remotely satisfying about that situation.

Sean
x

[Thomas Ambrose]

Here is a scenario that I am curious about, that I would like to respectfully pose to the crowd. I am more interested in the reactions from members who are opposed to private gun ownership. It takes an extreme view, but is also realistic as far as consequences are concerned, and I think it is an interesting thought exercise on the issue.

Suppose in the USA that legislation was passed that would effectively outlaw ALL private ownership of firearms. Many firearms owners, wanting to be on the "right side of the law" would simply take their guns to the local police and surrender them. However, many others would not. Many formerly honest and law-abiding citizens would illegally keep/hide/etc their firearms or just surrender some of them, in hopes of keeping others without getting caught. There are still some formerly law-abiding citizens who would never willingly give up their weapons without a fight. How far should the government go to enforce such a law?

The way I see it, to effectively eliminate private ownership of firearms, the government (law enforcement) would have to forcibly remove firearms from the citizens who are unwilling to give them up. Such a confrontation would certainly become violent, and people on both sides would be killed, even though the government would certainly eventually succeed.

In other words, to effectively eliminate the private ownership of firearms, the government would have to use firearms against its own citizens. You have to use guns, to ban guns. At what cost would such a ban be worth implementing? Assuming that such a ban would prevent deaths by future gun accidents, is it worth the lives and lack of trust in government that it would cause?

Anyway, just a scenario I am curious about. Extreme in that I doubt this would occur here in the USA, but realistic because assuming such a ban occured, there certainly are people who would refuse to give up their firearms unless they were killed or otherwise incapacitated. Anyway, I am curious about people's reactions. :)

[Nathan Gusdorf]

Thomas-

I wouldn't suppot an all out ban on guns for two reasons:

1) I believe that it does infringe on our second amendment rights in a way that not allowing concealed carry does not

2) precisely the reason you stated: it would be completely impractical. this is the same thing i feel about concealed carry; it would be completely impractical to assume that we would only have responsible people carrying them and that every person with a concealed gun is some kind of courageous crime fighter.

I am not opposed to private gun ownership. I am opposed to the private gun owners taking their guns out into public.

[Bronson]

In other words, to effectively eliminate the private ownership of firearms, the government would have to use firearms against its own citizens.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-05/feature-NLW.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/events/2004/summary/LIC041-hs-nlw.htm

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/non_lethal_death.htm

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/mccutcheon060904.html

And
http://www.thetoque.com/050308/knockout_gun.htm :)


They will come like phantoms in the night. They will blind you with lasers, gas you into submission, and take anything they want.

Bronson

[Hardware]

Hi all:

Being in a helping, healing profession, I don't support anyone having a gun, unless it is necessary for their line of work...

Great concept in some utopia. Canada, whether people realize it or not, has been a "gun" society since its inception. Not to the scale or even flavour of the USA, but still a gun society. Hunting rifles and shotguns abound. You could never magically remove them all from society or prevent them from being smuggled in.

...I have read too many stories about children playing with guns shooting a sibling or a friend. I have heard about family members shooting each other. I have lost a relative to suicide using a shotgun. Here are a few statistics that support my position. Yes it is a tool, but when your tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. When your tool is a gun...........use your imagination. I'm glad I live in Canada......

Those are all either supervision issues (in accidental shootings); violence issues or mental health issues, or a combination thereof. In one week last month, two people attempted suicide in my hometown. One hung himself and died. Another draped a tarp over his car in the garage, started the engine and lay beneath it. He's now a vegetable being kept in a hyperbaric chamber. The tool used becomes largely a moot point.


...A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. This statistic is from the new england journal of Medicine...

How many times more are any of those family members likely to die in a motor vehicle accident?


...Many teens have access to guns in their homes. A recent study found that 43% of households in the U.S. with children and teens had at least one gun. More than 1 in 5 gun owners with children under 18 said that they stored their weapons loaded, and about 1 in 11 said that their weapons were stored loaded and unlocked...

There's no accounting for sheer human stupidity. Leave your car idling in neutral in the driveway and your kids are eventually going have a mishap with it.

I'm not going to roll out the old cliche about, "...people killing people, not guns..." but the issue is not the firearms themselves, as much as the stupidity of the humans who use them.

What are the common elements with firearm deaths?

Violent crime - we'll have that with or without firearms.

Accidental shootings - idiotic storage and lack of supervision.

Suicide - again, a mental health issue much larger than firearms.

In our western society we refuse to accept or place responsibility where it belongs and try to shift blame seemingly everywhere else.

Whether we want to ban guns, specific breeds of dogs, restrict motorcycle horsepower or blame the police for high speed chases - we never have the sack to put the blame where it belongs.

[/rant]

[James Davis]

Even if all guns in the country were turned in, confiscated, or destroyed, more guns would make their way into the country. Someone in the world would eagerly sell and transport them to buyers in the U.S. Rophinol (the "date rape drug") is illegal in the U.S., but the pharmaceutical companies still sell it in some countries in South America. It then makes its way back here for scumbags to use it in an effort to take advantage of other people.

Long ago in Okinawa, Japanese occupiers took away every knife that villagers owned. The only knife that villagers were allowed to use was chained to a post guarded by an armed samurai. Did the Okinawans give up trying to rebel? No. They created karate.

If people want to fight, they'll fight. They'll fight regardless of what weapons are available. The same goes for muggers, rapists, and other varieties of scumbag. In my opinion, someone can own a gun for some of the same reasons they practice aikido. Some of the reasons that I practice aikido are: desire to protect myself, desire to protect my family, and a desire to NOT HAVE TO FIGHT. :)

[Shane Mokry]

Good arguments Howard and James.

Shane

[Bronson]

I think we should take all guns away. Then my friends and I will get super-rich making simple little firearms in my one friends machine shop and selling them for incredible amounts of money on the black market.

Yeah for supply and demand ;)

Bronson

p.s. To the FBI investigators watching this site, the above was meant in a sarcastic, joking tone. I have no ability, or intent to make and/or sell firearms.

[Taliesin]

The flaw in the 'supply and demand' argument is that legalization increases acceptability and legitimacy and therefore demand. Yes there would be demand, from not very nice people. However if you look at the balancing act the questing is the reduction or prevention of nice people shooting each other worth criminals having a firearms advantage - which they already have.

I'd say yes

[makuchg]

The flaw in the 'supply and demand' argument is that legalization increases acceptability and legitimacy and therefore demand. Yes there would be demand, from not very nice people.

David are you familiar with prohibition? The same thought process went into that idea also. What the government found was even nice people were breaking the law. When the government passes a law that is so grossly unacceptable to the general public, almost everyone will break it. Need another example, how about national speed limits. Every safety institute in the country will tell you 55 mph is far safer than 65 mph, yet so many people ignored the 55 mph that the government eventually conceded and raised the speed limits to 65 mph (higher in some areas).

[Taliesin]

Nice try Gregory

The point I was making was alcoholism became and remained higher after repeal of prohibition. And another example is that abortion in the UK has been rising year on year since decriminalization.

But a good attempt to avoid the point.

As far as speeding is concerned we have a points system over in the UK - 3 points per offense - 12 points you lose your license - there are also high profile anti-speeding campaigns and hight profile anti drink driving campaigns.

Convenience does not equal justification

[Bill Danosky]

Re: Gun control

And now, for something completely different:

Who thinks they can get a gun from the "average" assailant at, say, two-and-a-half arm's length?

[makuchg]

The point I was making was alcoholism became and remained higher after repeal of prohibition. And another example is that abortion in the UK has been rising year on year since decriminalization.

But a good attempt to avoid the point.

As far as speeding is concerned we have a points system over in the UK - 3 points per offense - 12 points you lose your license - there are also high profile anti-speeding campaigns and hight profile anti drink driving campaigns.

Convenience does not equal justification

David you are changing your argument. I wasn't arguing alcoholism, I was arguing breaking the law. But since you went down that road, here is an interesting article that attributes the rise in alcoholism following prohibition to the change in social standards for drinking (http://www.geocities.com/alustriel1/Alcohol/AlcoholStanton2.htm) Drinking was just socially acceptable so alcoholism as we know it did not exist.

Back to the argument at hand, if outlawing something makes it less likely to happen (that is the basic premise behind the outlaw guns so there will be less gun crimes thought) why does the U.K. need high-profile anti-speeding campaigns and anti-drinking and driving campaigns? Didn't outlawing these acts make most "nice" people obey the law? Didn't you say that the demand would be limited to not very nice people?

Reality is guns don't cause crime, the criminal causes crime. I will give you that guns can make the crime more likely to cause death. However I would think keeping guns out of the criminals hands and leaving law abiding citizens alone would be the priority.