SpudFiles

Ragnarok wrote:The UK's firearms homicide rate of 0.05 (per 100,000) is one of the lowest in the world, close on two orders of magnitude less than the rate in the USA, so clearly the gun control here isn't ineffective (even if there are a few weirdos grossly misusing innocent plumbing supplies).

Objection.

From here.



You could speculate that homicide would have skyrocketed without the legislation, but that would just be speculation.

If a man wants to hammer a nail into a piece of wood and you take away his hammer, he will pick up a rock.

Gun control only gives the illusion of safety.

There were 12,996 murders in the US in 2010. In the same year, 38,364 people committed suicide. You are almost 4 times more likely to kill yourself than be killed by someone else! Where should resources be directed to if we were genuinely concerned with keeping people alive?

Many people still buy lottery tickets though, so expecting even a basic understanding of probability from the average citizen is a vain pursuit.

[youtube][/youtube]

What I'm saying is that everyone has to die, and in a balanced fair and democratic society some of them should drown.

Tongue in cheek but hard to fault the logic.

What about wasps? They kill an average of 40 Americans a year. Where are the anti-wasp organizations? Wasp free zones? Moms against wasp movements? Why isn't a Wasp Control bill being pushed through congress?

Gun control is driven by irrational fear. I hate to bring gender into the subject ( ), but we all know which one is responsible for emotional as opposed to logical knee-jerk reactions.

Funny fact: Although everyone talks about too many guns in the US, Finland has actually more guns when compared to the amount of people living in here! Almost 50.000 licensed firearms per 100.000 residents

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Objection.

You're twisting my words. I said "firearms homicide rate".
My argument was not that gun control has proven effective at stopping people killing each other, but it does seem fairly effective at stopping them killing each each other with guns.

In any case, even if you are looking at the overall murder rate (not necessarily the only interest of gun control), to have a chart that only shows dates since 1967 is bordering on disingenuous, given that several of the big parts of UK gun control pre-date that by a good margin.

Ragnarok wrote:You're twisting my words. I said "firearms homicide rate".
My argument was not that gun control has proven effective at stopping people killing each other, but it does seem fairly effective at stopping them killing each each other with guns.

I would accept your argument only if people in favour in gun control were saying things like "We don't mind the fact that people are getting killed as long as it's not with guns"

So... what? They're supposed to go around saying things like "Make murder more illegal" instead?

Ragnarok wrote:So... what? They're supposed to go around saying things like "Make murder more illegal" instead?

No, they have a right to their opinions. But the fact is that even though they kill over a million people worldwide annually, we still tolerate cars because they're great! If this is OK, then the same should apply to guns. The vast, vast majority of legal handgun owners in the UK before 1997 would never have been involved in gun violence, yet they had their guns taken away because of a statistically irrelevant risk, as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy. Does that make sense?

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:But the fact is that even though they kill over a million people worldwide annually, we still tolerate cars because they're great! If this is OK, then the same should apply to guns.

The circumstances can't be seen as that equivalent though. Not having cars would be a pretty big hindrance to a modern society - as would not having other potentially dangerous things like kitchen knives, electricity, cleaning substances...

Citizens not having guns? Well, that doesn't seem to be a drastic limitation, at least as long as their government isn't sadistic and no-one's invading. Even in 'Murica, a large percentage of the population don't own guns - actually, despite the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, there are still more motor vehicles in the USA than firearms, albeit only by a slim margin.

Ragnarok wrote:The circumstances can't be seen as that equivalent though. Not having cars would be a pretty big hindrance to a modern society - as would not having other potentially dangerous things like kitchen knives, electricity, cleaning substances...

True, without cars life would be unimaginable - but you don't need to travel faster than 70 mph though, so lets take every car capable of going over 70 mph off the road, it will cause less accidents.

Let's face it, if keeping more people alive was the objective, there are thousands of other places time and resources could be put to better use - but people are more afraid of guns than heart disease, even though the latter kills over 60 times more people in the United States.

On average there are over 300,000 worldwide deaths by drowning every year, as opposed to 5 fatal shark attacks.

The Discovery Channel doesn't have a show called "Drowning Week".

Human perception of danger does not match up to statistics, and it's about time our legislation reflected that.

Citizens not having guns? Well, that doesn't seem to be a drastic limitation

... says the guy openly building devices classified as illegal firearms in the UK and flaunting them online. How you can avoid cognitive dissonance is beyond me

jakethebeast wrote:Funny fact: Although everyone talks about too many guns in the US, Finland has actually more guns when compared to the amount of people living in here! Almost 50.000 licensed firearms per 100.000 residents

With people like you, I think it's dangerous enough even without the guns hehe

How you can avoid cognitive dissonance is beyond me

That must be his inner female side

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:How you can avoid cognitive dissonance is beyond me

My arguments are not always my opinions. I play devil's advocate a lot - if I can't argue against what I believe, I clearly don't know enough about those alternatives for my decision to have been properly informed.

But I don't see a total disjoint about being interested in guns at the same time as considering them something that should be regulated. To go back to the example of cars, I can think automobiles are a good thing but agree that people need a licence and the vehicles should still have to meet safety regulations.

Were it my choice, UK firearms law would be a fair deal less strict. That's not to say that my ideas would go down well in the US of A though.

classified as illegal firearms

Actually, I think it's only a few plans I have hanging around the dark corners of my mind that might qualify as illegal firearms under UK law (were I to make them). There's a differentiation between unlicensed and illegal.

In other news,

Today is national blessing of the animals at the cathedral day.

Ragnarok wrote:My arguments are not always my opinions. I play devil's advocate a lot - if I can't argue against what I believe, I clearly don't know enough about those alternatives for my decision to have been properly informed.

That sounds so very intellectual and all, but it knocked the meter off my desk!

hello pls delete post mods, thanks

velocity3x wrote:That sounds so very intellectual and all, but it knocked the meter off my desk!

Then your meter needs recalibration. Not one word of what I said about playing devil's advocate was anything less than true.

Ragnarok wrote:But I don't see a total disjoint about being interested in guns at the same time as considering them something that should be regulated. To go back to the example of cars, I can think automobiles are a good thing but agree that people need a licence and the vehicles should still have to meet safety regulations.

I agree that it would not be great if anyone could walk into a store and buy whatever gun they wanted, there should be some regulation - but nothing like that which exists in the UK.

Actually, I think it's only a few plans I have hanging around the dark corners of my mind that might qualify as illegal firearms under UK law (were I to make them). There's a differentiation between unlicensed and illegal.

Air rifles above 12ft/lbs are classified as a Section 1 Firearm, and to have one without a license is a criminal offense, which can be punished quite severely, herewith the CPS guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... earms_act/