Shooting Death in UK

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Guns are completely outlawed in Cuba, its murder rate is higher than that of the US.
No gun larger than a .22 is permitted to the Mexican populace, its murder rate is 3 times that of the US.
Private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, its murder rates is 5 times that of the US.

OTOH, guns are a way of life in Switzerland, and murder and crime are practically non-existent.

Even the other posters arguing the anti-gun side can admit this, they just caved in that where guns are outlawed, outlaws use knives. Violence, however, remains "perpetuated."

We're not "satans." You're not "saving" anyone from anything.

You mean that people willing to murder are also willing to break gun laws?

Wow... the Force is strong in this one...

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Guns are completely outlawed in Cuba, its murder rate is higher than that of the US.
No gun larger than a .22 is permitted to the Mexican populace, its murder rate is 3 times that of the US.
Private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, its murder rates is 5 times that of the US.

OTOH, guns are a way of life in Switzerland, and murder and crime are practically non-existent.

Even the other posters arguing the anti-gun side can admit this, they just caved in that where guns are outlawed, outlaws use knives. Violence, however, remains "perpetuated."

We're not "satans." You're not "saving" anyone from anything.

You mean that people willing to murder are also willing to break gun laws?

Wow... the Force is strong in this one...

You have to forgive bamacre, he's a little slow

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Guns are completely outlawed in Cuba, its murder rate is higher than that of the US.
No gun larger than a .22 is permitted to the Mexican populace, its murder rate is 3 times that of the US.
Private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, its murder rates is 5 times that of the US.

OTOH, guns are a way of life in Switzerland, and murder and crime are practically non-existent.

Even the other posters arguing the anti-gun side can admit this, they just caved in that where guns are outlawed, outlaws use knives. Violence, however, remains "perpetuated."

We're not "satans." You're not "saving" anyone from anything.

You mean that people willing to murder are also willing to break gun laws?

Wow... the Force is strong in this one...

You have to forgive bamacre, he's a little slow

Well ouchere in ole Tennessee, we do live a simpler life.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
I have no idea what you are thinking. Your stubborn defense of this "right" merely perpetuates the violence in society.

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Guns are completely outlawed in Cuba, its murder rate is higher than that of the US.
No gun larger than a .22 is permitted to the Mexican populace, its murder rate is 3 times that of the US.
Private gun ownership is completely outlawed in Russia, its murder rates is 5 times that of the US.

OTOH, guns are a way of life in Switzerland, and murder and crime are practically non-existent.

Even the other posters arguing the anti-gun side can admit this, they just caved in that where guns are outlawed, outlaws use knives. Violence, however, remains "perpetuated."

We're not "satans." You're not "saving" anyone from anything.

You mean that people willing to murder are also willing to break gun laws?

Wow... the Force is strong in this one...

You have to forgive bamacre, he's a little slow

Well ouchere in ole Tennessee, we do live a simpler life.

You're just a shill for Davey Crockett :|

 

[Vic]

Oops! Sorry, bamacre, I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote sandorski's stupid "your side" comment where he made it all to obvious that he's chosen to let ideological affiliation shape his worldview rather than learning to think for himself based on the facts.

 

[rikadik]

So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oops! Sorry, bamacre, I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote sandorski's stupid "your side" comment where he made it all to obvious that he's chosen to let ideological affiliation shape his worldview rather than learning to think for himself based on the facts.

What "facts" are those Vic?

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic
Oops! Sorry, bamacre, I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote sandorski's stupid "your side" comment where he made it all to obvious that he's chosen to let ideological affiliation shape his worldview rather than learning to think for himself based on the facts.

What "facts" are those Vic?

There is ZERO scientific correlation between the legality of firearms and the crime rate. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in any country on earth. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Guns don't belong in a Civilized Society.

So what youre saying is, we can ban guns in about 5000 years?

 

[Vic]

Yeah, we all know what Gandhi said about Western Civilization... sounds like a great idea.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any guns in England. Guns are illegal there.

And the OP wasnt trolling at all?

 

[rikadik]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

I'm not trolling. Just wondering what the point of this discussion is. OP makes the wonderfully insightful observation that there was a shooting in the UK despite the fact guns are illegal there. Then comes a debate over gun control and crime rates which has been recited about a thousand times before. And then... well I'm just wondering what the OP's point is.

Anyone who genuinely believes that people from countries with strict gun control think banning guns entirely prevents gun-related violence is incredibly naive.

In other news, someone was murdered in the USA. Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any murders in America. Murders are illegal there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

I'm not trolling. Just wondering what the point of this discussion is. OP makes the wonderfully insightful observation that there was a shooting in the UK despite the fact guns are illegal there. Then comes a debate over gun control and crime rates which has been recited about a thousand times before. And then... well I'm just wondering what the OP's point is.

Anyone who genuinely believes that people from countries with strict gun control think banning guns entirely prevents gun-related violence is incredibly naive.

In other news, someone was murdered in the USA. Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any murders in America. Murders are illegal there.

If the reason for banning guns is not to prevent crime, then what is the reason?

Thanks for the murder analogy BTW. As it's a common argument that the drug warriors use for keep drugs illegal ("if we legalize drugs we may as well legalize murder as well"), you only prove what I've argued many times, that the gun-banners and the drug warriors have exactly the same motivation.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

I'm not trolling. Just wondering what the point of this discussion is. OP makes the wonderfully insightful observation that there was a shooting in the UK despite the fact guns are illegal there. Then comes a debate over gun control and crime rates which has been recited about a thousand times before. And then... well I'm just wondering what the OP's point is.
Anyone who genuinely believes that people from countries with strict gun control think banning guns entirely prevents gun-related violence is incredibly naive.

In other news, someone was murdered in the USA. Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any murders in America. Murders are illegal there.

If the reason for banning guns is not to prevent crime, then what is the reason?

Guns keep getting banned because special interest groups convince politicians to do it. The politicians want to make their voters happy.
Some citizens actually believe that making guns illegal will get rid of them. Which never works, and is why some of us gun lovers believe you should just stop passing laws against them. Only a law-abiding person would follow a law that tells them to get rid of their gun.
Once in a great while I hear a gun-grabber make a decent argument thats a little more thought-out than simply "more laws, less guns, less crime", but those arguments are few and far between.

Usually when people want to invoke gun control they go on fantastic emotional rants about how little Timmy shot himself dead with his daddy's colt 45 or the massive murder rates in the US (or whichever country is trying to ban gun at that time) and those are all very interesting points.

BUT, their arguments never make a logical progression to how passing laws against guns will keep people from using them in a manner which is already illegal.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

I'm not trolling. Just wondering what the point of this discussion is. OP makes the wonderfully insightful observation that there was a shooting in the UK despite the fact guns are illegal there. Then comes a debate over gun control and crime rates which has been recited about a thousand times before. And then... well I'm just wondering what the OP's point is.

Anyone who genuinely believes that people from countries with strict gun control think banning guns entirely prevents gun-related violence is incredibly naive.

In other news, someone was murdered in the USA. Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any murders in America. Murders are illegal there.

If the reason for banning guns is not to prevent crime, then what is the reason?

Thanks for the murder analogy BTW. As it's a common argument that the drug warriors use for keep drugs illegal ("if we legalize drugs we may as well legalize murder as well"), you only prove what I've argued many times, that the gun-banners and the drug warriors have exactly the same motivation.

Prevention does not mean elimination. It reduces Gun Crime significantly.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Prevention does not mean elimination. It reduces Gun Crime significantly.

No, it doesn't. We've already been through this.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: sandorski
Prevention does not mean elimination. It reduces Gun Crime significantly.

No, it doesn't. We've already been through this.

Yes, it does. Removing Guns from one side of the street while placing them on the other side does not mean anything regarding the Gunless sides crime statistics.

 

[rikadik]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rikadik

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Dude quiet, dont break up the pro gun circle jerk!

Learn to read, trolls. :frown:

I'm not trolling. Just wondering what the point of this discussion is. OP makes the wonderfully insightful observation that there was a shooting in the UK despite the fact guns are illegal there. Then comes a debate over gun control and crime rates which has been recited about a thousand times before. And then... well I'm just wondering what the OP's point is.

Anyone who genuinely believes that people from countries with strict gun control think banning guns entirely prevents gun-related violence is incredibly naive.

In other news, someone was murdered in the USA. Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any murders in America. Murders are illegal there.

If the reason for banning guns is not to prevent crime, then what is the reason?

Thanks for the murder analogy BTW. As it's a common argument that the drug warriors use for keep drugs illegal ("if we legalize drugs we may as well legalize murder as well"), you only prove what I've argued many times, that the gun-banners and the drug warriors have exactly the same motivation.

I used the analogy to poke a little fun at the OP. If you read it and thought it sounded inane then I hopefully got my point across.

And of course the motivation of the "drug warriors" is the same as the gun banners - to reduce their effect on crime through control. I wouldn't try to argue differently. But just because they have the same motivation doesn't mean each approach has the same flaws.

In reference to earlier posts, you argue that strict gun control is contrary to basic principles of democracy. But democracy is not having unlimited rights, it's governance by the whole population. In countries such as the UK most people do not want guns to be legal. If the government tried to legalise handguns it'd be the democratic process in operation that would prevent it from happening.

We just have a completely different culture and attitude towards guns to gun-toting countries such as the US. And for whatever reason, we have a lower murder rate and much lower gun crime rate. We don't believe that more guns, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens, would make our country a safer place. Whilst the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutionally right in the US, there is no such right in our constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.

In short, I believe that the majority of UK citizens do not have a legal, logical or personal reason to want guns to be legalised. Maybe we're all wrong, but until there is some kind of proof that legalising guns would have a significant positive impact in society we probably won't change our minds.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: rikadik
So the general consensus is that in order to tackle the growing gun crime problem in the UK we should legalise guns? That's the solution?

Perhaps you should identify the problem before offering a solution.

"Early information suggests this was a targeted incident and not a random attack."

Good luck defending yourselves against guns with nothing but good intentions. I'm glad we don't have that mindset here and that is the point of the OP, which understandably blew right over your head. We don't care what YOU do, we just don't want to find ourselves in YOUR situation. That's why we have a "right to bear arms" and why we defend that right.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rikadik
I used the analogy to poke a little fun at the OP. If you read it and thought it sounded inane then I hopefully got my point across.

And of course the motivation of the "drug warriors" is the same as the gun banners - to reduce their effect on crime through control. I wouldn't try to argue differently. But just because they have the same motivation doesn't mean each approach has the same flaws.

In reference to earlier posts, you argue that strict gun control is contrary to basic principles of democracy. But democracy is not having unlimited rights, it's governance by the whole population. In countries such as the UK most people do not want guns to be legal. If the government tried to legalise handguns it'd be the democratic process in operation that would prevent it from happening.

We just have a completely different culture and attitude towards guns to gun-toting countries such as the US. And for whatever reason, we have a lower murder rate and much lower gun crime rate. We don't believe that more guns, even in the hands of law-abiding citizens, would make our country a safer place. Whilst the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutionally right in the US, there is no such right in our constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights.

In short, I believe that the majority of UK citizens do not have a legal, logical or personal reason to want guns to be legalised. Maybe we're all wrong, but until there is some kind of proof that legalising guns would have a significant positive impact in society we probably won't change our minds.

Thanks for the intelligent response, but you missed the point about democracy and gun control. No one said that "unlimited rights" is democracy (of course it is not, nice straw man though). OTOH, what is undemocratic is the government allowing one segment of the population the privilege to carry guns, while denying such a right from the majority of the people, for no legitimate reason except their status in society.
There you miss an important aspect about gun prohibition in your country. Guns have NOT been outlawed. There are just illegal for the common people. The police, the military, the bodyguards to the rich, the royals, and the high-ranking government officials -- those more-privileged citizens in your country are all still armed. Does that sound like democracy to you?

Which brings us to the crucial point. The legality of guns has zero impact on crime rate. So, if not a reduction in crime, what reason could possibly compel us to purposefully create this two-tiered society? Ah... but then we get to real cause of crime: poverty. So (and I'm sure you don't realize this) by outlawing guns, and as explained above, what you're really doing is disarming those desperate poor with a propensity from crime. You're removing from those poor their last and final hope against economic inequality. Hey, but maybe you'll watch them on the telly throwing rocks at the police. Thank the Queen you're safe, eh?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kmmatney

Originally posted by: Nebor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...ucks/herts/6969909.stm.

Frankly I think this story is made up. There aren't any guns in England. Guns are illegal there.

I'll bite...

There are far fewer guns in the UK, and far fewer gun deaths - go figure...

Your correlation does not create causation. There are other countries in the world that have outlawed guns that have considerably more gun deaths than the US (Russia, for example).

Why... you probably won't believe it, but murder and war occurred before guns were even invented!! :Q

russia is also a failed state for the most part.

 

[rikadik]

I hope you've still got one eye on this thread, because I'm enjoying the debate but have been away from a computer for a few days! Anyway, I think I can see where you are coming from with some of your points, but some others leave me scratching my head.

Originally posted by: Vic
Thanks for the intelligent response, but you missed the point about democracy and gun control. No one said that "unlimited rights" is democracy (of course it is not, nice straw man though). OTOH, what is undemocratic is the government allowing one segment of the population the privilege to carry guns, while denying such a right from the majority of the people, for no legitimate reason except their status in society.
There you miss an important aspect about gun prohibition in your country. Guns have NOT been outlawed. There are just illegal for the common people. The police, the military, the bodyguards to the rich, the royals, and the high-ranking government officials -- those more-privileged citizens in your country are all still armed. Does that sound like democracy to you?

At first glance, allowing the members of the executive to have guns whilst legislating against everyone else may seem undemocratic. But what I was trying to say earlier, and I think I will have to say again, is that such laws are, in theory at least, democratic. If "the people" don't want everyone to have guns, but want to make exceptions for the police and military so that those who break the law and threaten our security can be dealt with, then the position is not undemocratic. I personally believe that these laws are in accord with what the majority of people want and that they are therefore also democratic in practice.

Originally posted by: Vic
Which brings us to the crucial point. The legality of guns has zero impact on crime rate. So, if not a reduction in crime, what reason could possibly compel us to purposefully create this two-tiered society? Ah... but then we get to real cause of crime: poverty. So (and I'm sure you don't realize this) by outlawing guns, and as explained above, what you're really doing is disarming those desperate poor with a propensity from crime. You're removing from those poor their last and final hope against economic inequality.

I think that if you believe the handgun ban in the UK is to maintain economic inequality then you're almost certainly one for daft conspiracies. Firstly, the gun ban is clearly not discriminatory against people in poverty! The homeless guy on the corner, the average working class man, the more priveleged, the super-rich - none of these people can legally own handguns privately. The division between those who can and cannot use guns is not a financial one but a legally-defined one with an objectively reasonable purpose.

Secondly, and more crucially, how on earth is allowing guns in the hands of those with a propensity towards crime going to help anything? Whilst of course not suggesting all poor people are criminals, giving criminals easy and legitimate access to better tools for their illegal acts is not going to decrease crime. This is for the simple reason that allowing them to have guns is not going to make them rich! I understand the view that the poor may be oppressed to some degree but don't see how guns fit into this equation.

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, but maybe you'll watch them on the telly throwing rocks at the police. Thank the Queen you're safe, eh?

What, would you rather see them shooting the police? However this is probably your most valid point. If the Government did go too far and we ever needed to stage a revolution, it'd be much easier if we all had guns. But then the US can always come and liberate us from our oppressive regime! (I realise the hypocrisy of saying this :laugh