Stupid Yanks

[Russ]

That's never been in doubt, but they did not win the war for us or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Russ D

That's never been in doubt, but they did not win the war for us or anyone else.

ok, Well I take that bit back then. I think what i mean more is that it is a major doubt that we would have won the war without the americans.

[Russ]

I don't even think there was a major doubt, it just would have taken longer to acheive a 'win'.

[BBKing]

Let's fill in the gaps in punky's argument.

He posits that areas of the US with looser gun laws (what are these, btw, concealed firearms?) have lower figures for gun crime, and I'm willing to go along with that, it seems logical*. However, we should compare the result of loose gun laws with the current situation of extremely tight gun laws in the UK before shouting hallelujah and investing in a .45 or two.

Gun crime has gone up year after year since Dunblane

It's worth remembering that, globally, we have an absolutely miniscule gun control problem and a tiny number of gun deaths a year. I do not think this is unrelated to having some of the toughest laws around.

England and Wales usually has <100 gun murders a year (there are far more suicides, for instance, and of course the odd unfortunate accident), the last figure I can find is 80 in 2003 - this translates to .13 per 100,000 people.

The US, of course, has over five times the population and about 40 times the death rate, but this is so far in advance of any other civilised country (I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the US is still civilised, although I have my doubts, and I'm definitely excluding Russia).

I'm perfectly willing to accept what appears obvious, that the US's appalling gun problem is cultural as well as legal and banning guns wouldn't really help much, it's much much deeper and probably related to all the other deep, serious structural issues in that incredible country.

In fact nearly everywhere you might consider a nice place to live (Spain, Germany, France, Italy) has more gun murders per unit of population than England and Wales, with the notable exception of Japan, which has, er, draconian gun control laws.
Canada, pre-the recent tightening, is about 4 times higher than England and Wales.

and so has knife crime.

And results in far more murders and is rising at a far greater rate. I'm not sure that looser gun laws would necessarily reduce this.

As for the idea that banning something drives it underground, perfectly true, witness Prohibition and current drug laws. Legalising something, however, certainly makes more people use it and brings the price down. I fail to see what we gain by having more people using cheaper firearms, which after all have precisely one purpose. The point of the legalisation argument for, say, cannabis or whisky is that it's fairly harmless, or no more harmful than a cigarette. No way is a gun remotely harmless.

Given the choice between waiting for less stupid humans to evolve and banning guns, I'd ban guns - it clearly works and is actually feasible. If you want to reduce Britain's gun crime, legalise crack cocaine, since the illegal trade in that commodity appears to be pretty much responsible for the recent increase.

Incidentally, Canada has recently tightened up its gun control laws.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/GunControlLaws.html

* because they're in the South and away from the east/west coast urban centres where most shootings are, it's an incredibly localised problem in the US.

[cookie_365]

On the whole I'd agree with BBKing, though this is only my gut feeling as I don't have the stats to back it up.


I'd be interested to know, of the gun killings in the US, how many are people killed by their own gun (say, by a burglar), how many by a family member's gun (say, in a 'domestic' though I hate the word), how many are kids/ne'er do wells killed by a householder who mistook them (or couldn't care about the difference) for someone posing a danger to them?

I bet the number of people who've actually successfully prevented a burgalry etc using their own gun can't be that high ?

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

He posits that areas of the US with looser gun laws (what are these, btw, concealed firearms?)

As an aside, i'll explain it a bit more. The gun laws are split into two groups. The laxer states which only require a federal background check and registration. The stricter states require an actual license. The CCW (Carry Concealed Weapons) permit is a license you need to have training to recieve, no matter where you are, as it is federal. Some particular weapons and accessories need extreme control. A friend of mine wanted to have a silencer for a gun he had, and he had to get the Sheriff for his county, no less (Not just any deputy, but the actual elected Sheriff, similiar to a Chief Superintendent in the UK) to personally sign off on it, to show that he is happy with the transfer. Needless to say it is not that easy to get or common.

A few other points:

1. Gun control doesn't prevent gun crime. I think honestly, if it did, then everyone who shoots worldwide (yes, there is another function to having a gun, like with archery. And don't forget how big gun hunting is in the US too), would just probably accept it.

2. I wasn't trying to link gun crime with knife crime, but it is a force of habit nowadays, as the media seems to. Certainly is true that if someone wants to kill someone, then if they can't get a gun, they'll do it some other way, and knives seem like the next logcal weapon. I remember one person attacked a school with a Samurai sword? Gun control doesn't prevent crime, it just pushes it on to other weapons. That isn't conclusive of course, as gun crime still goes up, not down.

3. We talk about gun control, but I think the whole idea behind the Sky article isn't gun control, but is trying to further taint the NRA (National Rifle Association). The NRA has been villified for over a century as being a bunch of savages. Rednecks and cowboys, that eat babies and kittens. NRA bashing is probably more prevalent than US bashing. Like with any and all organisations there are distasteful, moronic and otherwise desirable individuals. I certainly won't defend them, but i'll point out that are kinds of people in there, like police officers, judges, doctors, mayors, etc. Some members are actually quite smart and avoid shooting everyone they meet.

Given the choice between waiting for less stupid humans to evolve and banning guns,

I never said there was only two options. But neither one on their own works. People murdering other people will never cease, regardless how much we evolve, and neither will banning guns I'd ban guns - as you seem to have said in your post.

Which confuses me about...

it clearly works

One other thing. The vagueness of the term: gun control. People who shoot, and want a form of self defense aren't bulletproof. We want guns out of the hands of the irresponsible too, but not out of the responsible's hands too. We all want control, but not complete and outright bans, because that causes problems and steps backwards. Anywho, doesn't Jefferson's infamous quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

fit the gun control argument well? Especially as he made sure the right to bear arms as a constituional right.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by punky
Guns don't kill people

No - rappers do.

Originally Posted by punky

1. Gun control doesn't prevent gun crime. I think honestly, if it did, then everyone who shoots worldwide (yes, there is another function to having a gun, like with archery. And don't forget how big gun hunting is in the US too), would just probably accept it.

Yes it does, to a very great extent. BBking just did a great job of pulling together some statistics that prove it. Surely if you're going to re-state your claim to the contrary, the onus is now on you to provide some evidence in support of it?

Originally Posted by punky

2. I wasn't trying to link gun crime with knife crime, but it is a force of habit nowadays, as the media seems to. Certainly is true that if someone wants to kill someone, then if they can't get a gun, they'll do it some other way, and knives seem like the next logcal weapon. I remember one person attacked a school with a Samurai sword? Gun control doesn't prevent crime, it just pushes it on to other weapons. That isn't conclusive of course, as gun crime still goes up, not down.

Again, a claim not backed up by any evidence. It might well be the case that if someone is intent on murder, they will do it with whichever weapon they can get, but what about more impulsive killings? Might fewer manslaughters occur in the US if lethal weapons were not so readily available? Might a few more lost travellers not still be alive, instead of having been gunned down while knocking for directions, having been mistaken for an intruder?

Originally Posted by punky

3. We talk about gun control, but I think the whole idea behind the Sky article isn't gun control, but is trying to further taint the NRA (National Rifle Association). The NRA has been villified for over a century as being a bunch of savages. Rednecks and cowboys, that eat babies and kittens. NRA bashing is probably more prevalent than US bashing. Like with any and all organisations there are distasteful, moronic and otherwise desirable individuals. I certainly won't defend them, but i'll point out that are kinds of people in there, like police officers, judges, doctors, mayors, etc. Some members are actually quite smart and avoid shooting everyone they meet.

And Hitler was a great dinner party guest, just so long as you didn't get him started on politics. The fact that someone is a respectable pillar of a community does not render him immune from being sincerely wrong, or tainted by the same bizarre, cultural obsession with guns as the rest of his countrymen.

Originally Posted by punky

One other thing. The vagueness of the term: gun control. People who shoot, and want a form of self defense aren't bulletproof. We want guns out of the hands of the irresponsible too, but not out of the responsible's hands too. We all want control, but not complete and outright bans, because that causes problems and steps backwards. Anywho, doesn't Jefferson's infamous quote: fit the gun control argument well? Especially as he made sure the right to bear arms as a constituional right.

What's this 'we' business? Are you in the NRA, or quoting from one of their pamphlets?

As for Jefferson, that is an outrageous misuse of his words, ripping them completely out of context. Jefferson spoke in the early days of a nation that had fought for independence and was in peril of being re-subjugated by the British. The US Constitution must be read in that context, or else it loses its meaning. So, when you read 'freedom', understand it to mean the broad notion of every man being equal and able to forge the destiny of his life and his nation in contrast to living in a colony under an unelected monarch ; when you read 'right to bear arms', understand it to mean that every man must be ready, and prepared, to defend his freedom with his life.

To take a great historical document like the US constitution and reduce it to the status of an entitlement certificate for anyone who wants to own their own AK-47 is outrageous and selfish. Frankly I'm amazed that Americans in general allow the NRA to continue to misuse it in this way. Or could it be that the entire USA has become enslaved to the very document that was designed to set it free?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Yes it does, to a very great extent. BBking just did a great job of pulling together some statistics that prove it. Surely if you're going to re-state your claim to the contrary, the onus is now on you to provide some evidence in support of it?

He didn't prove anything. He just said lots of other countries have gun crime, even though they have restrictive gun control, which is why I said "which confuses me about..." On the other hand I have proved it. Gun crime has gone up since handguns were banned. It has everywhere else they have banned it. Places with laxer gun control has less gun crime that places with stricter gun control, in the US (and it isn't solely a population issue, think how populous Houston and Dallas are).

Again, a claim not backed up by any evidence. It might well be the case that if someone is intent on murder, they will do it with whichever weapon they can get, but what about more impulsive killings? Might fewer manslaughters occur in the US if lethal weapons were not so readily available? Might a few more lost travellers not still be alive, instead of having been gunned down while knocking for directions, having been mistaken for an intruder?

Impulse killings - precisely the type that would just grab a knife or baseball bat rather than sit through the 3 day cooling-off period. And aren't knives and baseball bats more readily available, and cheaper than a gun?

And Hitler was a great dinner party guest, just so long as you didn't get him started on politics. The fact that someone is a respectable pillar of a community does not render him immune from being sincerely wrong, or tainted by the same bizarre, cultural obsession with guns as the rest of his countrymen.

Yes, OK. You don't like guns, some other people do, so they are wrong. Riiiiiiiight. If they like to shoot the have some "bizarre, cultural obsession" eh? I don't like boybands. I would like to see them fail rather than succeed, but I don't question why people like them, and I certainly don't use insults to try and bend people to see the world exactly as I do.

I shoot for sport, but i'd never hunt. I just don't like it. I would never try and ban hunting though. I don't judge people, and I don't try and dictate to people how to live their lives. If you want to ban guns, then thats fine. I'll respect that, but I should get the same decency in return.

What's this 'we' business? Are you in the NRA, or quoting from one of their pamphlets?

A bit of Freudian Slip here I guess, although I thought it was common knowlege. I shoot whenever I am in the US. And I am not the only one. When I am at the range, I always seem to a rather lot of Brits there.

when you read 'right to bear arms', understand it to mean that every man must be ready, and prepared, to defend his freedom with his life.

And without a gun, faced with armed burgulars, makes it rather difficult doesn't it? Reminds me of this quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Morton

"Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb. rapists."

To take a great historical document like the US constitution and reduce it to the status of an entitlement certificate for anyone who wants to own their own AK-47 is outrageous and selfish.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." sounds pretty clear to me. Jefferson was central to this amendment, he wrote about it in his book. So I am not twisting anything. He said, and believed both quotes. Luckily, in Jefferson's day, they didn't have to worry so much about rapists, burgulars, murderers or elitist liberals that think because they don't like to shoot, noone else should either. Even if they did, would make the admentment a bit long winded wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by punky

He didn't prove anything. He just said lots of other countries have gun crime, even though they have restrictive gun control, which is why I said "which confuses me about..." On the other hand I have proved it. Gun crime has gone up since handguns were banned. It has everywhere else they have banned it. Places with laxer gun control has less gun crime that places with stricter gun control, in the US (and it isn't solely a population issue, think how populous Houston and Dallas are).

Clearly you and I were both reading different BBKing posts. He didn't simply state that other countries have gun crime despite restrictive gun control, he pointed out that "England and Wales usually has <100 gun murders a year (there are far more suicides, for instance, and of course the odd unfortunate accident), the last figure I can find is 80 in 2003 - this translates to .13 per 100,000 people. The US, of course, has over five times the population and about 40 times the death rate...". Against that backdrop, it is sheer intellectual dishonesty to try to claim that British gun control laws are responsible for rising gun crime in the UK. Our gun crime is at such a tiny level that any possible correlation with post-Dunblane laws and a recent rise in incidents is utterly dwarfed by the massive correlation between tight laws/low crime in the UK, and lax laws/big crime in the US. And just for good measure, BBK also pointed out that: "In fact nearly everywhere you might consider a nice place to live (Spain, Germany, France, Italy) has more gun murders per unit of population than England and Wales, with the notable exception of Japan, which has, er, draconian gun control laws." The link between the legal availability of lethal weapons and their use in illegal acts is plain to see.

Originally Posted by punky

Impulse killings - precisely the type that would just grab a knife or baseball bat rather than sit through the 3 day cooling-off period. And aren't knives and baseball bats more readily available, and cheaper than a gun?

Yes, and less likely to be fatal at a single stroke in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing. But surely you're not trying to suggest that ownership of a gun is no more controversial than ownership of a knife or a baseball bat?

Originally Posted by punky

es, OK. You don't like guns, some other people do, so they are wrong. Riiiiiiiight. If they like to shoot the have some "bizarre, cultural obsession" eh? I don't like boybands. I would like to see them fail rather than succeed, but I don't question why people like them, and I certainly don't use insults to try and bend people to see the world exactly as I do.

/Sigh

I earned marksman standard with the .22 rifle while in the Combined Cadet Force at school. I have no objection to guns per se, but I believe this to be one of the areas where the potential for harm to be caused by a minority of people with guns over-rides the so called 'right' to own a gun. As for insults ... not a bit of it. I believe the American love affair with the gun can rightly be called a cultural obsession. And I believe it is ridiculous.

I don't like boybands either. But boybands don't normally murder people.

Originally Posted by punky

I shoot for sport, but i'd never hunt. I just don't like it. I would never try and ban hunting though. I don't judge people, and I don't try and dictate to people how to live their lives. If you want to ban guns, then thats fine. I'll respect that, but I should get the same decency in return.

I'm not sure what I've said that's indecent, except perhaps for disagreeing with you?

Originally Posted by punky

A bit of Freudian Slip here I guess, although I thought it was common knowlege. I shoot whenever I am in the US. And I am not the only one. When I am at the range, I always seem to a rather lot of Brits there.

Well, when in Rome, eh.

Originally Posted by punky

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." sounds pretty clear to me. Jefferson was central to this amendment, he wrote about it in his book. So I am not twisting anything. He said, and believed both quotes. Luckily, in Jefferson's day, they didn't have to worry so much about rapists, burgulars, murderers or elitist liberals that think because they don't like to shoot, noone else should either. Even if they did, would make the admentment a bit long winded wouldn't it?

You completely missed everything I said about taking quotes out of context. Jefferson did indeed say the above. But you are assuming that he meant the people ought to have the right to bear arms in case of getting raped or burgled. You are assuming that if such things were common back then, he would have mentioned it in the text. You have no basis in historical fact for making any such assumption. When you take a quote, or the entire amendment, which was written specifically to address the threat of invasion, and try to make it into a charter to own a lethal weapon for any of the other reasons above - reasons that Jefferson never mentioned - then you are 'twisting' (your words) what Jefferson said to make it fit your belief.

[Stuart]

Chris T: Tried to rep you. but can't as a have to spread it around.. I do agree with your last two posts though.

Punky: I personally don't think 90% of people who own guns would ever use them in anger against another person, but why make things easier for the 10% that would? A friend of mine has experience of guns first hand. Her dad was licenced (in this country) to hold a shotgun. She got home one day to find her dad pointing the (apparently loaded) shotgun in her face and threatening to kill her.

We also seem to increasingly be suffering from a "gang" culture, and in some areas, it's increasingly normal for a young kid to go into a late night shop, point a gun at the shopkeeper and demand all his/her money.

Now, I am not saying that this applies to America or Canada (I suspect it applies to parts of both, but don't really know enough to be sure), and I am not saying banning guns would stop the supply of guns to these people. I am saying that banning guns would restrict the supply of guns to these people though.

Guns may not kill people, but they do enable a person who otherwise may not be able, to kill someone.
____________

Originally Posted by Chris T

<snip>When you take a quote, or the entire amendment, which was written specifically to address the threat of invasion, and try to make it into a charter to own a lethal weapon for any of the other reasons above - reasons that Jefferson never mentioned - then you are 'twisting' (your words) what Jefferson said to make it fit your belief.

Maybe, seeing as America has armed forces that are supposedly very capable, it is time to repeal that part of the constitution. Not that this will ever happen though.

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by scastle

We also seem to increasingly be suffering from a "gang" culture, and in some areas, it's increasingly normal for a young kid to go into a late night shop, point a gun at the shopkeeper and demand all his/her money..

That is true, about 10 so far this month in my area, thankfully the council got wise and has evicted those responsible. The amount of guns siezed and ammo was large. Sadly though some people are to stupid to own such a device.

Anyone interested in understanding the sheer stupidity of those in America's gun toting lobby should visit this Facts You Can Use site for the trigger happy: http://www.graybeardoutdoors.com/facts.htm My particular favourites are the list of top 10 reasons for ER admissions - ban baseball bats now! - and the sleight of hand which sees the bringing together of Japan's low murder AND high suicide rates and setting them against the combined figures for the US (roughly 7 x higher murder rate, two-thirds lower suicide rate) to determine that " the combined murder and suicide rates in Japan and the U.S. are nearly equal even though firearms are virtually non-existent in Japan" Brilliant, albeit very, very stupid.

Originally Posted by scastle

Chris T:


Maybe, seeing as America has armed forces that are supposedly very capable, it is time to repeal that part of the constitution. Not that this will ever happen though.

American forces capable??

What about the number of FRIENDLY casualties in Kuwait,Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by punky

but I am pretty sure if one of my family members was run over, I wouldn't try and ban cars.

I think you've been in the USA for too long, you're turning into Jerrek, completely abstract example btw, people buy guns to shoot things, they buy cars to get around in, can you spot the difference?