The Right to Bear Arms

[britboy4321]

But is that a good reason to ban something? There are so many things that could be banned because of percieved risk.

Obviously it's a question of where you draw the line ...

No-one will ever definitively be able to state as fact how much more dangerous guns make our society, so unfortunately instead we have to kind of 'estimate'

 

[Clipsey]

But is that a good reason to ban something? There are so many things that could be banned because of percieved risk.

I think it is, when it is so cut & dry. If it were knives, then yes I could see the point, you have to physically know what you are doing to kill someone - a gun can be fired easily by mistake from a child or someone not in the know.

 

[NeilF]

But is that a good reason to ban something? There are so many things that could be banned because of percieved risk.

Maybe, maybe not... But I doubt many of the example you'd bring to the table would involve a device designed solely to make killing as easy as possible? Hence we're on a slightly different playing field here, like it or not.

Again, I would suggest most people in this country see absolutely no benefits with the pro-gun approach, and can only see benefit with the anti-gun approach. With no benefits, and obvious risks at hand, peoples opinion is fairly obvious...

Why risk a Columbine here for example if there are not benefits to counter-balance that possibility? And yes you may suggest it is very unlikely, but people believe its a real enough threat to merit concern. It only takes one agrieved teenager, with access to a gun, and the wrong state of mind... Why open that door to that possibility when it's really not needed?


If you truly want to change the mind of people such as myself you'd need to show benefits to gun ownship.

 

[RDM]

Obviously it's a question of where you draw the line ...

As I ride a motorcycle (no real purpose that cannot be served by other safer alternatives) and am a keen archer (tool specifically designed for killing and has no purpose other than recreation) I am keen to see that arbitary laws that don't make people safer are not forced on minority activities because the majority agree with them.

No-one will ever definitively be able to state as fact how much more dangerous guns make our society, so unfortunately instead we have to kind of 'estimate'

Banning handguns seemed to make absolutely no difference to the UK so I would say that is an arbitary restriction for no benefit.

 

[britboy4321]

As I ride a motorcycle (no real purpose that cannot be served by other safer alternatives) and am a keen archer (tool specifically designed for killing and has no purpose other than recreation) I am keen to see that arbitary laws that don't make people safer are not forced on minority activities because the majority agree with them.



Banning handguns seemed to make absolutely no difference to the UK so I would say that is an arbitary restriction for no benefit.

This answer is a little devil's advocate ..

One could argue millions of people are benefitting every day because they feel safer, and think their lives are nice and safe - irrespective of the reality.

Kind of like a placebo for the masses. I wouldn't say millions and millions of people 'feeling safer day in day out' is worth zero as far as the 'guns' formula goes, even if it is a lie! Would you?

 

[Bubo]

Gordon Brown: overclaiming expenses by £12k, lying to enquiries, bullying and intimidation of staff, paranoid victim of god complex.

You got any verifiable FACTS to support your claim above? Yeah, I know I crossposted this from the political pigs thread, but this is the thread which you are currently lecturing people about having FACTS to support every statement they make? So, can you show me the un-deniable evidence to support your accusation about the bullying and intimidation, and I'm not talking my word against their word, as that has never proved anything. Plus the victim of god complex, where is your evidence for that, sounds like an entirely emotional response to me. I can see the word irrelevant forming in your mind, though curiously not the word fallacy.

 

[RDM]

I think it is, when it is so cut & dry. If it were knives, then yes I could see the point, you have to physically know what you are doing to kill someone - a gun can be fired easily by mistake from a child or someone not in the know.

Which is why you need strict rules on care and handling not banning of the offending item.

Maybe, maybe not... But I doubt many of the example you'd bring to the table would involve a device designed solely to make killing as easy as possible? Hence we're on a slightly different playing field here, like it or not.

50lb draw compound bow. Can kill easily and accurately at distances up to 100 yards and can still be fatal at distances much further than that. Used extensively in the states for hunting animals up to the size of bison. My 38lb draw recurve can easily be fatal. Has no use other than recreation in the UK (it is illegal to use a bow to kill animals here for some reason). Shall we ban them? Archery is after all only a minority sport and while a nutter with a bow cannot kill people as fast as a nutter with a gun they could still kill your child.

Again, I would suggest most people in this country see absolutely no benefits with the pro-gun approach, and can only see benefit with the anti-gun approach. With no benefits, and obvious risks at hand, peoples opinion is fairly obvious...

But there hasn't been any benefits from banning handguns in the UK. So you lose the benefits from those that did enjoy shooting as a hobby and gain no benefits at all. How is that a good law?

Why risk a Columbine here for example if there are not benefits to counterbalance that possibility?

As a 18 year old chav from Liverpool can get hold of a gun why do you think someone that wanted to shoot up a school would be unable to do so? They are already contemplating murder so I don't think a little fact like guns being illegal is going to stop them.

 

[RDM]

This answer is a little devil's advocate ..

One could argue millions of people are benefitting every day because they feel safer, and think their lives are nice and safe - irrespective of the reality.

Kind of like a placebo for the masses. I wouldn't say millions and millions of people 'feeling safer day in day out' is worth zero as far as the 'guns' formula goes, even if it is a lie! Would you?

Do you honestly feel safer every day because handguns are banned? Prior to 1998 did you worry every day about some nutter with a gun killing someone? Is that illusionary feeling of safety worth the restrictions put on people that enjoyed a minority hobby?

How far do we go with an illusion of safety being an acceptable reason for enacting legislation?

 

[NeilF]

Banning handguns seemed to make absolutely no difference to the UK so I would say that is an arbitary restriction for no benefit.

Two things here...

1 - The number of guns you're talking about being remove was tiny, and I suspect the owners a fairly select gruop. So any effect could well be negligable?

And remember, most of us are talking about a more US approach to guns, which was the point in the OP surely?

Is this part of the problem here? We're talking at cross-purposes?

2 - The only pro argument thus far seems to be, "I miss my hobby". It's not exactly a compelling argument to introducing even the smallest of risks is it?


Acuse me of being emotional on the subject, or what ever you like, but I truly believe if there were large numbers of weapons in this country, it would increase the risks unecessary deaths. I can truly envisage a school shooting happening that could have been prevented had the gun not been so accessible.

Or with the (overblown I'd give you) terrorism threat, do we really want more accessible weapons to would-be terrorist?

 

[britboy4321]

Do you honestly feel safer every day because handguns are banned? Prior to 1998 did you worry every day about some nutter with a gun killing someone? Is that illusionary feeling of safety worth the restrictions put on people that enjoyed a minority hobby?

How far do we go with an illusion of safety being an acceptable reason for enacting legislation?

I honestly, hand on heart, prefer my neighbours not having guns from my neighbours having guns. I promise you, I feel safer. My life feels safer knowing (although maybe a lie) that no-one on the street has guns. Knowing (although maybe a lie) that if kids are having fisticuffs on my street, or kicking down my garden fence, they are not going to be gun-toting. Is this feeling, (even if a lie) worth absolutely zero? Or is it actually making my life slightly nicer?

I'm not going for a 'game winning point' here .. I'm just asking for you to answer 'yes' or 'no' to that question at this point - then we'll move on to 'how much is is worth' ...

 

[RDM]

I honestly, hand on heart, prefer my neighbours not having guns from my neighbours having guns. I promise you, I feel safer.

And you think about it daily? Did you worry about it daily prior to the handgun ban?

Firstly, do you agree that millions upon millions of people feeling safer is at least worth something???

In all honesty, no, I don't. I really don't think the illusion of safety is worth anything.

I'm not going for a 'game winning point' here .. I'm just asking for you to answer 'yes' or 'no' to that question at this point - then we'll move on to 'how much is is worth' ...

Sorry to say I honestly don't feel illusionary safety is worth anything, I understand that others may think it is worth something though.

 

[robgmun]

Well i remember growning up and hearing about the odd mass killing in england were some nut loses it and kills a random bunch of people. This happened every few years.

Then the last one was Dunblane, soon after the ban was introduced. We hadn't had a single one like that since. So it works in my opinon.

Franky i don't see any compelling argument to lifting it at all. The facts speak for themselves

 

[Vampyre]

Now, indeed, those chances may be small, but why should the majority have to endure those concerns for seemingly no benefit at all? Just so the minority can admire a shiney bit of metal? Or so a minority can go and fire off some rounds at a range? Sounds a bit of a one way bargain to me I'm afraid.

'Seemingly no benefit at all' is only your opinion of the benefit/risk ratio, and it may well be the majority opinion on this matter, but unless those risks are quantified and statistically significant then they shouldn't have any bearing on law-making.

 

[britboy4321]

EDITED:

Well I think, before we actually consider any facts at all with regards to safety etc, 58,000,000 UK people 'feeling safer' during living their lives is a greater good than 2,000,000 people owning handguns for any reason.

So, before you even bother with whether they ARE safer or not, 58,000,000, over 96%, of people having happier lives with the current status quo is reason enough not to change the status quo.

Do you disagree?

 

[RDM]

Well i remember growning up and hearing about the odd mass killing in england were some nut loses it and kills a random bunch of people. This happened every few years.

Are you sure you are remembering correctly? As far as I am aware there have only ever been two mass shootings in the UK.

 

[RDM]

EDITED:

Well I think, before we actually consider any facts at all with regards to safety etc, 58,000,000 people 'feeling safer' during living their lives is a greater good than 2,000,000 people owning handguns.

But we don't know if 58m people do feel safer. I would imagine the vast majority of people don't even think about it but I certainly couldn't say for sure how many do and do not feel safer. I am sure, if asked, lots of people will say "Yes I feel safer" but in reality it has zero impact on their daily lives and so isn't actually a benefit.

Before you even bother with whether they ARE safer or not, 58,000,000, over 96%, of people happy with the current status quo is reason enough not to change the status quo.

Why? If it provides no real benefit? If the majority of people think it is right we shouldn't change it? I personally think that is a pretty poor argument.

 

[NeilF]

'Seemingly no benefit at all' is only your opinion of the benefit/risk ratio, and it may well be the majority opinion on this matter, but unless those risks are quantified and statistically significant then they shouldn't have any bearing on law-making.

Afraid not... Logic dictates if there's any perceived risk, and the benefits do not out-weight these risks, then it's not worth it. Simple as that...

People perceive a real threat, and no real benefit. The perceived threat is a real one... The greater the number of guns in circulation, especially in domestic settings, the greater the chance those guns will be used.


Now you can bring various figures to the table, but I'm afraid when it comes to real life opposed to some pretend idiolistic existance, most people are willing to risk actual lives as a test set. ie: If in doubt, don't risk peoples lives.

And the figures being brought to the table, over and over from the 90s, are hardly applicable to the question at hand, when bearly one tenth of one percent of people had a gun. Let's multiply that by 30 or 300 or 500 times to bring it inline with other gun owning nations shall we to put us on a level pegging

 

[RDM]

And the figures being brought to the table over from the 90s are hardly applicable to the question at hand, when bearly one tenth of one percent of people had a gun. Let's multiply that be 30 or 300 times to bring it inline with other gun owning nations shall we to put us on a level pegging

What makes you think that if the handgun ban were repealled that 30% of the population would want to own a handgun? Why would it not be about the same percentage as prior to the handgun ban?

 

[britboy4321]

But we don't know if 58m people do feel safer. I would imagine the vast majority of people don't even think about it but I certainly couldn't say for sure how many do and do not feel safer. I am sure, if asked, lots of people will say "Yes I feel safer" but in reality it has zero impact on their daily lives and so isn't actually a benefit.



Why? If it provides no real benefit? If the majority of people think it is right we shouldn't change it? I personally think that is a pretty poor argument.

If I could send a link proving that 96% of people say they feel safer without handguns legally available in the UK, I propose you still wouldn't be satisfied and call it a lie or smear the source or something - so - as I wrote earlier a huge essay about - there's no point in bothering with links to the fact. See earlier for a more detailed explanation exactly why ..

Next, of course it impacts their daily lives. If someone feels less safe they have less nice lives. Again I could prove this with links from all-over, but I presume you'd just smear the source. Deep down you know as well as I do this fact anyway as it's basic common sense. I hope you don't pull me on this paragraph as that'd send us down a naff route of argument ..

Next the problem with the gun argument as we've said 100 times now is that no-one knows how much benefit/risk it does or doesn't give within society, if we allow handguns within society. Gosh they've been debating the 'they are dangerous/they make no odds/they increase safety' thing over the pond for 150 years and no-one's got anywhere! Don't you see yet, NO-ONE REALLY KNOWS, EVERYONE, ON ALL SIDES OF THE DEBATE, IS KINDA GOING OFF GUT FEEL. The formula of 'the whole of society' is too complex. Too many variables. We do not have the capability to form water-tight conclusions, with regards to teh safety, we've only got gut feel[/i] .

So, bearing that in mind, and the fact we don't have a constitution over here demanding guns, the only factors remaining to decide the handgun issue is, heaven forbid, what the people actually want.

The vast, vast majority of people's lives are, maybe placebo like (but what difference does it make), happier without guns. Mainly for percieved safety reasons. A few arn't, ironically often for percieved safety reasons, sometimes for other reasons (such as hobbys). When there is no reliable data with regards to their impact on society, people's opinions and what they want, however misguided, are all we have left.. And that, as they say, is that.

 

[NeilF]

What makes you think that if the handgun ban were repealled that 30% of the population would want to own a handgun? Why would it not be about the same percentage as prior to the handgun ban?

I don't know what %age of folks would want them... And it would also depend heavily on the nature of any legistlation for ownership too. So it's a hard thing to predict... But I'm sure you're going to suggest you know the exact figure far more accurately than any one else

Anyway, again, as per the OP, the suggestion is a US approach? Hence that's what seems to being envisage. ie: Greater numbers than just a few thousand

And again, would you feel more or less comfortable/safe with a gun in the house next to you? Personally I'd feel less safe...


You know, I have a sneaking suspicion about something... How many of the three or four pro-gunners posting in this thread have kids? I know it's a loaded question... But I'm intrigued... Indulge me...