The Right to Bear Arms

[Vesta_Man]

Once again dolf your deliberately ignoring the real reason why handguns were banned in the first place and instead start dribbling some utter nonsense about shoelace 'massacres'

2 people went on killing spree's with legally held handguns killing 30+ people so the government banned them!
The same way they have now banned imitation Samurai swords because lots of people started killing each other with them. It's called living in a civilized society that evolves to better protect the people.

 

[Dolph]

Once again dolf your deliberately ignoring the real reason why handguns were banned in the first place and instead start dribbling some utter nonsense about shoelace 'massacres'

2 people went on killing spree's with legally held handguns killing 30+ people so the government banned them!
The same way they have now banned imitation Samurai swords because lots of people started killing each other with them. It's called living in a civilized society that evolves to better protect the people.

Once again you're repeated the idea that laws should be based on statistical anomoly and the feeling of improvement rather than actual evidence.

But then I don't expect anything less from you, you've never been any different under any of your other usernames either.

 

[Lightnix]

Really for me this comes down to one thing: with guns banned I, personally, am significantly less likely to get shot over the course of my own lifetime. If somebody comes at me with a knife, or god forbid, a shoe lace, at least I've got a chance to run away - you can't outrun a bullet though, and a bullet is much more likely to give you a permanent injury, and nobody's going to accidentally shoot anybody with a shoelace.

 

[Dolph]

Really for me this comes down to one thing: with guns banned I, personally, am significantly less likely to get shot over the course of my own lifetime. If somebody comes at me with a knife, or god forbid, a shoe lace, at least I've got a chance to run away - you can't outrun a bullet though, and a bullet is much more likely to give you a permanent injury, and nobody's going to accidentally shoot anybody with a shoelace.

But you're not statistically less likely to be murdered, or indeed be the victim of another form of violent crime. The illusion of safety is just that, an illusion. Is an illusion a good reason for a law?

 

[Vesta_Man]

Once again you're repeated the idea that laws should be based on statistical anomoly and the feeling of improvement rather than actual evidence.

But then I don't expect anything less from you, you've never been any different under any of your other usernames either.

13 years and counting!

Their has not been another gun massacre in the U.K since the banning of handguns in 1997, so it's fair to say that the law has worked so far in WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO for 13 years!
Also firearms offenses have dropped in England and Wales for the last 8 years. (Source: HomeOffice )

 

[Dolph]

13 years and counting!

Their has not been another gun massacre in the U.K since the banning of handguns in 1997, so it's fair to say that the law has worked so far in WHAT IT SET OUT TO DO for 13 years!
Also firearms offenses have dropped in England and Wales for the last 8 years. (Source: HomeOffice )

May I suggest you learn the meaning of the statistical idea of regression to the mean, then gain an understanding of how it applies specifically to restrictions applied based on freak events and how you can judge the effectiveness of those restrictions?

 

[Vesta_Man]

...blah...blah

You can dance around it as much as you like but the FACT of the matter is that the handgun ban in 1997 (The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997) was DIRECTLY introduced to prevent another massacre and make it physically impossible for another Hungerford or Dunblane from ever happening again!
13 years on and it has succeeded in ALL aspects to date. Job well done.

 

[RDM]

Yeah, but he put 13 years in really big letters, that has to count for something right?

 

[Repta]

I believe this argument is officially 2nd in the illogical arguments list. With "the ban cars" one just ahead!

I would put it ahead of emotionally based arguments but maybe thats just me

 

[cheets64]

Good thing about banning handguns is that it pushed them into the underworld and generally you only get people that are criminals obtaining them and wont go around shooting up for no reason or people who are gun club members and that worship guns and the last thing you are going to see is them go mental in the local shopping centre.

 

[Bubo]

Dolph talking about guns/knives/shoelaces...

What do you suppose the risk is in giving everyone each of those three things? After all, most people have access to two of those things now and somehow manage not to murder everyone in sight?

Well, maybe, cos when given a shoelace or a knife it is HARDER* to kill someone, so they can't be arsed to get round to murdering someone? Maybe that's why the knife and shoelace brigade have managed to resist the urge all these years? I'm very surpised you offered up this question as you phrase it.

What is the percentage of average people who are even at risk of using a weapon, any weapon, to kill or attempt to kill?

Whether someone attempts a kill is very obviously dependant on the level of desire to kill coupled with the ease of carrying out the kill. Both of these decide what percentage of people decide to kill. That percentage of average people you are talking about depends on both these factors. Therefore the risk is partially dependant on the ease of kill method. Make it easier to kill someone with a more effiecient weapon and some of those teetering on the brink will decide to go for it. But I know you seem to think any weapon can be used to kill anyone with the same ease and there is no "easier" way of killing someone with a different tool.


*Unless you are 5th dan Dolph, 3 foot away from the assailant, with your back to a wall and no means of escape.

 

[Tefal]

Once again you're repeated the idea that laws should be based on statistical anomoly and the feeling of improvement rather than actual evidence.

But they are.


That is what the laws are based on, saying they shouldn't be is all well and good in an ideal world.


But that's not the case.

You are the one arguing some fanciful idea that the entire system of government and it's established laws are going to change magically.

How about something semi practical?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

You can dance around it as much as you like but the FACT of the matter is that the handgun ban in 1997 (The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997) was DIRECTLY introduced to prevent another massacre and make it physically impossible for another Hungerford or Dunblane from ever happening again!
13 years on and it has succeeded in ALL aspects to date. Job well done.

There is nothing to stop another Hungerford as I have previously said.

Michael Ryan went on the rampage with two semi-automatic rifles and a pistol. While your argument with handguns may have merit, you argument that another Hungerford is impossible does not as high calibre rifles are still quite legal to own albeit they have to be manually reloaded after every shot. That is of course unless you have a .22 rifle of which semi-automatic is still legal to own with high capacity magazine to boot.

 

[Biohazard]

You can dance around it as much as you like but the FACT of the matter is that the handgun ban in 1997 (The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997) was DIRECTLY introduced to prevent another massacre and make it physically impossible for another Hungerford or Dunblane from ever happening again!
13 years on and it has succeeded in ALL aspects to date. Job well done.

Job well done?

You are talking utter claptrap. Another mnassacre has simply not taken place, there is nothing to stop a firearms certificate holder losing the plot tomorrow and blowing another school away. Or someone who has obtained an illegal firearm for that manner..

 

[NeilF]

Job well done?

You are talking utter claptrap. Another mnassacre has simply not taken place, there is nothing to stop a firearms certificate holder losing the plot tomorrow and blowing another school away. Or someone who has obtained an illegal firearm for that manner..

Of course not... But the principle was to reduce the risk...

Less guns = less chance of someone on a 'mission' having access to one.

But I would say the 1990s level of ownership were already relatively low it would seem.

 

[NeilF]

I would put it ahead of emotionally based arguments but maybe thats just me

Nah, it really is just that daft...

 

[NeilF]

But you're not statistically less likely to be murdered, or indeed be the victim of another form of violent crime. The illusion of safety is just that, an illusion. Is an illusion a good reason for a law?

You repeatedly question people who suggest there may be a possibility that more guns equate to more risk?

Dolph, referring to the cases of Dunblane an Hungerford... If those two individuals did not have their weapons (eg: laws had been brought in sooner) do you think there's the slightest possibility those event may not have happened, or may played out differently?

Do you not think maybe if Hamilton didn't have such easy access to four handguns, Dunblane might not have been so bloody?

If for one second we suggest, maybe if Dunblane may not have happened had Hamilton not been armed in the first place, what exactly is your rational for those deaths? What if one of those children had been yours? Wouldn't you have wished maybe he hadn't had access to his guns?

It seems like a completely plausible suggestion to me - If Hamilton had none of his guns, just maybe he wouldn't have managed to killl so many...

As such, how many of those children is your hobby worth?

 

[Dolph]

You repeatedly question people who suggest there may be a possibility that more guns equate to more risk?

Dolph, referring to the cases of Dunblane an Hungerford... If those two individuals did not have their weapons (eg: laws had been brought in sooner) do you think there's the slightest possibility those event may not have happened, or may played out differently?

Do you not think maybe if Hamilton didn't have such easy access to four handguns, Dunblane might not have been so bloody?

If for one second we suggest, maybe if Dunblane may not have happened had Hamilton not been armed in the first place, what exactly is your rational for those deaths? What if one of those children had been yours? Wouldn't you have wished maybe he hadn't had access to his guns?

It seems like a completely plausible suggestion to me - If Hamilton had none of his guns, just maybe he wouldn't have managed to killl so many...

As such, how many of those children is your hobby worth?

Wording an appeal to emotion fallacy slightly differently and combining it with a spotlight fallacy doesn't make the poor, non-evidence based argument any better.

Dunblane and hungerford were statistical anomalies, tragic ones, but anomalies never the less. Basing your arguments around anomalies is never a good practice.

Should we ban peanuts because a small number of children have a tragic allergic reaction to them? How many children is the ability to eat peanuts worth?

 

[Dolph]

Well, maybe, cos when given a shoelace or a knife it is HARDER* to kill someone, so they can't be arsed to get round to murdering someone? Maybe that's why the knife and shoelace brigade have managed to resist the urge all these years? I'm very surpised you offered up this question as you phrase it.

I've posted plenty of evidence to back up my position. Would you care to post some to support yours?

Whether someone attempts a kill is very obviously dependant on the level of desire to kill coupled with the ease of carrying out the kill. Both of these decide what percentage of people decide to kill. That percentage of average people you are talking about depends on both these factors. Therefore the risk is partially dependant on the ease of kill method. Make it easier to kill someone with a more effiecient weapon and some of those teetering on the brink will decide to go for it. But I know you seem to think any weapon can be used to kill anyone with the same ease and there is no "easier" way of killing someone with a different tool.

*Unless you are 5th dan Dolph, 3 foot away from the assailant, with your back to a wall and no means of escape.

Nice theory, can we have some data supporting it? All the data I have found does not support it.

 

[Chimerical]

If guns are banned just because they're dangerous, then why does the Government now force all BB guns to be two tone? (unless you have a license).

The point is that the way Labour legislates has nothing to do with 'safety' or actual benefit just appealing to a populist vote. Next they'll be banning paintballing.