The Right to Bear Arms

[peetee]

this thread is getting pretty boring now.

You all have the right to bear arms... just not in this country.

If you want them that bad **** off to america, we'll keep our relatively gun free society here for now thank you.
Guns may be beautiful but if they were readily available they would not get the respect they deserved.

 

[britboy4321]

To paraphrase yourself, I wasn't asking you. Run along and play.

To paraphrase you,

Thanks dad.

 

[Bubo]

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

Yes, I've noticed you come out with this when ever anyone gets close to backing you into a corner. Basically ignoring the question at hand and going back to your "my general position trumps all" stance

As it happens I don't have any data to support my claim that it is easier to kill multiple people with a gun, rather than a shoelace, or knife. I thought maybe common sense would be enough but it seems that years of evolution of the human brain is not actually enough to satisfy the Dolph "metric". Apparently I have to go and commision a testing body to carry out some killings for me to demonstrate to pros and cons of despatching someone with a shoelace.

Though on the other hand, you say you have evidence, what, proving that it is as easy to kill multiple people with a gun compared to a knife? That's basically what you are saying in your comeback to my specific post. Utter rubbish.

 

[Tefal]

Perhaps beauty is the wrong word (although what I find beautiful other people may well not and vice versa) but as a piece of engineering they can be absolutely amazing with their precision tolerances and incredible efficiency.

Gotta agree with that.

They remind me of those old steam engines.

No electronic controls, everything timed and controlled by a different and interlinked mechanical part or spring.

 

[Tefal]

Would anyone agree with the right to own or rent a wide range of guns up to and including full auto rifles, pistols and MGs.

If they where kept locked and supervised at a range at all times and impossible to remove from the range.

 

[NeilF]

Would anyone agree with the right to own or rent a wide range of guns up to and including full auto rifles, pistols and MGs.

If they where kept locked and supervised at a range at all times and impossible to remove from the range.

Yep, there's some sense in that... You still stand the risk of a nutter going out in a blaze of glory at the range (as of course has happened elsewhere in the world), instead of in public, but I guess at least the risk is drastically reduced, and at least people would be free to take that risk, instead of having it forced upon them...

 

[britboy4321]

Would anyone agree with the right to own or rent a wide range of guns up to and including full auto rifles, pistols and MGs.

If they where kept locked and supervised at a range at all times and impossible to remove from the range.

If there was some practical way to make the impossible to remove from the range, and there was some kind of mandatory safety instruction, I see no harm whatsoever.

 

[Meridian]

Would anyone agree with the right to own or rent a wide range of guns up to and including full auto rifles, pistols and MGs.

If they where kept locked and supervised at a range at all times and impossible to remove from the range.

Except that, since the location of ranges is public knowledge, you've now told every crim and nutter where all the guns are. Who pays for the massive security needed? The clubs can't afford it, so this would just be a backdoor way of shutting them down.


As for target shooting, it's a proper sport. It requires rather more fitness than might think - even Prone Rifle requires a very low heart rate, and the ability to get it there quickly. Pistol shooting involves holding a 2kg weapon steady enough to shoot within around 2 arc-seconds. Put a 5p bit twenty metres away, and you get the idea. It requires enormous self-discipline and control, with the mental side absolutely vital. And a match typically lasts about two hours, most of which is spent in a very peculiar but vital form of concentration. The nearest I can describe it is: half of your mind is empty, the other half concentrating totally.

It's worth noting that while both Ryan and Hamilton joined gun clubs, neither did proper target shooting. Most gun clubs would rapidly expel anyone who just wanted to blaze away.



M

 

[Tefal]

Except that, since the location of ranges is public knowledge, you've now told every crim and nutter where all the guns are. Who pays for the massive security needed? The clubs can't afford it, so this would just be a backdoor way of shutting them down.


M

Rent land from the MoD?

Bit of money for the bases and the guns can be kept in their armoury.

Or perhaps qualified armed security.


Gun clubs in other countries seem to do ok. (ones which own guns illegal for personal possession, Gatling guns etc). Thier setups could be copied



But don't ranges in this country hold weapons for rental?

Do they just take them home at night?

The nearest I can describe it is: half of your mind is empty, the other half concentrating totally.

Sounds like Zen thinking/training.

 

[Meridian]

Rent land from the MoD?

Bit of money for the bases and the guns can be kept in their armoury.

Or perhaps qualified armed security.


Gun clubs in other countries seem to do ok. (ones which own guns illegal for personal possession, Gatling guns etc). Thier setups could be copied



But don't ranges in this country hold weapons for rental?

Do they just take them home at night?

Most clubs will have maybe two or three ratty old weapons for newbies, but all serious shooters have their own at their house. And to the best of my knowledge, in nearly all countries where firearms are allowed the users keep them at home.



M

 

[NeilF]

And to the best of my knowledge, in nearly all countries where firearms are allowed the users keep them at home.

And that's surely what (most) people don't want (unfortunately)...

But as mentioned above, shooting days organised by the military for joe-public, on military bases/areas? Wonder if there's any merit in that?

 

[Meridian]

So what you want to encourage is play shooting, rather than shooting as a proper sport? Because if you relied on open days, then you'd just get the "hobby" crowd, and that's a group I really would not trust with firearms.



M

 

[Dolph]

The point at hand infact is your clear disregard for anyones opinion that's not inline with yours. Worse still you then feel obliged to in effect insult these individuals again, for simply having a different opinion never mind how valid it is.

No, the point is that I accept any opinion that is evidentially valid and rational. Your position isn't, hence I don't accept it.

You've agreed that had Hamilton instead been around today, that more than likely he would not have been able to carry out the massacre as he did in the 90s. This is nothing more than logical and common sense. You therefore are agreeing that todays laws can prevent such disasters.

I've also clearly explained why this is irrelevant, but you keep snipping it out and only addressing the part you want out of context.

But still you throw your 'fallacy' word (amongst others) repeatedly at people who support this approach, even when you yourself have agreed that it can work.

It doesn't work in the grand scheme of things though. Dunblane was a statistical anomaly, a tragic one, but not the sort of thing you should consider when creating laws, any more than you should base a product ban on the 1 person in 10 million who had a fatal allergic reaction to it.

The bottom line, the evidence I have posted, is absolutely clear. Gun restriction does not do anything to reduce the overall murder or other violent crime rate. It doesn't do anything to alter the suicide rate. It does not save lives.

Therefore I don't support it. Where is the confusion here?

The reason why I've spotlighted Dunblane is to pin you down. It seems to have worked...

The reason why you have spotlighted Dunblane is because you can't win an honest debate, and can't accept that your position has no merit.

The whole point of fallacy in debate is that you dishonestly create a position to enhance your own, that's exactly what you have done, you've just admitted it.

Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media

Your argument must be discarded, because it is fatally flawed, and your attempt to use it to make a point only shows that you don't really have anything to argue against the actual facts surrounding gun control.

 

[Dolph]

Yes, I've noticed you come out with this when ever anyone gets close to backing you into a corner. Basically ignoring the question at hand and going back to your "my general position trumps all" stance

As it happens I don't have any data to support my claim that it is easier to kill multiple people with a gun, rather than a shoelace, or knife. I thought maybe common sense would be enough but it seems that years of evolution of the human brain is not actually enough to satisfy the Dolph "metric". Apparently I have to go and commision a testing body to carry out some killings for me to demonstrate to pros and cons of despatching someone with a shoelace.

Though on the other hand, you say you have evidence, what, proving that it is as easy to kill multiple people with a gun compared to a knife? That's basically what you are saying in your comeback to my specific post. Utter rubbish.

So basically, you admit that your position is based on nothing more than your opinion, and yet you argue that it should be law?

What benefit does a gun ban that doesn't save any actual lives give?

 

[NeilF]

No, the point is that I accept any opinion that is evidentially valid and rational. Your position isn't, hence I don't accept it.

Dolph, two points:-

1) Preventing the same again
You've agreed, had the current gun laws (that now prevail) been in place prior to Dunplane, quite possibly (likely) Hamilton would not have carried out that massacre, or at least not to the same degree. Lives could have been saved. I don't think this point is in question as it is a fair and logical assumption - If he hadn't had his (legal) hand guns, he couldn't have used them to shoot over 30 people.

So we can see that such events can be prevented by the current laws. As such, we can only guess at how many others have been prevented since their introduction.


2)Statistics
You're much beloved word "statistic" that your brandish around second only to "fallacy"

The problem with statistics is they tend to miss the "real worldness" of things.

15 children get shot. In a population of 100, this is a frightening statistic - 15% of the population have been killed!. In a population of 100,000 it's a small tiny figure - Only 0.015% of the poulation have been killed.

None-the-less, 15 children have died, 15 families have unecessarily been through hell...

Your statistics show one scenario is far 'less significant'... Is it really?


The crux of this is, you've agreed the current laws can prevent guns being mis-used, but you're willing to take the risk, or absorb those 'small statistics', whereas other people - who see benefits in allowing guns - are not. Maybe you're right, those risks or lives don't matter enough, but maybe you're not...

What benefit does a gun ban that doesn't save any actual lives give?

You yourself have agreed, had the laws been in place prior to Dunblane, it could well have 'benefit' those lives.

 

[Dolph]

DP

 

[Dolph]

Dolph, two points:-

1) Preventing the same again
You've agreed, had the current gun laws (that now prevail) been in place prior to Dunplane, quite possibly (likely) Hamilton would not have carried out that massacre, or at least not to the same degree. Lives could have been saved. I don't think this point is in question as it is a fair and logical assumption - If he hadn't had his (legal) hand guns, he couldn't have used them to shoot over 30 people.

So we can see that such events can be prevented by the current laws. As such, we can only guess at how many others have been prevented since their introduction.

No, I agreed that Hamilton would have been unlikely to shoot up a school with a gun... A small but important distinction. What I specifically said was they were at less risk of being shot. Nothing more, the rest is the result of you reading what you want into what I wrote while ignoring everything else. Furthermore, the evidence doesn't suggest they wouldn't have died, the cause of death wasn't the gun, but Thomas Hamilton, and while it may have been different children in different circumstances, once a nutter makes a decision, it's very hard to stop them. (look at Beverly Allitt for another example)

2)Statistics
You're much beloved word "statistic" that your brandish around second only to "fallacy"

The problem with statistics is they tend to miss the "real worldness" of things.

You're appealing to emotion again.

15 children get shot. In a population of 100, this is a frightening statistic - 15% of the population have been killed!. In a population of 100,000 it's a small tiny figure - Only 0.015% of the poulation have been killed.

None-the-less, 15 children have died, 15 families have unecessarily been through hell...

Your statistics show one scenario is far 'less significant'... Is it really?

You're appealing to emotion again. This is simply a variant of the 'think of the children' line of arguing. Furthermore (and most importantly) there is no evidence that those 15 children won't die just because you ban guns. Again, you haven't saved anyone.

The crux of this is, you've agreed the current laws can prevent guns being mis-used, but you're willing to take the risk, or absorb those 'small statistics', whereas other people - who see benefits in allowing guns - are not. Maybe you're right, those risks or lives don't matter enough, but maybe you're not...

Because they don't prevent people dying, hence the laws aren't achieving actual safety, but an illusion of safety.

Should we have laws that just make us feel better, or laws that actually make the world safer?

Also, would you actually care, at any point, to address the multiple criticisms I have made of your posts and points rather than cutting them out every time you reply and pretending they aren't there?

 

[NeilF]

No, I agreed that Hamilton would have been unlikely to shoot up a school with a gun... A small but important distinction. What I specifically said was they were at less risk of being shot.

I'm afraid you're playing with words here in what really appears to be desperation. I would further suggest you're actually getting illogical (& unfair) due to this desperation.

You've agreed (as most people would) if Hamilton had been subject to the current gun laws, he almost certainly would not have had the impressive armory he had back then. He therefore would not have had the means to kills and control with the same ease:-
(a) - Most likely he would have been put off by the prospect of the difficulty of his task.
(b) - If he had continued, he would have had a more difficult task with far more chance/time for failure.
(c) - Alternatively more victims could have easily fled/survived, and indeed the adults stood far more of a chance of overpowering him - See (a).

I think any rational person could safetly assume had Hamilton been denied his guns, the massacre may not have happened at all, or possible involved less victims.

Now given this, what are you suggesting? If we assume the Dunblane massacre had infact been prevented (or even reduced) by gun laws, some God enforcing yin-yan looks down and sees a massacre didn't take place, so decided to balance the books and up the death count somewhere else? I'm afraid things don't work that way, as you know.

I'm afraid people can see, that take the guns out of people hands, you less likely to get people like Hamilton with them.



Your reference to Beverly Allitt shows how illogical you're becoming. You're talking about a serial killer (over a long time frame) who took advantage of their position and carried and out murder by stealth. I suspect you're attempting to suggest Hamilton may have found an alternative route to killing. Maybe he would, but it would have been a more difficult route no doubt, more prone to failure and therefore less like to be carried out or so successful. People don't want to make these people jobs (murder) easier, because that's what's guns do.

 

[NeilF]

Because they don't prevent people dying, hence the laws aren't achieving actual safety, but an illusion of safety.

I'm afraid that's where most people (I'd suggest) don't agree with you.

Again, if we take the case study of Dunblane, if Hamilton had been prevented from owning his four hand gun (& X hundred rounds), I think most people would see Dunblane playing out quite differently, most likely with less casualties.

There's no guarentee of this, but it would seem to makes sense. Make it harder for someone like Hamilton to kill people, and most likely he'll be less successful.


Let's assume there's three or four men like Hamilton today in the country? Do you want them to have X handguns and X hundred rounds? Or 0 handguns and 0 rounds? I would suggest the latter can only result in a safer public.

 

[Dolph]

just because lots of people believe something it doesn't follow that it is true, hence the need for objective evidence.