The Right to Bear Arms

[Bubo]

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?

Yes, I admit I haven't got round to conducting a test to demonstrate it is easier to kill multiple people with a gun, compared to a knife or shoelace.

You forgot to answer this bit...

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.

 

[hood1971]

Guns are prevalent in South Africa and very easy to obtain (both legally and otherwise). The majority of gun deaths occuring during breakin robberies were done with the owners gun or with guns stolen from breakins.

You draw a gun you escalate the situation where you will have to kill or be killed. Not many will kill without hesitation

 

[NeilF]

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

Unfortunately, the objective evidence you're hiding behind doesn't really exist. We don't have an alternative reality in which to pass gun laws in 1990 and see what Hamilton then did...

So all we can do is make logical assumptions. Your assumption is, had Hamilton not had his guns:-
(a) - He would not have been put off at the prospect of a harder task
(b) - He would have instead gone about killing in some other way, killing either less, the same, or more people.

There was a possibility of (a) as more time and effort would undoubtably have been involved, so he may naever even have followed through and started the killing. As regards (b), I'd suggest less victims were likely, rather than the same or more - Giving a killer less effective weapons you'd expect to make him a less effective killer...

So, can you really not see or understand this quite logical point of view?

 

[RDM]

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.

Bearing in mind we are trying to second guess the actions of someone that is not at all rational and the problems inherent in that, but what would stop him doing the same with the legal firearms available? You can buy a straight pull AR15 clone in the UK for a several hundred pounds second hand that would do the job.

 

[NeilF]

Bearing in mind we are trying to second guess the actions of someone that is not at all rational and the problems inherent in that, but what would stop him doing the same with the legal firearms available? You can buy a straight pull AR15 clone in the UK for a several hundred pounds second hand that would do the job.

We are of course all trying to second guess peoples actions, by Dolph's very own words.

Sticking to the Dunblane case study, Dolph suggests had Hamilton been denied the four handguns and X hundred rounds, he would instead of achieved much/just the same level of killing by some other means. Dolph is suggesting the harder/longer task would not have put him off. Dolph is suggesting he would have had other means/methods. Dolph is suggesting he would not have failed to be so prolific.

Now, with your point, of course where there's a will, there's a way, but surely let's make that 'way' as hard as possible. Is it really sensible to make these peoples 'job' easier?

 

[RDM]

We are of course all trying to second guess peoples actions, by Dolph's very own words.

Sticking to the Dunblane case study, Dolph suggests had Hamilton been denied the four handguns and X hundred rounds, he would instead of achieved much/just the same level of killing by some other means. Dolph is suggesting the harder/longer task would not have put him off. Dolph is suggesting he would have had other means/methods. Dolph is suggesting he would not have failed to be so prolific.

Now, with your point, of course where there's a will, there's a way, but surely let's make that 'way' as hard as possible. Is it really sensible to make these peoples 'job' easier?

Well that is pretty much my point. If I get a FAC I can then get a straight pull AR15 clone legally in the UK. Large magazine capacity, greater range and accuracy of the handguns and considerably more intimidating. Firing a shot every second or two into a classroom of kids is going to have pretty much the same impact except I can actually start further away and probably use a calibre that will ignore most cover.

 

[Bubo]

Firing a shot every second or two into a classroom of kids is going to have pretty much the same impact except I can actually start further away and probably use a calibre that will ignore most cover.

Are you saying its somehow *easier* to kill a classroom full of kids if you able to start shooting from a slightly further distance away, and with bigger bullets? Have you run this past Dolph, who will argue you can achieve the exact same number of killings with a knife, shoelace, shoe, shovel, nasty look, syphilis?

 

[RDM]

Are you saying its somehow *easier* to kill a classroom full of kids if you able to start shooting from a slightly further distance away, and with bigger bullets? Have you run this past Dolph, who will argue you can achieve the exact same number of killings with a knife, shoelace, shoe, shovel, nasty look, syphilis?

I am saying it is probably easier to use a still legal weapon to do what he did and so the handgun ban has in fact been pointless. But feel free to interpret it any way you like to make you feel better as rational argument and yourself don't seem to be close friends.

 

[Bubo]

I am saying it is probably easier to use a still legal weapon to do what he did and so the handgun ban has in fact been pointless. But feel free to interpret it any way you like to make you feel better as rational argument and yourself don't seem to be close friends.

Can I ask you a direct question then. Do you think its easier to kill multiple people with a gun compared to a knife? E.g. a classroom full of kids.

I'm not disputing your point btw, if he was abale to get any gun he would have probably tried to carry out the killings.

 

[RDM]

Can I ask you a direct question then. Do you think its easier to kill multiple people with a gun compared to a knife? E.g. a classroom full of kids.

Probably, but if I was going to kill a large number of people then explosives or arson would seem to be the best way to do it.

I'm not disputing your point btw, if he was abale to get any gun he would have probably tried to carry out the killings.

So the assertion that banning handguns stopped another Dunblane is in fact emotive rubbish with no real basis in fact?

 

[NeilF]

I am saying it is probably easier to use a still legal weapon to do what he did and so the handgun ban has in fact been pointless. But feel free to interpret it any way you like to make you feel better as rational argument and yourself don't seem to be close friends.

That's a fair point, and I understand what your suggesting, but I feel we're possibly skirting around the point?

First of all, I think we can all be fairly happy with the suggestion that if Hamilton had not had guns then most likely lives could have been saved. Any alternative method he would tried would have been more difficult and more prone to him either not trying it, or him failing at it.


Now, as you've suggested (I think) he could instead of had rifles/shotguns. And in doing this you've highlighted one of two different points here?:-
(a) - Currentlly, there still is a threat worth considering? Do we want Hamiltons with rifles? I suspect if another Dunblane happened today using such weapons, we'd quite possibly see yet more laws drawn up.
(b) - Hamilton could have used a rifle instead (at Dunblane). But I'd suggest he may have been less effective with a single rifle than four handguns. More conspicuous and probably harder to load again while maintaining ones control of the situation? But all this aside, what you're interestingly trying to do via this argument is try and arm him to the same degree to make him as dangerous. Surely this shows to some degree the benefit in making sure we don't allow (or make it as hard as possible) for such people access to such weapons?

 

[Tefal]

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

ah ok.

Stil you really wouldn't want to break into the house of the guy who owns the club's Gatling gun or .50 MG

 

[RDM]

First of all, I think we can all be fairly happy with the suggestion that if Hamilton had not had guns then most likely lives could have been saved. Any alternative method he would tried would have been more difficult and more prone to him either not trying it, or him failing at it.

Other than explosives or possibly arson in the right circumstances. And we cant really say any other method would make him prone to not trying it considering he was in fact a grade A nutter.

Now, as you've suggested (I think) he could instead of had rifles/shotguns. And in doing this you've highlighted one of two different points here?:-
(a) - Currentlly, there still is a threat worth considering? Do we want Hamiltons with rifles? I suspect if another Dunblane happened today using such weapons, we'd quite possibly see yet more laws drawn up.

But your point that another Dunblane has been stopped by the handgun ban is rubbish. He could quite eaisly have done it with legal firearms still available. So once again you want to restrict something because you feel it would make you safer when it isn't actually causing you any problems.

(b) - Hamilton could have used a rifle instead (at Dunblane). But I'd suggest he may have been less effective with a single rifle than four handguns. More conspicuous and probably harder to load again while maintaining ones control of the situation?

An AR15 clone has a magazine capacity considerably larger than most handguns and about 4 times larger than the ones Hamilton used. It would probably have been easier or just as easy for him to do it.

But all this aside, what you're interestingly trying to do via this argument is try and arm him to the same degree to make him as dangerous. Surely this shows to some degree the benefit in making sure we don't allow (or make it as hard as possible) for such people access to such weapons?

So despite the fact that another Dunblane is still quite possible yet hasn't happened you want to restrict even more people for your percieved safety? Can you say that in a firearm free country Hamilton would not have been able to kill as many people as he did in another way? One man with a machette is still going to cause an awful lot of damage in a primary school classrom after all.

 

[NeilF]

Probably, but if I was going to kill a large number of people then explosives or arson would seem to be the best way to do it.

These options are always available, to some degree, but I'd suggest are far harder to utilise for murder than a gun? One is far easier to kill people with, while the alternatives you've suggested are more complicated, prone to error and failure.

So the assertion that banning handguns stopped another Dunblane is in fact emotive rubbish with no real basis in fact?

Simple question - Within our Dunblane case study, what's worse for society, Hamilton with guns, or Hamilton without guns. I think most of us can agree, removing an efficient killing weapons from the wrong sort of people can only be for the better. Had Hamilton had no guns, more than likely lives would have been saved by him not carrying out the massacre or using less effective methods.


Now, if you're saying the current laws have problems which mean that situation has not be enforced as well as it could be, so individuals such as Hamilton still have means of using a gun, fine.

But the important thing here is principle is sound, we don't want guns in the hands of the wrong people. Why make it easier rather than harder for them.

 

[RDM]

These options are always available, to some degree, but I'd suggest are far harder to utilise for murder than a gun? One is far easier to kill people with, while the alternatives you've suggested are more complicated, prone to error and failure.

Timothey McVeigh would disagree with you and he had access to a whole load of guns too but decided not to use them for a more effective method...

Simple question - Within our Dunblane case study, what's worse for society, Hamilton with guns, or Hamilton without guns.

Surely that would depend on what he decided to do in the absence of guns?

I think most of us can agree, removing an efficient killing weapons from the wrong sort of people can only be for the better. Had Hamilton had no guns, more than likely lives would have been saved by him not carrying out the massacre or using less effective methods.

Or he could have gone for more effective measures. As we are going for basless conjecture, has the handgun ban actually made society MORE dangerous!!!

Now, if you're saying the current laws have problems which mean that situation has not be enforced as well as it could be, so individuals such as Hamilton still have means of using a gun, fine.

But you are saying that another Dunblane has been stopped by banning handguns. By the looks of it another Dunblane has been stopped by regression to the mean and so the handgun ban was in fact pointless.

But the important thing here is principle is sound, we don't want guns in the hands of the wrong people. Why make it easier rather than harder for them.

As you cannot stop guns getting in to the hands of the wrong people all you are actually doing is stopping the right people from enjoying their hobby with no real gain. The only thing you seem to justify that with is "percieved safety" rather than real safety.

 

[NeilF]

So despite the fact that another Dunblane is still quite possible yet hasn't happened you want to restrict even more people for your percieved safety? Can you say that in a firearm free country Hamilton would not have been able to kill as many people as he did in another way? One man with a machette is still going to cause an awful lot of damage in a primary school classrom after all.

I'll repeat myself. If we agree Hamilton had no guns, I for one (& I suspect most people) would imagine:-
(a) Given the hurdle of a more complicated means of killing people, he may not have bothered. If he was mentally unbalanced and suicidal, maybe her would have just put his head in the oven. But as it was, he had the simple opportunity of just opening a cupboard, and killing lots of people with ease, without even getting his hands dirty.
(b) Using a more difficult/contrived method, would be more prone to fail.

I cannot see an intelligent man such as yourself denying this? A Hamilton with four handguns is not what we want. We want a Hamilton with no guns.

Now given this, why are you arguing about this point? If you are suggesting people such as Hamilton still have access to guns, why are you not protesting about that issue? Instead you infact seem to be supporting the risk of people like Hamilton having access to guns?

I just can't fathom the logic?

 

[Tefal]

I'll repeat myself. If we agree Hamilton had no guns, I for one (& I suspect most people) would imagine:-
(a) Given the hurdle of a more complicated means of killing people, he may not have bothered. If he was mentally unbalanced and suicidal, maybe her would have just put his head in the oven. But as it was, he had t the opportunity of opening a cupboard, and killing lots of people with ease, without even getting his hands dirty.
(b) Using a more difficult/contrived method, would be more prone to fail.

I cannot see an intelligent man such as yourself denying this? A Hamilton with four handguns is not what we want. We want a Hamilton with no guns.

Now given this, why are you arguing about this point? If you are suggesting people such as Hamilton still have access to guns, why are you protesting about that? Why are you infact supporting the risk of people like Hamilton having access to guns?

I just can't fathom the logic?

But you can still have a large calibre rifle eith a large magazine.

 

[NeilF]

But you can still have a large calibre rifle eith a large magazine.

I'm confused... You seem to be missing the point?

Let's go back to say 1996, in Dunblane, early one March morning. Put the following three alternative realities/scenarios through some logical assumptions:-
1) Hamilton with four handguns and X hundred rounds.
2) Hamilton with a "large calibre rifle eith a large magazine".
3) Hamilton with no guns at all.

Place those three scenarios in most dangerous to least dangerous. Which is most likely to result in the most deaths, and which the least. Maybe:-
(1), (2), (3)... Or possibly (2), (1), (3)?

It's very unlikely (3) would rank top... Not impossible of course, but far far less likely.


Now, why are you in anyway supporting the possibilty of (1) and/or (2) happening? Why are you not hell bent on (3), when the cost to society for enforcing (3) is seemingly nothing (in comparison).

 

[Tefal]

Well the hand guns and X hundred rounds, would probably be the same with a rifle and x hundred rounds.

After all with the rifle he can start shooting the police through their body armour or civilians though heavy cover.

 

[Bubo]

So the assertion that banning handguns stopped another Dunblane is in fact emotive rubbish with no real basis in fact?

I did say "if". If he was that resourceful in a world of gun control that he would have been able to get his hands on the appropriate weapons via illegal methods, that bloke down the pub etc, he could just as easily try to carry out the massacre. The point is we'll never know how resourceful and determined he would have been when tackled with the first hurdle of "hmm, so I want to do this mass murder, where do I get a gun, now that handguns and the like are outlawed?"