The Right to Bear Arms

[NeilF]

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.

Thank you...

So we all seem to concur, if we stick with our 1996 Dunblane case study, we'd want Hamilton with no guns.

So given this (idealistic) case, do we wish to make it easy or hard for Hamilton to own/obtain weapons. Nothing outragious here - Hamilton with zero guns is better than Hamilton with guns surely


So we basically have in this thread two sets of people. Those arguing (for what ever reason) that people like Hamilton should have easier access to guns. And those arguing (for what ever reason) that hamilton should not have easier access to guns.

Now argue all you like about how efficient/effective the current gun laws are, that's besides the point and another issue. At the end of the day the premis still stands - It's early one March morning in 1996, do you want Hamilton to have easier access to guns? It's early one March morning in 2010, do you want someone like Hamilton to have easier access to guns? Yes or no? What makes more sense?

 

[Tefal]

Thank you...

So we all seem to concur, if we stick with our 1996 Dunblane case study, we'd want Hamilton with no guns.

But you can still buy such a rifle and have been able to for a long time, so why hasn't a massacre occurred?

Also can't you buy revolvers here, Feek owns a few doesn't he?

Those arguing (for what ever reason) that people like Hamilton should have easier access to guns. And those arguing (for what ever reason) that hamilton should not have easier access to guns.

Actually no, you have one group saying that ordinary people should have easier access to guns and the law/application process should be applied properly and be more through which if it had been the case at the time Hamilton would not have had the guns.

Then you have another group saying that no one should have access to some guns.

Then a lot of people arguing the huge grey area in the middle of the two extremes.

 

[NeilF]

But you can still buy such a rifle and have been able to for a long time, so why hasn't a massacre occurred?

Also can't you buy revolvers here, Feek owns a few doesn't he?

Did you even bother reading anything more that one line of my post?

You've actually agreed, if Hamilton had possessed no guns, lives almost certainly would have been saved (in 1996)? This seems an absolutely logical statement, which I don't think anyone can disagree with.

As I previously said:-

Now argue all you like about how efficient/effective the current gun laws are, that's besides the point and another issue. At the end of the day the premis still stands - It's early one March morning in 1996, do you want Hamilton to have easier access to guns? It's early one March morning in 2010, do you want someone like Hamilton to have easier access to guns? Yes or no? What makes more sense?

 

[Tefal]

Did you even bother reading anything more that one line of my post?

You've actually agreed, if Hamilton had possessed no guns, lives almost certainly would have been saved (in 1996)? This seems an absolutely logical statement, which I don't think anyone can disagree with.

As I previously said:-

Now argue all you like about how efficient/effective the current gun laws are, that's besides the point and another issue. At the end of the day the premis still stands - It's early one March morning in 1996, do you want Hamilton to have easier access to guns? It's early one March morning in 2010, do you want someone like Hamilton to have easier access to guns? Yes or no? What makes more sense?

Ahh so you're not arguing gun laws you're arguing fanciful little dreams about changing the past.



Hell by this logic if people did not provide a basic education in numeracy, literacy and observation hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved because there would be no guns, no bombs, no ww2, no ww2 hell no Iraq war and no IRA.

 

[NeilF]

Ahh so you're not arguing gun laws you're arguing fanciful little dreams about changing the past.



Hell by this logic if people did not provide a basic education in numeracy, literacy and observation hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved because there would be no guns, no bombs, no ww2, no ww2 hell no Iraq war and no IRA.

Tefal, I was expecting more of you The reason we look back at history is too hopefully learn where we went wrong!

For the second time I'll repeat my point/question, which you've carefully ignored each time:-

Now argue all you like about how efficient/effective the current gun laws are, that's besides the point and another issue. At the end of the day the premis still stands - It's early one March morning in 1996, do you want Hamilton to have easier access to guns? It's early one March morning in 2010, do you want someone like Hamilton to have easier access to guns? Yes or no? What makes more sense?


I defy anyone with an ounce of logic to suggest if someone like Hamilton was in their house today, they'd want guns in that house with him. Now show me an ounce of logic? The answer is clearly "NO!"

Now whether that's being upheld in the right way, or well enough is another issue!

 

[taliesyn]

Close up, shotguns can do far more damage than a handgun could, and handguns are far more difficult to kill people with than you think. Same applies to rifles.

A John Bunnell 'reality' cop show on sky last night (I forget the name) provides a good example.

Two US cops walked up to a car, a weapon was drawn by the passenger, and the first officer fired about four times into the side window point blank, and a couple through the back window for good measure. In the meantime, the other cop went to the driver's side, the unarmed driver ran out, and he emptied a full clip into the passenger through the open driver's door. The passenger recovered, and stood trial. These are two armed and trained US cops, using police ammunition (which *should* be unavailable in the UK).

I can almost guarantee you that if the policeman had shot the passenger with a shotgun, then no more shots would have been needed.

Do we go on to ban shotguns? Samurai swords? Or do we keep on with the endless and repeated circular arguments?

Banning handguns was pointless. That is a fact.

If someone wants to go on a killing spree, they will do it, regardless of whether they have legal weapons or procure illegal ones or whatever. Legislation has nothing to do with it.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Do you covet the American right to bear arms?

I used to hold the belief that we should be allowed to store arms at home, purely for home defence. But over time I have come to recognise the dangers that would pose.

Basically, the problem is that we cannot be trusted. It is Human nature that situations that might otherwise be very minor could escalate out of all control if one or more individuals concerned had access to firearms.

The Government could help with far stricter penalties for possession. Would a 'gangsta' really want to have a gun if he knew the penalty for being caught with one is life in prison without parole? In fact, that argument could be extended to knives as well. Make the punishment so massively strict that the idea of breaking the law is completely unpalatable.

 

[Tefal]

Now argue all you like about how efficient/effective the current gun laws are, that's besides the point and another issue. At the end of the day the premis still stands - It's early one March morning in 1996, do you want Hamilton to have easier access to guns? It's early one March morning in 2010, do you want someone like Hamilton to have easier access to guns? Yes or no? What makes more sense?

Obviously no. As such I would have liked the gun laws and the concerns/reports from his fellow gun owners to have been taken into account and his license revoked and firearms removed.




You keep saying these massacres occur when people have access to guns, yet people have had access to guns for all the years following but no more have taken place.




I would like to say I expected more but you seem pretty consistent alongside Stockhausen and groen.

 

[NeilF]

Obviusly no. As such I would have liked the gun laws and the concerns/reports from his fellow gun owners to have been taken into account and his license revoked and firearms removed.




You keep saying these massacres occur when people have acess to guns, yet people have had acess to guns for all the years following but no more have taken place.

So can you tell me exactly wtf you are trying to get at here?

Thank you... So you can agree at least that the desire that people wish to try and keep guns out of the hands of certain people (eg: Like Hamilton) at least has some merit/logic? eg: If ban on guns can keep someone like Hamilton from owning guns, then that's surely a positive thing.

Now, on to your other point. Are the current laws/legislations fair or founded. Maybe not... But simply put, I do not want any guns in the hands of anyone who is likely to mis-use them. Or at least I want to make it as hard as possible. If this means people cannot legally own any gun, at all, except for exceptional cases, I'm happy with that.

Why am I happy with that? Because I see nothing to ofset it. Take as many guns out of circulation as possible, I only see a (potential) benefit. Allow more guns in, I only see (potential) risk. Why give those Hamiltons more of a chance of having those guns?

And before people start harking on about, well we've not seen a crime like X in the past Y years etc etc etc... This is the exact reason I highlighted Hamilton, a real life case. These crimes do happen.

Do we want someone like Hamilton in 2010, 2011, or 2012 having easier access to guns... I certianly don't... Ideally I want it as hard as possible for him.

 

[NeilF]

*double post? huh*

 

[Tefal]

And before people start harking on about, well we've not seen a crime like X in the past Y years etc etc etc... This is the exact reason I highlighted Hamilton, a real life case. These crimes do happen.

So whny haven't they?

People still have acess to high powered weapons and handguns.

 

[NeilF]

So whny haven't they?

People still have acess to high powered weapons and handguns.

Well, there's two paths we can go down with that question:-
(1) We've just been lucky. There is always the risk of a nutter using guns, but the odds are so small these events don't happen very often. ie: We haven't rolled double six over the past X years... But sooner or later we will.
(2) The reduced overall gun ownership has helped. ie: Less guns in circulation may mean double six will happen less often. But undoubtably it will at some point. All we can do it increase the odds by making it less likely.

Personally I think it's a combination of (1) and (2).



Here's a noddy formula :-

Np * Gp = DEATH BY GUN!

Where Np = percentage of the the populations that are nutters, and where Gp is the percentage of the population that have guns (available to them).


Increase either, and the risk of "DEATH BY GUN" increases... Is that a fair assumption don't you think?

Now this assumption is being questioned by people like Dolph, and seemingly yourself, due to the fact that Gp has dropped somewhat over the past 14 years and gun related deaths or deaths in general, may not seemingly dropped?

The problem with this is that Np and Gp are already very small, so any variations in their values are small, rendering yet smaller outcomes.

So people such as yourself and Dolph then jump on this and use these statistics as if they are the be all and end all of the argument. "Look the statistics show no or little change!"

The problem is we're talking about random events. Someone going jihad in combination with them having access to guns. As much as you (& Dolph) like to take this approach, many of the rest of us can't. We can see the logic in trying to keep guns away from nutters - We've explored this with Hamilton and all agreed it would have been better if he had no guns.

At the end of the day, we've all agreed that in 1996, if Hamilton had not had guns, the massacre may have been prevented/reduced. Why are we not trying to make this less likely to happen again by reduce Gp.