This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Will the UK ever reverse it's authoritarian gun laws?

Scroll to see replies

Why should I have to prove that I can be trusted ? If you want to live in a country where people are controlled by the government, then perhaps this isn't the right country for you to live in. Are you worried that someone may kill you, and if so, why ?

That's exactly what we've done. We've made life easier for criminals by disarming the victims. Thomas Jefferson once said -
'Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man'

Can you please explain the 48 percent drop in the murder rate that has occurred in the United States since 1991. This has happened even though gun sales have increased and gun laws have become more relaxed.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

If guns cause crime, then the ones I owned must have been defective.

You have to prove you can be trusted to use a car correctly. Why not have to prove you can handle and look after a gun correctly? The people in this society who are allowed to carry live weapons in public [which is only the police - the armed forces almost never do and have to ask permission before they're allowed] have to prove rigourously and often that they are safe and responsible enough to do so. Why are you special and above that?

I'm not worried that you might kill me, but that certainly doesn't mean I want to trust you with a weapon.

Thomas Jefferson was speaking from a different age. Why should we still pay heed to him?

I have never once said that guns cause crimes. Idiots cause crimes.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that using a gun to prevent a crime [ie, shooting an assailant] is still a crime [albeit a more forgivable one]. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Reply 101

CJAW

I wouldn't say that gun laws are authoritarian, it surely has more to do with keeping the public safe, as a state should do!

Reply 102

xelarose

America.

My argument has been made.

Reply 103

Graham Showell

Original post by xelarose

America.
My argument has been made.

The same tired argument that more guns will inevitably lead to more crime and violence.

The situation that has developed in the United States seems to disprove this myth.

In 1987, the state of Florida introduced legislation that allows people to carry concealed handguns in public for protection, provided they meet conditions such as no convictions for violent crimes.

This legislation is known as 'concealed carry' and is now available in 40 US states.

Concealed carry works by acting as a deterrent because the bad guys know that some people are armed, but they have no idea who those people are.

As the number of US states that allow concealed carry has increased and the number of permit holders has continued to grow, the US violent crime rate has steadily declined.

There are now more than 6 million permits holders throughout the United States, and more guns has actually meant LESS crime in the United States. The rate at which crime has dropped over the past twenty years is staggering.

For example, rapes in the United States declined by 32 percent between 1992 and 2009, robberies declined by 51 percent between 1991 and 2009 and the burglary rate dropped by 42 percent during the same period.

Overall, violent crime dropped by more than 40 percent between 1991 and 2009 and this has occurred despite (or maybe because of) rising gun sales and the relaxation of gun laws throughout the country.

The most interesting fact is that the US murder rate has declined by a rate of 48 percent since 1991 and is now the lowest it's been for more than 25 years.

This is clear proof that allowing people to be armed does not increase crime rates, and may actually contribute to a reduction in violent crime.

If concealed carry works in the United States, I see no reason why it wouldn't work here in England as well.

Original post by CJAW

I wouldn't say that gun laws are authoritarian, it surely has more to do with keeping the public safe, as a state should do!

Considering that the only people that obey gun laws are the law-abiding, how exactly do "victim disarmament" laws keep people safe ?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 104

Graham Showell

Do you know that there is no requirement to take and pass a test to own a shotgun or rifle, nor has there ever been to the best of my knowledge. When a person is attacked, it's usually very clear who the bad guy is. The police arriving at the scene of a crime have no idea who the criminal is and who the victim is. That's why they need the additional training.

Any sensible person would seek training anyway. I don't want the government telling me what to do.

I'm not worried that you might kill me, but that certainly doesn't mean I want to trust you with a weapon

.
Again, you've failed to explain why.

Thomas Jefferson was speaking from a different age. Why should we still pay heed to him?

Because what he said is as true now as it was then. Disarming the victims will not make them safer. It's simply not possible.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that using a gun to prevent a crime [ie, shooting an assailant] is still a crime [albeit a more forgivable one]. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Then maybe you shouldn't have one.

Reply 105

Drewski

Original post by Graham Showell

Any sensible person would seek training anyway. I don't want the government telling me what to do.

Then maybe you shouldn't have one.

No, a sensible person wouldn't want one in the first place.

And where, exactly, did I say I did? I've lived in some pretty dodgy areas of the country and never once felt like having a gun would make me safer. And anyway, you agreed with me in the following post:

Original post by Graham Showell

If I use my gun to harm or threaten anyone else, I should be subject to the appropriate charges (murder, wounding, etc) and punished with prison accordingly.

That's no different at all to what i said.

Reply 106

Graham Showell

If you don't feel you need one then don't buy one, simple. If you needed one, would it then be OK for others to have them ?

If individuals choose to disarm themselves and instead rely on the police to protect them, that's fine. It's their decision and I respect that fully.

However, do you believe that decent people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they own guns for target shooting and self defence ?

Reply 107

kingsholmmad

Original post by Graham Showell

You still seem to be missing the point that if you change the laws, it affects the whole of society, not just the people with a specific interest in guns. Change the law and the supply of guns automatically increases dramatically. That makes it easier for criminals to get and use guns which makes it more of a risk for honest citizens to avoid owning guns, not least because of the public perception of guns as being a fundamental part of self-defence. That perception is fundamental to the pro-gun legalisation argument yet repeated surveys of American gun usage show that argument to be completely false

"At least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." and at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.""
("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz quoted on http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
Over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians.
(FBI Supplementary Homicide Report quoted on http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm)

If 96% of households in America don't use guns for self-defence and 98% of gun homicides are not self-defence, how do you justify changing the law in a way that will inevitably make illegal guns a lot more prevalent?

Reply 108

Graham Showell

You claim that relaxing gun laws will lead to more criminals with guns. If that is true, then the opposite must also be true, in that tightening gun laws should lead to far less criminals with guns. Why hasn't that happened ?

If a criminal is willing to ignore the laws that prohibit crimes such as murder, armed robbery and wounding, they will also be willing to ignore the laws that prohibit the carrying of guns.

You can reduce the supply of legal guns, but it doesn't stop them being smuggled into the country. There are no fully automatic weapons in civilian hands (they have been banned here since 1937) so why do police regularly seize them from criminals on Britain's streets ?

When I was in Arizona, I was told a story by a cop about a man who was threatened by 2 men at knifepoint during a robbery at an ATM. He pulled out his legally held pistol and the robbers ran off.

Not all uses of guns in self defence result in fatalaties. In many instances, simply showing the gun is enough to stop a crime from going ahead.

Reply 109

kingsholmmad

Original post by Graham Showell

Because the guns are already here. You can't magically make them disappear, you can't simply dissolve the supply routes. What you can do is introduce a law that hugely increases the supply of guns which will also increase the supply of illegal guns. Or have you found a way of making all criminals obey your gun laws to the letter?

If a criminal is willing to ignore the laws that prohibit crimes such as murder, armed robbery and wounding, they will also be willing to ignore the laws that prohibit the carrying of guns.

Exactly. That's why there will be more illegal guns on the streets. That's why the country will be less safe with your laws.

You can reduce the supply of legal guns, but it doesn't stop them being smuggled into the country. There are no fully automatic weapons in civilian hands (they have been banned here since 1937) so why do police regularly seize them from criminals on Britain's streets ?

Because they're illegal. And there'll be more of them with your new laws. What's more, there will be a lot more illegal handguns. Or does that not worry you?

When I was in Arizona, I was told a story by a cop about a man who was threatened by 2 men at knifepoint during a robbery at an ATM. He pulled out his legally held pistol and the robbers ran off.

So a couple of spineless eejits took their knives to a gunfight? All that proves is that next time they'll probably turn up with guns, your honest citizen draws his self-defence gun and he ends up dead. How is that a good thing? Certainly Arizona has right-to-carry laws but I guarantee that that simply isn't going to happen here. Even if any government in this country could introduce your laws, there's no way they would get enough support for anything more drastic than the right to keep a gun at home for self-defence so your Arizona situation wouldn't arise. Which is a good thing. It's bad that your man would lose his wallet but at least he'd still be alive.

Not all uses of guns in self defence result in fatalaties. In many instances, simply showing the gun is enough to stop a crime from going ahead.

Absolutely. It's all the other instances, when showing a gun isn't enough, that I'm worried about. If showing someone that you're armed isn't enough to stop them from committing a crime, it's usually because either a) they are also armed or b) they are so crazy or determined that no law you pass would make the slightest difference to them. Either way, your gun laws failed to stop the crime and, if they're armed, one of you is highly likely to end up dead. How is that an improvement on what we've got now?

Reply 110

kingsholmmad

Original post by GwrxVurfer

I challenge the supposed authenticity of those statistics.

Switzerland has high gun ownership, and yet low crime rates. All male Swiss citizens are required by law to have an automatic rifle at home, and civilians can buy surplus semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a permit, and the permit is pretty much a formality. They can't conceal/open carry without another permit - And this permit is only given to people who can prove they need it for defence against specific danger (i.e people receiving death threats). But they can carry guns on their way to the firing ranges, or for hunting etc. And yet this country is very peaceful - Nothing like the carnage that hoplophobics seem to think would happen.

Switzerland is a completely different situation. Every able-bodied man is not only required by law to keep a gun but is required to attend training in its use every year. That wouldn't happen here. The problem would be the illegal guns being used by criminals who wouldn't be properly trained in their use and who wouldn't be too fussed about how well-maintained / safe they are or when they use them. However, it may interest you to know that here, with our "authoritarian gun laws" we currently have 0.46 gun-related deaths per 100,000 population while in Switzerland the figure is 6.4 per 100,000. I know which I prefer.

Again - If a gun is owned for self-defence, and you do not intend to cause harm to the owner, what possible reason could you have for fearing it?

Personally, I reckon every lethal weapon is due a certain amount of fear. The fact that you don't intend to give the gunowner cause to use his weapon is no guarantee that he won't use it anyway, if only accidentally

The problem, as I have said, is not legal guns. Thousands of farmers own shotguns in Britain legally, and I've never heard of any of them using those guns in a crime. The problem is illegal guns.

By the way, if you're going to mention Tony Martin - You are actually backing up my argument - The shotgun he used in a crime was illegal.

I totally agree that illegal guns will be the problem. And in pretty much every country with measurable amounts of gun crime, the vast majority of crimes are committed with illegal guns. Which will be more plentiful if you legalise guns in this country.

Reply 111

Graham Showell

You now seem to be arguing that criminals don't care about being killed. That may actually be true. But if a criminal attacks someone knowing that he or she may be armed, then he's clearly not worried about being killed. Somebody this fearless isn't going to worry too much about facing a murder charge either.

So by arming yourself you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, including keeping that most precious thing of all - your life.

You also claim that if you give them what they want, the bad guys will go away. What guarantees can you offer that they won't hurt or kill me anyway ? I will not bet my life on such an assumption.

Exactly. That's why there will be more illegal guns on the streets. That's why the country will be less safe with your laws.

So why has there been a 48 percent decrease in murder in the US since 1991, even though gun sales have increased and gun laws have become more relaxed ?

Simple. You have an equal chance. If guns are banned then only the bad guys will have them. Please answer this, what is the REAL reason that you only want criminals to have guns.

Reply 112

Graham Showell

When I was growing up in the late 1970's and early 80's there were far more legal guns in circulation than there are now.

Using your argument, that means there were more illegal guns in circulation as there were more guns for criminals to steal.

So, why were we safer back then and why was there less gun violence in the UK 30 years ago, even though gun laws were more relaxed than they are today ?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 113

kingsholmmad

Original post by Graham Showell

You now seem to be arguing that criminals don't care about being killed.

No, if anything I'm arguing the opposite. They're going to turn up with guns next time because they do care about being killed. They don't want it to happen so next time they'll turn up better prepared to deal with someone who is carrying.

So by arming yourself you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, including keeping that most precious thing of all - your life.

But having the right to own a gun isn't going to save your life. You're only going to save your own (or anybody else's) life if a) you exercise that right by buying a gun AND b) you learn how to use that gun AND c) you keep the gun serviceable and loaded AND d) you've got the gun with you when you need it. That's a lot of ifs. And probably a bunch of dead people who only managed three out of four.

You also claim that if you give them what they want, the bad guys will go away. What guarantees can you offer that they won't hurt or kill me anyway ? I will not bet my life on such an assumption.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to understand that if you give criminals greater access to guns, at least some of them are going to take advantage of that access and since it is highly unlikely that you will be allowed to carry your gun with you everywhere you go, you will be in more danger, not less, every time you leave home after your new gun laws are introduced.

So why has there been a 48 percent decrease in murder in the US since 1991, even though gun sales have increased and gun laws have become more relaxed ?

Because the early '90s were exceptional for homicides and because detection and conviction rates have increased. There has actually been a year-on-year increase in gun-related homicides every year since 2001.

Simple. You have an equal chance. If guns are banned then only the bad guys will have them. Please answer this, what is the REAL reason that you only want criminals to have guns.

I don't. Given the choice, I wouldn't let anybody have guns. That isn't going to happen so the next best option is to make it as hard as possible for criminals to have guns. That means banning guns.

As for having "an equal chance", is that what you'd settle for? Are you really happy with a 50:50 chance? That means that you'd be happy for 50% of people using guns for self-defence to die, just so's you can have a gun? Right now, you've got a much better than 50:50 chance of surviving because the criminal is much less likely to have a gun and is therefore much less likely to shoot you.

Reply 114

kingsholmmad

Original post by Graham Showell

The way I remember it, there were a lot more shotguns around that people used for hunting but maybe you can quote me some figures on handguns, just to prove me wrong. If you were around in the '70s, you would know that society was very different. Back then, there wasn't the gang culture that we have today. Most of the illegal guns were owned by gangsters who only used them for shooting other gangsters, crimes that often went unreported or didn't go to prosecution. Today, there are a lot more people around who have no qualms about shooting anybody, innocent or otherwise. That means more crimes reported which means worse-looking statistics, whatever the truth of the matter.

Reply 115

kingsholmmad

Original post by GwrxVurfer

I believe that anyone wanting to own a gun should pass a firearm safety test first, thus preventing the accidental discharges you talk about later in your post.

I agree. So, just how many illegal gun-owners and gun-carrying criminals do you think are going to volunteer to take this test?

The same risk is present with armed police officers. The fact that you give them no cause to use their defensive weapon is no guarantee they won't use it anyway - But the chances of that (That the owner of the defensive weapon will somehow decide to attack you for no reason with it) are so astronomically slim that it is hardly worth discussing.

Accidental gun discharges are rare. Are you talking about a manufacturing defect?

No, I was merely answering a point that I don't think is all that relevant. However, since you ask, is it not reasonable to assume that the risk you mention with armed police officers will increase once all officers are armed (as they would have to be)? Is it not reasonable to assume that as the number of guns in circulation (legal and illegal) increases, the number of accidental discharges will increase? Not every one will lead to a fatality or even injury but it will still mean more gun deaths than is the case now. How is that a good thing?

No. Legal guns will be more plentiful. But as I've previously explained, legally held weapons are hardly the problem. Criminals do not generally acquire weapons legally, because it involves an audit trail of paperwork, serial numbers etc. They acquire weapons illegally.

I know legal guns will be more plentiful. There will be literally millions of them (otherwise, why change the law?). I know that illegal guns will be the problem. What you can't accept is the fact that making guns more accessible means that getting hold of illegal guns will be easier. There will also be more demand for illegal guns because more honest citizens will be carrying guns so the criminals will need guns to continue committing crimes. The only way you could hope to keep illegal gun numbers static is by throwing huge resources at policing and punishment. And that simply isn't going to happen.

You act is if there are only a small number of guns in circulation, but this isn't true. Shotguns are very prevalent in Britain today. Most are legal. However, the one (or two?) used by Moat for a crime were illegal. So if Parliament banned them, the thousands upon thousands of legal shotguns in Britain (Owned by farmers and clay pigeon shooters who would never dream of using them for anything else) would be confiscated. But illegally held shotguns (The ones used in crime) would not be handed in, because criminals do not hand in their weapons. Criminalizing firearm possession will do nothing to prevent another Raoul Moat - Because criminals use illegal guns no matter how prevalent or scarce guns in general are. They don't want to create an audit trail by purchasing a gun legally when they can get one illegally without the paperwork.

When have I ever said there's a small number in circulation and why are you arguing a different point? We're not talking about banning guns that are already out there, we're talking about Britain "reversing its authoritarian gun laws" ie legalising more guns for more people.

I agree that illegal guns will always be the problem and Moat is further proof of that. What you haven't explained is how you are going to introduce millions of legal guns without increasing illegal numbers?

Reply 116

kingsholmmad

Original post by GwrxVurfer

None. I seriously doubt any self-respecting criminal in possession of illegal firearms would volunteer to take a test. :rolleyes:

We're not talking about illegal gun owners, we're talking about legal gun owners. A firearms test (to cut down on accidental discharges), medical history check, and a criminal records check would be required for you to get your gun permit. The slightest suggestion of any criminal intent, or mental health issues, would result in confiscation until investigators were happy the individual did not prove a threat. Every sale of a gun would require the permit to be shown, and a written record of the sale created.

The point I was making was that 98% of gun crime involves illegal guns so however many tests, checks and restraints you put on legal guns and their owners are going to be virtually irrelevant. Even if you completly eradicated that 2% of crime, it's still only 2%.

It may increase gun deaths by a fraction, but what you have to take into account is that high gun ownership also saves lives by deterring attackers. People say it "ups the stakes", but this is nonsense - Criminals want an easy target, and civilian gun ownership stops this.

It doesn't stop it at all, it merely diverts it towards easier, more vulnerable targets. But if it's deterrence you want, there's nothing at the moment to stop an honest citizen keeping a knife in his bedside cabinet. He can't legally carry it around with him but he wouldn't be able (and probably wouldn't want) to carry a gun with him after your gun laws were introduced. The difference is that the criminal would be more likely to be carrying, thereby putting the honest citizen at greater danger after your gun laws than now.

Every home (more or less) has a rifle in Switzerland. It's a very small country (I think it's smaller than Scotland, with a higher population. So according to the "guns up the stakes" crowd, this should mean that there is carnage occurring left right and centre, but as we can see, there isn't. In fact, burglary (and crime in general) is incredibly low over there. Presumably the low burglary rates have something to do with the fact that any would-be burglar knows that he will likely encounter the homeowner, armed with a rifle.

You keep comparing this country with Switzerland. It's a completely false comparison. We do not have conscription. We do not have, nor are we likely to get, compulsory gun ownership for any part of society. We do not have regular military gun training for most gun owners. We do have more burglaries and gun ownership will not help that because the burglars will simply choose targets that are likely to be unarmed.

In this country, only 100 years ago, anybody could carry any weapon they liked (including firearms) for self-defence, and it was a relatively peaceful society. Both of these examples demonstrate that high civilian gun ownership would not result in mayhem and carnage.

I think the police would have to be armed.

You'd find that a large number of criminals would "go straight" if their activities carried a risk of being shot by their victim defending themselves.

The majority of gun criminals would not go straight because they can't. They're mostly repeat offenders who simply wouldn't be able to get an honest job if they wanted one. They can only support themselves through crime. That means they either arm themselves to reduce the risk of being shot or they target victims who are likely to be unarmed. Or both.

There probably would be a increase in the number of illegal guns, but the upshot is that many lives are saved due to the deterrent previously mentioned. If a criminal can't shoot you to steal your purse, he would buy a knife to do the exact same thing - Both the knife and the gun can be used to inflict fatal damage, but you don't seem to mind that knives are sold in shops all throughout the country every day.

Yes, I mind that knives are sold everywhere and are used in crime. The point is it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. And you still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that merely owning a gun automatically confers absolute safety on its owner. It doesn't. It improves their options when it comes to self-defence. Their gun doesn't protect them when they're not carrying it. Which would be every time they go outside the house because there is no way that any government would be able to pass a "right to carry" law as things stand.
Their gun doesn't protect them if it is locked away somewhere that they can't get to because the (possibly gun-carrying) criminal is standing in their way. Their gun doesn't protect them if it is being maintained or repaired. Even when their gun does provide some safety for them, every other member of the household could still be at risk. Owning a gun does not give absolute safety, it merely improves the odds.

Is this the point where you say "If the criminal had a gun and so did I, he would just shoot me before I can defend myself"?

Criminals are already armed with weapons that they can use to "just kill the victim before they can defend themselves" - For instance, knives. With high civilian gun ownership, all that would change is that the victim (armed) would have a fighting chance against the small minority that aren't deterred.

Yes, criminals carry knives but, as I said, it's a lot harder to kill with a knife than a gun. And since gun homicides are falling (39 in 2008/09, down from 53 in 07/08 and 56 in 06/07), why would you want to significantly increase the number of guns on the streets?

Keep the same reasonable force laws - If you drawing your gun causes a mugger to turn and run away, but you shoot at him anyway, then you have used unreasonable force, and should be charged.

So, with your new gun law, you've just added another gun crime to the total, this time with a (presumably) legal gun. How is that an improvement on what we have now?

Reply 117

username402722

I don't think we will. Any politician who tries to will be asked to remember Dunblane and also the various large scale shootings in the US such as Columbine or the event remembered in 'Don't like Mondays' by the Boomtown Rats'.

Reply 118

kingsholmmad

Original post by GwrxVurfer

Exactly. You seem to be supporting my argument with your statistics. While I would certainly not complain about that, I think I can reasonably conclude this was not your intention?

No, you can reasonably conclude that I'm agreeing with you on this point.

If 98% of gun crime involves illegal guns, and NOT the thousands upon thousands of legal guns, then restricting access to legal guns will have (at absolute maximum) an effect on only 2% of gun crime (If you're statistics are correct).

No matter how strict or liberal gun laws are - Those who get guns legally are not the problem.

Agreed. There would still be some crimes committed with legally-held guns but they would be a tiny percentage of the whole.

I cannot fathom why this fictional citizen you have created would not want to carry a defensive weapon with him.

You might want to spend your time dressed like John Wayne, most people don't. And as I said, a gun can only be a deterrent if it is being carried and it is visible AND it is accessible

Why is it more likely the criminal would be carrying if he suspects that the law abiding citizen is not armed? You make an awful lot of assumptions based on "if" and "probably".

According to you, even if carrying guns in public was still forbidden, the criminal is more likely to arm himself while attacking law-abiding citizens (who wouldn't be carrying). Explain.

How on earth would a burglar know which person is armed and which person is not?

He wouldn't. If the criminal knows that his intended victim won't be carrying then, no, he probably won't be more likely to carry. If the criminal thinks his victim might or will be carrying, he's either going to find another victim or protect himself with a gun. You do believe that guns are a defence against other guns, don't you?

Britain was in fact, more liberal with weapon laws than the United States just a century again. Anyone could carry anything to anywhere (I think the Houses of Parliament were exempt) to defend themselves, and still there wasn't carnage on the streets of London every day....

Are we talking about now or about history? Are you suggesting that we revert to an Edwardian society or are you going to accept that society has moved on?

Unless you are trained in how to disarm an attacker, you will most likely end up wounded at best, dead at worst - Regardless of whether your attacker has a gun or a knife.

Whereas the increased likelihood of the attacker carrying a gun means an increased likelihood that you'll end up dead rather than injured.

Muggings are very close range situations. In that situation, someone armed with a knife is much more dangerous than someone carrying a gun. See this for more information, it's known as the 21 feet rule. If your attacker is within 21 feet and coming towards you, it's probably too late to draw your gun.

So your legal gun provides no protection so why change the law?

Still think it's "a lot harder" with a knife?

Yes. A knife needs precision and brute force which are definitely a lot harder when being tried against someone whose physical abilities are not wholly inferior to the attacker's. A gun needs a movement of the index finger. And no physical contact. So, yes, a gun is easier.

I haven't said that. It's a false statement, and one that I will ignore.

It absolutely increases their safety while carrying. First of all, the proven deterrent that I have spoken about. Second, it gives them a fighting chance against the small minority who are not deterred.

Exactly. It increases their safety. It doesn't guarantee it, which means your self-defence argument is, at best, relative.

I'd be in favour of concealed carry laws (I'd probably not be keen on open carry), with maybe some restrictions - Such as airports.

Precisely. So why would you be against gun ownership if it, in your own words, "improves the odds" of safety?

I'm not against gun ownership; we've already got that. I'm against massively increasing the number of guns (and therefore the number of illegal guns) swilling round our streets. Especially when a change in the law isn't needed.

And as I've pointed out, that's not really the case, at least not in close-range mugging situations.

And are "close-range muggings" the only form of crime likely to use guns? Are "close-range muggings" the only form of crime currently using knives that would be likely to use guns? No. There are all the other forms of crime that, after your law change, would involve guns and, therefore, in some cases, fatalities that wouldn't happen now. How is that an improvement?

No crime was committed by the gun owner in my scenario. He was under attack and defended himself using reasonable force. This is self-defence, which I certainly hope you do not want to classify as "crime".

You said,"If you drawing your gun causes a mugger to turn and run away, but you shoot at him anyway, then you have used unreasonable force, and should be charged." What's he being charged for if he's committed no crime? But I do agree that legal guns will be used for some crime and I do agree that some gunowners will overreact to a situation leading to fatalities that couldn't happen as things stand at the moment. I still haven't had an explanation on how increasing gun deaths is a good thing?

Why is it that you have a fear of weapons? I don't really "get" the concept of hoplophobia, maybe you could try your best to explain it to me.

My understanding is that hoplophobia can mean both a fear of arms and a fear of armed citizens. Guns per se do not worry me unduly; I don't particularly like them but they can be a useful tool so fair enough. It's armed citizens that I'm not keen on. I used to live in Swindon and the pub fights there were legendary, frequently involving dozens and dozens of blind drunk blokes too stupid to be left in charge of a butter knife. You want to see these guys given access to guns which they can take with them the next time they fancy a rumble. Alternatively you want anyone who was at the recent student riots or anyone who goes on BNP / EDL marches or anyone who goes to a football match looking for a fight to be allowed to carry guns. That's not going to end well. You could impose temporary gun bans but people always find ways to get around laws and regulations. I just can't see how the inevitable increase in gun deaths can be a good thing.

Reply 119

kingsholmmad

Original post by GwrxVurfer

Once again, you are dismantling your own argument. The deterrent comes not from the physical sight of guns, but primarily from the knowledge that citizens might be conceal carrying. You won't see people openly carrying their guns in Texas (It is illegal), but muggers know all to well the risks they face if they decide to carry out their attack. Texas is awash with guns, so why aren't muggins more prevalent? Because it just isn't worth the risk for the criminals - They don't want to get into a gunfight for $20. Sure, they could bring along a gun to try and "even the odds", but even then there will still be an armed struggle, and they might not come out on top. So what do they do? The relocate to states where both conceal and open carry are not allowed, which makes it safer for the mugger.

Just check out the general gun crime statistics for Texas. Not pretty. No, mugging isn't a particularly big player but gun crime still involves a lot of dead people. Meanwhile, the muggers have moved elsewhere, which makes those places more dangerous as well.

Yes I do, but the criminal would not be "defending" himself if he somehow managed to shoot someone who defending themselves. Muggers are opportunistic. If anything about you suggests they will have trouble, they will just look for a weaker target. You still seem to think that muggers would routinely chose to risk their lives to get a wallet, when this just isn't the case.

No they wouldn't. You still seem to think that mugging is the only form of gun crime.

This is not fact, this is your opinion, which you fail to back up with anything other than a range of ifs and buts.

It may well be opinion but it's your opinion. You introduced the 21 foot rule into the debate.

I really do try and engage hoplophobes in debate, but you are all the same. You start off by being civil, you raise valid questions which I then answer, but when I challenge your arguments, and raise difficult questions (such as why did gun crime rise in the years following the Dunblane ban?) you just revert back to peddling your own opinions as fact, hoping that no one will notice.

Derrick Bird's attack could have been partially prevented by an armed society. Three police officers (Which we both agree would carry guns) later said they saw him, but had to run away as they were in danger, only possessing a baton and spray.

You aren't doing too well at answering awkward questions yourself. I've answered every point you've raised and when you don't like the answers, you just accuse me of failing to engage you in debate. So, I shall ask again:
You've agreed that more guns MUST equal more illegal guns
More illegal guns MUST equal more gun crime
More gun crime MUST equal more gun deaths
So how is increasing the death rate a good thing?

I think you've made a scientific breakthrough if you've discovered an index finger that automatically unholsters, aims with "precision" at a moving target, place itself on the trigger, and then fire a fatal shot at speed.

I suppose armed police are wasting their time doing training. After all - All you need is a "movement of the index finger" right?

You accuse me of failing to engage you seriously in debate and then you raise an argument like that? I'm talking about killing someone with a knife as opposed to a gun. A knife requires precision, force, determination and physical contact. With a gun you can stand 10 feet away, point and shoot and you've still got a better chance of killing. HOW is that more difficult than a knife?

You will never have a guarantee of safety. You yourself have no admitted that civilian gun ownership increases safety, yet you continue to argue against it. Goodness knows why..

It also increases danger, that's why. Effectively, it alters the balance between safety and danger. You think it increases safety, I think it increases danger. Neither of us can prove it because we can't tell the future. The truth is that, for 999 out of a thousand people, it probably wouldn't alter the balance at all (or not noticeably) and for the other one would probably only alter the balance occasionally. When you think of the vast amount of money your gun laws would cost, I simply can't see the justification.

Do you fear that armed police will do the same? If not, why not?

From the context, I assume we are talking about legal gun owners defending themselves "overreacting". As I've already said, to legally own a gun you would have to undergo the same testing that armed police are given. So, you would have no reason to fear those citizens than you would to fear armed police.

In our situation, if the victim then chose to use his gun to commit a crime, then of course he should be charged. But it is highly unlikely he would do this - I was taking it to its extreme to give an example of what we be "unreasonable force".

Police are human. Humans make mistakes. An armed policeman can make a very big mistake that would be simply, physically impossible for an unarmed policeman to make.

I do have to point out an inaccuracy. You have implied that I want criminals to be "given access to guns" for the purposes of fighting. I have never said this, so please stop trying to mislead people. These people already have access to weapons which can cause just as much damage as guns. It seems you're basing your argument now on what might happen - i.e "This could possibly happen therefore it's an argument against allowing guns". Do you expect me to somehow prove a negative?

I fear we may have a dichotomy of opinion over the distinction between inaccuracy and pedantry. You didn't say you want criminals to have guns. You said you want everyone eligible to have access to guns. An inalienable consequence of that is that more criminals will have guns on top of which more political extremists, more thugs, more gangstas, more chavs and more football hooligans will have access to guns. I accept that millions more guns swilling round means that some of them will be used for self-defence. I do not expect you to prove a negative , I expect you to accept that millions more guns swilling round means that some of them will be used to turn something that could possibly happen into reality. It will happen but so far you won't accept it.

Indeed, hoplophobia can be either the irrational fear of arms themselves, or the irrational fear of armed citizens. Civilian gun ownership improves safety - You have admitted that yourself. So the difficult question is:

Are the lives of one group of citizens (Those who die due to guns being prevalent) worth more than another group (Those who die because they don't have the means to defend themselves)?

Agreed, it's a difficult question, it can't be answered easily or authoritatively by either of us and, basically, it's the question upon which both our arguments rest. I can do no more than contend that the change you want in the law can only be justified if it can be proved that a significant and enduring improvement in safety will be an automatic consequence of that change. Pretty much all the figures I've seen so far suggest that, if anything, it will make matters worse not better.