Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
No, I wasn't. I was citing to the UK Home Office, did you not see the footnotes?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man buys knife, stabs 2 at Salt Lake City store, stopped by Conceal Carry Holder...
- Thread starter Manos: The Hans of Fate
- Start date
- Status
No, I wasn't. I was citing to the UK Home Office, did you not see the footnotes?
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
Millions huh?
Dont you think legalizing guns also makes it much easier for criminals to get a hold of guns, though? How many illegal guns out there were obtained straight from the factory?
I would be happy if guns were banned, but I do see and understand a lot of the arguments from supporters of the 2nd amendment. I dont think it would be the cure to all gun crime, but I think it would help save a lot lives in the end and thats worth it for me. My dad would probably still be alive, for one.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
The UK has problems but to duck the fact that the UK's gun crime rate is lower than the US by saying 'well the UK has other problems' is absurd.
IISANDERII
Member
No. This story is another reminder of stupid gun laws because the criminal could have just as easily taken the weapon from the citizen and increased his rampage, killing many.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Dude Abides
Banned
Nope. You were citing so some guy who in turn cites to the UK Home Office. There is no way to tell what the UK Home Office actually said. Did he generate those percentages from raw data in the report? Also, it's a bit odd to think that a ban in 1997 would cause a spike four years later. This is the problem with relying on biased sources for statistics that may be taken out of context.
Yes, gun crime rates are increasing. What's your point? You have no way of demonstrating that they would have been lower if everyone in the UK could carry a gun except through the magical power of wishful thinking. Oh, and they also dropped in 2006-07 compared with the previous year.
Also, 59 gun-related homicides in 2006-07. In a country of 60+ million. 59.
Now, sorry, what were you saying about gun controls making the country more dangerous?
Stupid quote, stupid usage. Repeal child labour laws, they're infringing on my liberty to hire 10 year olds!
Depends on whether you consider owning a gun an essential liberty, obviously. I dont want to get into this argument too much more, though. I know it wasn't the OP's intent.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I wasn't, but how about you take a look at the other link provided. One which links back to an article with the Home Offices crime stats.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
What were you saying about it being more safe? How can you say it's more safe when the rate of gun crimes is INCREASING after a full ban? Unless I'm missing something, your argument doesn't make much sense either.
Dude Abides
Banned
You were. You claim to be a lawyer, you should know how citation works.
Oh wow, only 49 gun homicides in 2006-2007? Looks like the Brits have it figured out.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
It shows Gun Control hasn't done dick, why the rate increase? Also the UK has well known under reporting and misclassification issues, meaning the number is likely lower than in reality.
How is knife violence and crimes related to it?
Because it was clear from the argument that Manos was making that he doesn't know what he's talking about. People were not wandering around in the streets carrying guns. You weren't allowed to buy a gun for self defence (it was not considered adequate reason), you had to demonstrate that you had a purpose for it. You also had to keep the gun at home locked up, with ammunition stored in a different cupboard, unless you were using it for that purpose.
Please, tell me, how does banning these arrangements lead to higher gun crime rates?
Criminals will always be able to procure firearms illegally. They weren't banned to prevent gun crime by criminals, they were banned to prevent gun crime by license holders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
nincompoop
Banned
There are well over 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year. So yes, you'd only have to go back to 1950 or so before you reach two million.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
If he shot him after he had already surrendered at the sight of the gun, then I'm pretty sure he would be in trouble for shooting someone who had submitted at that point. If he shot him while he was in the act of stabbing another person, then he would be fine from a legal standpoint I would guess. I know if I was in the process of being stabbed by someone, and a concealed carrier shot the guy during the act, I would think he was my fucking hero.
Trigger Warning
Member
.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
How many of those are just suicides? How large is the number with that removed?
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
What do you mean banning these arrangements? Aren't those the new laws? I have no idea why the crime rate went up, but it doesn't make sense to say a full ban is better if rates start increasing after the ban. Apparently it was lower before that so isn't that more beneficial? And what are you talking about with people walking around the streets carrying guns? Is this seriously you're completely warped view of the US?
No doubt, but considering the government wouldn't exactly want people running around taking matters in their own hands on a regular basis, I was curious if there were any vigilante laws or anything.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
"Misuse of firearms by their LEGAL OWNERS"
There goes all gang/mafia/organized crime killings, all suicides (half of recent stats right there), all people killed by cops
Try running the numbers again
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
It's the same as any other time. If there's no present danger and you shoot someone, you're going to be in deep shit. If there is a present danger and even if it was illegal you'll have a hard time convincing a jury most likely.
No, those are the old laws, before the 1998 ban on firearms.
When I say 'wandering around the street carrying guns' I mean something like conceal carry. In fact gun ownership was already a tiny minority by that point. We've never had a gun culture in the UK where it's normal to keep a handgun in your house for protection or similar.
nincompoop
Banned
About 58% were suicides in 1998. Not sure why they shouldn't count though, a lot of them wouldn't have killed themselves if they didn't own a gun.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Ok? I'm still not sure what this have to do with the rate going higher.
Haha, holy shit. I kept reading just as in justified suicides and couldn't figure out how he could think any suicide is justified but he meant it as only. I was staring at it for so long too.
Because it's clear that the increase in gun crime is unrelated to the banning, which was not intended to lower crime using illegal firearms anyway?
The gun laws were tightened to prevent crimes by people who legally own guns, not to prevent criminals who are going to acquire them anyway.
An increase in gun related crime is clearly a problem, but it's still incredibly low by comparison with the US.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
That's their fault. If I want to kill myself I'll turn the car on in the garage and play my favorite music as the monoxide builds up.
If that happens dont take that my death and say 2005 Civic's are more dangerous than Accords because they killed one more person in 2012.
A jury's job is not to decide the morality of the act, but whether or not a person is guilty of the crime they are charged with committing. Obviously, thats the idealized version of it and I realize it doesn't work exactly like that, but I was just wondering if there were laws about it. Saying its ok for people to decide to potentially kill somebody is putting a whole hell of a lot of faith in people's ability to think clearly and rationally. I would think there would be some distinction between 'present danger' and 'immediate danger to oneself', ya know?
I'm just curious if there's any laws that are specific on what is and isn't acceptable in this sort of situation. I'll probably do a bit of Googling on it.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
If that's the case then why is Japans suicide rate so high if they don't have access to firearms?
Also if a person wants to end their life is it really right to say how or if they can? If it impacts only them what is the difference with the device used to do it?
empty vessel
Member
Instead of arming ourselves to the teeth, how's about we make a decent society that doesn't drive people to anti-social criminal behavior and/or that affords them the mental health care they need, eh?
If you want to be a CC advocate, you should also be an active proponent of a large welfare state and reducing income inequality, i.e., you must support effective crime reduction measures. Otherwise the fear of violent crime and need to arm yourself rings hollow and gives the appearance of just being in it for the wild-west killing. In which case, I don't know that I'd consider you any better than the people you're arming yourself against. And probably worse, truth be told. At least those people are typically economically deprived and frequently suffering from untreated mental health problems.
If you want to be a CC advocate, you should also be an active proponent of a large welfare state and reducing income inequality, i.e., you must support effective crime reduction measures. Otherwise the fear of violent crime and need to arm yourself rings hollow and gives the appearance of just being in it for the wild-west killing. In which case, I don't know that I'd consider you any better than the people you're arming yourself against. And probably worse, truth be told. At least those people are typically economically deprived and frequently suffering from untreated mental health problems.
I think it's worth pointing out that increasing gun crime in the UK is often related to increasing gang crime, too. But that's something that can be fixed with socioeconomic solutions, not by relaxing gun laws.
Hear hear.
Hear hear.
You were "ducking the facts" the second you started using the UK as an example there champ.
For the record, you are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the UK than you are in the US... so much for your "Britain is a safer place" mentality.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Ha that's ridiculous, unless you support my social programs you're in it just to kill someone along with the criminals are the victims.
So forcibly rendering the general public defenseless somehow makes the world a safer place? Talk about twisted logic.
For the record, most criminals don't acquire their firearms legally... which speaks volumes for how easy it is for a criminal to get ahold of a gun. You are working on a "prohibition works" mentality, which is a dangerous and ultimately ironically flawed road to go down.
Would gun crimes include illegal firearm possession?
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
You then have to factor in how many former legally owned gun owners were arrested for not surrendering firearms vs those who never legally owned ones.
It doesn't ring hollow at all. Not everyone views it as their own personal responsibility to take care of everyone else. For example, a guy making an hourly wage at a factory to support his family doesn't care how other people choose to live their lives. He earned his wage by working. It belongs to him and it's his right to protect and use it how he sees fit. I'm not saying that's definitely how things should be. I am saying wanting to protect your property and not wanting to pay higher taxes to support a larger welfare program to reduce crime is not necessarily contradictory.
empty vessel
Member
What are you in it for? If you are concerned about protecting your bodily integrity, you would support measures to reduce violent crime, right? Carrying a gun is a stopgap, not a solution.
No, this is taking care of you. You claim to have concern about being victimized by violence. That claim rings hollow if you do not support effective crime reduction measures, i.e., measures that address your asserted concern about your bodily integrity.
IISANDERII
Member
Exactly. A firearm isn't considered "a little safety" by any stretch of any citizen's imagination.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Then why are you against (at least in the past) involuntary commitment? Since if the criminal today was mentally ill, your view would have done nothing to protect others from the person.
You mean your policies, not effective crime reduction.
Of course most criminals dont obtain their firearms legally, but most of the guns were most likely legal at some point, right? Like I said, I dont think they're getting them straight from the factory. It should at the very least make it much more difficult and possibly much more expensive to obtain one, deterring many less patient or poorer criminals, which I'm sure represent a pretty large portion of them.
And yes, I believe it would make the country a safer place overall. I think its scare-mongering to act like criminals would just run rampant if people didn't have guns to defend themselves. For one, there are other weapons to use to defend yourself. Against a gun, you're not in a good situation even if you also own a gun as that fact can easily escalate a situation. And it also assumes that light gun control laws are keeping crime rates down right now, which I cant say is or isn't the case, but I dont think its a safe assumption.
I think you misunderstood the intentions of the comment.
Unfortunately, that's not how most people think.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I just finished cleaning my 12ga Shotgun and I managed NOT to kill myself or anyone else.
No homicidal tendencies here. Why, again, should I NOT be allowed to own a gun?
No homicidal tendencies here. Why, again, should I NOT be allowed to own a gun?
Not everybody is you and not everybody who kills somebody with a gun had 'homicidal tendencies' beforehand. C'mon now. There's much better arguments for owning a gun than that.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I don't need an argument to own a gun. Last I checked it's my constitutional right as a law abiding citizen with no criminal history. My point is there's a lot more legitimate, legal, law abiding gun owners. Millions and millions of them and according to the rhetoric I'm seeing from many in this thread there should be millions and millions of shootouts every day. Yet, there's not.
methane47
Member
Ok i'll roll with your statistics
So you are arguing that you do not want to reduce the amount of Gun related deaths by 10%?
trollface
On a serious note, You and many other proponents of Gun laws believe that a responsible CCW holder is less of a threat to society.
The issues i have with that view is that:
1. there are something like 35000 gun related deaths (much more injuries) every year in the US. And you said that 10% of those are likely to be CCW holders. I think 10% of 35000 is still a huge number
2. Guns that are legally owned are stolen EVERYDAY by REAL criminals. Who DO have no qualms about pulling the trigger. So while a CCW holder may have not committed a crime, They HAVE PROVIDED a gun to a criminal to be used in crimes in the future (Unless you think criminals just steal guns so they can go hunting with them)
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-22/news/fl-florida-gun-crimes-20111019_1_crime-guns-stolen-guns-gun-buyers
- Status