Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

[oldjerry]

True.

It maybe teenagerish/bordering assinine,but still mystifying: How can a state deprive it's subjects of the right to carry weapons,while selling them abroad to all sorts of headcases.(as well as spending billions paying it's own employees to go abroad and shoot people)?

[2ndRateMind]

Just to deal with these points, because they are both fair comment.

Violent people/angry people/CRAZY PEOPLE,...they will always find a way to harm others... In any society, in any country, regardless of any law. It doesn't have to be with guns.

And, to be frank, if someone was pointing a gun at me and about to pull the trigger, the last thing I would be thinking about is whether that gun was a legally-owned 12-bore or an illegal semi-automatic. They're both lethal.

The thing is, about a firearm, is that it is what the military call a 'force multiplier'. Which is why the military are so keen to be, and remain, at the apex of deadly technological progress. They naturally want their force multiplied to the max. It goes without saying, I think, that you can kill more people more quickly with a bolt action rifle than an assegai spear or a samurai sword, and more people more quickly with an automatic weapon than with a bolt action rifle.

The question is not whether people will harm each other, and I agree that they probably always will. It's how easy we make it to harm a lot of people very quickly. I'm not trying to legislate away murder. Just suggesting that a strict licensing policy and the elimination of certain kinds of weapons from the civilian sphere, might, just might, make massacres less frequent and less costly. I suggest that this is the kind of outcome we all might unite behind.

Finally, once again, I apologise for the outburst with which I opened this thread. It was not fair on Americans, who I know to be a force for good in the world. It is only because I care about them that prompted me to write on this topic at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[oldjerry]

I think if you want to eliminate civilian massacres,you'd be better off taking the weapons away from the military.

[Big Al]

I took a texan singer songwriter to an english football match. Of course we sat in the home area and the away fans had their area. The match kicked off and so did the abuse and hatred between the fans.

My friend couldn't believe the way we were all reacting as " it was only a football match" I asked if it was the same in the USA and he said that at a baseball game or any sporting venue in the USA fans sit together and enjoy the game and the hatred doesn't happen.

I was flabbergasted, after all winding up the away fans, the occasional fight, winning at all costs is part of the game isn't it. My friend replied yes it could be but then you don't know if the bloke sat next to you is carrying a gun.

If you look at all the figures available in American studies by all sides, gun lobby, anti guns police, government you will find that where guns are allowed there is less gun crime that in the places where guns ARE NOT ALLOWED.

I'm not an american, I'm not for gun freedom (although I'd have a gun if allowed) but you are just as likely to get gunned down in St pauls, in bristol as you are in Nottingham, London, Manchester or Denver.

http://www.bristol247.com/2011/11/17/br ... ome-96014/

[2ndRateMind]

I was flabbergasted, after all winding up the away fans, the occasional fight, winning at all costs is part of the game isn't it. My friend replied yes it could be but then you don't know if the bloke sat next to you is carrying a gun.

If you look at all the figures available in American studies by all sides, gun lobby, anti guns police, government you will find that where guns are allowed there is less gun crime that in the places where guns ARE NOT ALLOWED.

Hey friend. I take the point. If someone you might want to offend might be carrying a gun, then you think twice about offending them. But is that really how we want to live out our lives? Fearful that what we say or do might get us murdered? I don't think so. We do not, anywhere in the UN declaration of human rights, have the right not to be offended. And we shouldn't have such a right, however many guns we may carry. The simple and obvious rebuttal to your point though, is that where guns are not allowed, simply carrying a gun is a gun crime. Where they are allowed, it is the use of the gun against people that is the gun crime. So, we need to compare apples with apples, not apples with pears.

And how do you account for the difference in murder rates, twice quoted on this thread, between the UK and USA, if it is not the prevalance of tools of lethal force? I'm quite prepared to look at the figures, and my opinion will be guided by them, if you can actually show some area without restrictions on guns has a lower murder rate than some area where guns are banned. You need to provide a reference though, to back up such a counter-intuitive result. Seems to me that if you take away the nasty toys from the nasty boys, then either they will have to play nicely, or they can just go away and mutter darkly amongst themselves about the power of the state, the illegitimacy of the state, and the criminality of state employees. And plot some other means, more easily policed, of striking against innocent individuals, more balanced in their views, going about their ordinary and accepted business.

Cheers, 2RM.

[Skippy]

If America wanted to stop it's citizens carrying guns then legally it wouldn't be a problem although politically it would be suicide (if not assingnation). I remember Alistar Cooke talking about this years ago on his "Letter from America" programme on radio 4 , showing my age on that one.
He was saying that the "right to bear arms" part of the consitution has been a bit mis represented and the actual draft allows the people to bear arms in lieu of a standing army to form a milita to protect the country. The founding fathers could see that having a standing army is ok until someone comes up with the idea that rather than just standing around let's do something with it. Perhaps a little niave in its outlook but essentially right and pertinent to the original post.
A lot , however , is down to the idiot using the weapon which is a lot harder to control. I , like many people, have a bow and arrows that can punch through armour and part of me dreads the day when or if someone goes mad with one of them. Then there are other things, you can suffocate someone with a comfy pillow and so on.....


Pete

[2ndRateMind]

I'm uncertain; which is it - ignorance or cynicism?.

Neither. It's just a culture that isn't Englsh.

Something the English have traditionally found incomprehensible.

I just had to get around to this. There is a fallacy of relativism that thinks that anything is OK if it's part of someone else's culture. It arises out of a lack of objective standards. But, rather than talk theory, let's give a for example. For example, there are places in Africa, mainly muslim places, where it is part of the culture to cut away female genitalia soon after birth to ensure that women don't ever experience sexual pleasure. That way, it is thought, they are more likely to remain faithful to their husbands.

So, do we accept this barbarism? Or do we do what we can to promote a careful, culturally sympathetic, individually respectful, but nevertheless adamant, full-stop to the practice? We are, after all, discussing a gross violation of the person.

We can choose. Either we passively accept whatever people do to each other, wherever, whenever, however, or we can speak up. It seems to me that even if all we ever do is speak up, we are still part of shaping a more humane world culture for our children to inhabit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[oldjerry]

Yes ,I heard that piece on Womens Hour too.You're actually proving the point I was trying to make

.So you don't approve of some aspects of another culture (and in respect to female circumsiscion who would?)So what would youn do about it? Prosecute the Somalies that would do it here in the UK?... Of course....

Invade Somalia to stamp it out?...no thanks....

[2ndRateMind]

Yes ,I heard that piece on Womens Hour too.You're actually proving the point I was trying to make

Actually, I didn't know the BBC were on to it today. Call it synchronicity, and respect the coincidence.

So you don't approve of some aspects of another culture (and in respect to female circumsiscion who would?)So what would youn do about it? Prosecute the Somalies that would do it here in the UK?... Of course....

Invade Somalia to stamp it out?...no thanks....

So, do we accept this barbarism? Or do we do what we can to promote a careful, culturally sympathetic, individually respectful, but nevertheless adamant, full-stop to the practice? We are, after all, discussing a gross violation of the person.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Mustardseedmama]

"Seems to me that if you take away the nasty toys from the nasty boys, then either they will have to play nicely, or they can just go away and mutter darkly amongst themselves"


Sorry, had to jump back into this....Do you have any idea how many guns you're talking about? Because I sure don't, and I live here. Our government doesn't even have a clue how many guns are in this country, although I'm sure they have statisical estimates. My point is; even if gun ownership were somehow made illegal, there is no way to get even the better part of the guns into government custody.

So we take guns away from law-abiding citizens, people who'd never in a million years dream of hurting another human being with those guns. This leaves them vulnerable to all those "nasty boys" who can, do, and will, still get guns illegally.

No thank you. These massacres are horrific, and we mourn them wherever they happen in the world. But they wouldn't get all of the guns, so they can't take some of them.

[2ndRateMind]

Dear Mustardseedmama

I think this is the real motivator behind the consumer demand that supports the arms lobby. Fear.

I give you two options; a society with loads of guns everywhere, or a society where guns are legally restricted to police, the military, and gamekeepers and vermin controllers and farmers and such. Note that the legal restrictions will inevitably impact the quantity and quality of illegally held arms.

Which is preferable? For me, it is the gunless society, and the chance of minimising the option of multiple killings. But it's your choice. I just suggest that, having decided your ideal, you work towards it gradually. No-one is advocating an immediate ban on all weapons, just, bit-by-careful-bit, the dismantling of the US gun culture, so that even in New York, people come to be able to dare to look each other in the eye, without fear of violent response. And, strangely enough, the first step is not to prevent civilians owning machine guns, or assault rifles. The first step is just to dare to dream of a better world. And then to talk about it. And then, and only once consensus is reached, gradually start introducing statutory limitations on the kind of arms it is legitimate for a civilian to bear.

Cheers, 2RM.

[Mustardseedmama]

Dear Mustardseedmama

I think this is the real motivator behind the consumer demand that supports the arms lobby. Fear.

I give you two options; a society with loads of guns everywhere, or a society where guns are legally restricted to police, the military, and gamekeepers and vermin controllers and farmers and such. Note that the legal restrictions will inevitably impact the quantity and quality of illegally held arms.

Which is preferable? For me, it is the gunless society, and the chance of minimising the option of multiple killings. But it's your choice. I just suggest that, having decided your ideal, you work towards it gradually. No-one is advocating an immediate ban on all weapons, just, bit-by-careful-bit, the dismantling of the US gun culture, so that even in New York, people come to be able to dare to look each other in the eye, without fear of violent response. And, strangely enough, the first step is not to prevent civilians owning machine guns, or assault rifles. The first step is just to dare to dream of a better world. And then to talk about it. And then, and only once consensus is reached, gradually start introducing statutory limitations on the kind of arms it is legitimate for a civilian to bear.

Cheers, 2RM.

Dear 2RM,

Sounds wonderful---a fabulous ideal, well worth dreaming of. I sincerely wish it had a chance.

[oldjerry]

The motivational force behind most consumer demand is hype.Unless you live in parts of Mexico,the chances of being randomly gunned down are minimal,d'you live in perpetual fear of a car accident?

I find a lot to admire about contemporary America(and not just Cormac Mcarthy),most of all their Bill of Rights.Sure it maybe flawed,but if personal freedoms were (at least in theory) gauranteed in the same way this side of the pond,perhaps every move we make wouldn't be monitored and registered.

[gregorach]

Sorry, had to jump back into this....Do you have any idea how many guns you're talking about? Because I sure don't, and I live here. Our government doesn't even have a clue how many guns are in this country, although I'm sure they have statisical estimates. My point is; even if gun ownership were somehow made illegal, there is no way to get even the better part of the guns into government custody.

Yeah, that makes a very big difference. Simply restricting sales at this point would be a case of closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted... It's a very difficult question.

I'm reminded of an old Chris Rock routine - "“You don't need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control!"

So we take guns away from law-abiding citizens, people who'd never in a million years dream of hurting another human being with those guns. This leaves them vulnerable to all those "nasty boys" who can, do, and will, still get guns illegally.

Of course, one of the principle means by which "nasty boys" acquire guns illegally is by stealing them from their legal owners... This is where I think "safe storage" requirements have a lot to recommend them - plus they can go a long way towards reducing the dreadful toll of accidental firearms deaths (and injuries). Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think people should be leaving loaded guns lying around... But again, it comes up against the "self defence" culture, which we don't really have over here.

[Crickleymal]

So we take guns away from law-abiding citizens, people who'd never in a million years dream of hurting another human being with those guns. This leaves them vulnerable to all those "nasty boys" who can, do, and will, still get guns illegally.

I think this is one of the crucial points. It's an argument that is trotted out every time by the gun supporting lobby. What I would like to see is some proper data about how many times law abiding citizens have had to defend themselves. I personally don't believe it happens very often at all. But show me the data and convince me otherwise please.

The other thing is if you are suddenly faced with a gun toting maniac, you probably won't have time to get your gun out.