Well Cerek from reading your message I can only see one other use you mention and that is shooting cans. Sorry for being so rude, but regardless of your use of the gun that is not the intended use. After all you can shoot at cans with softguns, airguns, paintguns or other non-harmful guns. The intended use of firearms is to do harm. They are pretty pointless otherwise.
Shooting cans and gun practise is a cultural element of the US and I have already said that I don't find this problematic in itself. When I was in the States I naturally went to a shooting range to shoot off a few cases of rounds. It's fun and entertaining. I'll gladly admit that.

I basically wanted to separate the problem so it could be analysed better. The same conditions do not apply in the US and in Europe so it is difficult to transfer experiences and knowledge. Also there is a difference between kitchen knives and weapons I wanted to illustrate.

But do we actually have enough statistical data to accept this conclusion, particularly in this case considering the brief amount of time the ban has been in effect?

As much as logic dictates that criminals will be more bold when the general population is restricted from purchasing certain arms, logic also dictates that over time criminals will have harder time finding the restricted weapons to use. Crime might not neccessaryly lessen, but crime involving the restricted weapons probably will as the supply of the weapons dries up.

I guess it boils down to whether or not you take a long-term view or a short...

[ 05-28-2005, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Didn't you just refute your own argument? You had fun shooting, and didn't harm anyone. But by your own definition you were misusing the weapons. IMO the intended use of a firearm is to put a metal projectile into a target at a specific location. Whether the target is a piece of paper, a tin can, a deer, or a burglar's chest is the choice of the person behind the trigger, as is the responsibility for the consequences. Firearms can be used for enjoyment without causing harm. We just believe that anyone of sound mind, legal age, and no violent criminal record has the RIGHT to choose that form of enjoyment if they wish. We also enjoy the feeling of security we get from knowing we're not at the mercy of an attacker, whether an individual climbing thru a window, all the way up to an oppressive government. Our founders had finished doing just that when they wrote our Constitution & Bill of Rights, and wanted to make sure we ALWAYS had that option.

The original point of this thread was to point out, IMO, the futility of blaming inanimate objects for the actions of the people (mis)using them. There are too many objects not originally designed to harm that can be used for that purpose. Until we focus on the user and not the item we're not doing anything useful to reduce violent crime.

My law of supply & demand trumps your probability :D . Unless you can remove them from everywhere on the planet, AND remove the knowledge to make more, there will always be a supply of guns. The question is, do you feel more comfortable with just the criminals armed, or with criminals and honest citizens armed? We've gotten the answer straight from the horse's mouth. Interviews with people in jail all support the conclusion that when the criminal has to worry about the victim shooting back, he's less likely to commit the crime in the first place.

Hhmm. I wanted to keep it simple and logical and somehow failed. I guess that within the controlled environment of a shooting gallery the intended use is to have fun. After all marksmanship is an olympic discipline. On the other hand if I take the gun from the gallery and into the street the intentions change.
I fully agree that we cannot blame inanimate objects for peoples actions. However we can and should blame ourselves if we do not minimize the possibility of (mis)use happening especially concerning something as powerful and lethal as a gun where (mis)use can have terrible consequences.
Just in case it is not clear I am speaking about this from a European point of view and only regarding my own country. As I said there are many factors involved that makes it quite different in the States.
Personal freedom is abundant in Europe. However we have a slightly different approach;
"Everybody has the right to full personal freedom as long as their actions do not compromise others equal right to freedom."

My law of supply & demand trumps your probability :D . Unless you can remove them from everywhere on the planet, AND remove the knowledge to make more, there will always be a supply of guns. The question is, do you feel more comfortable with just the criminals armed, or with criminals and honest citizens armed? We've gotten the answer straight from the horse's mouth. Interviews with people in jail all support the conclusion that when the criminal has to worry about the victim shooting back, he's less likely to commit the crime in the first place. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, the assumption I see here is that in a nation like the U.K. the criminal underground will manufacture or smuggle enough fire arms to sustain a blackmarket for petty crooks and robbers for the decades to come. I have a different take .

Supply will inevitably shrink if smuggled arms are the only significant new source and confiscation rates outpace import rates. This will cause the price of fire-arms to rise well above the means of your average house robber or mugger. Thus demand will shrink as the majority of the base criminal-minded are left with the body limbs and broken bottle to terrorize the townsfolk with.


Will it get rid of all guns? No. But gun crime will inevitably decrease over time as firearms become harder to find and more expensive -not to mention quite risky to smuggle.

Would this ever work in America? Not even. We have a proud history of shooting things, including people. We do have a right to bear arms with a responsible reason. Regardless, the right to bear arms is not a directive to bear arms.

I also think that it is a price we pay for having cheap, easily available guns is that criminals also have access to cheap ,easily available guns. Supply and demand works opposite in this scenario. Guns are cheaper when supply and demand are plentiful, except in places like NY and Chicago where bans have artificially raised the street price of firearms.


Anyway, I'm against blanket bans of guns( but not against common-sense regulation) here in America, but I won't deny the logic of sufficiently enforced bans and the predictable results over a long-term.

2nd-edit for spelling.

[ 05-29-2005, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color = lightgreen>The only way to remove guns from the reach of criminals would be to physically destroy all guns and remove knowledge of how to build guns. Criminals will always have guns, regardless of prices dictated by a marketplace or bans enacted by a government.

Outlawing weapons succeeds only in people becoming more creative in their weapon choices and weapon design. There was a ban on weapons in medeival Japan, which is why we have all those weird martial arts weapons like nunchaku, sais, kusari-gamas, etc.

No, I think a sufficiently long period of time has elapsed to accurately measure the effect of bans or restrictions on guns. The net effect: bans/restrictions don't work, just like Prohibition didn't work and the War on Drugs didn't work.</font>

The constitution also explicitly states you have right to own another human being, thankfully you have moved on from that and maybe it's time to take the white out to other parts of the constitution... I'm sure the Right to bear arm clause was not meant to take precedent to living in a orderly and safe society.

Couple of points:

Yes, VulcanRider, i feel perfectly secure knowing that the vast majority of the popultaion do not have a gun, that the vast majority of the police force do not carry a gun. It does not in the least bit concern me. Surely the whole reason for the prevalnace of gun crime in the US is the easy availability of guns. The solution seems to be a major part of the problem.

With the constitutinal right, was this not originally put in the constitution so that militias and civil defence organisations could be easily raised should the British decide to attack. The threat of outside invaders is long passed, so is it still necessary? Is the argument about security just justification for the retaining of out-moded laws?

Thirdly, no-one can argue that the gun was niot made for the purpose of killing. It is a weapon. Ypu could no more say the longbow was not a weapon because the archers used to target practice on Sunday afternoons. THat is not to say it cannot be used for purposes other that the intened one. I may use my cricket bat to hit the aforementioned burglar over the head, but it clearly wasn't designed for that purpose.

As some others have expressed before, no one will be able to convinced me that guns aren't designed to kill. That's their entire purpose, to harm or kill living organism. Saying otherwise is, IMHO, just obscuring an uncomfortable fact. What we then use the gun for is a differerent matter, but the arms industry ain't spending millions of dollars on R&D and production of guns for us to shot empty beer cans with.