As long as we insist on blaming inanimate objects for the actions of the people using them, we're gonna keep getting silly laws like this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

snippets:

"A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing....The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all. They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.....The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established...."We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect." ......"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so. "An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place........."


I got this link from a friend, who recently retired from the police. His response reflects my feelings exactly and is worded far better than I could've...

In my years in law enforcement, I have seen people killed (first hand) with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, brass lamps, rope, boots, a steel bar stool, screwdrivers, hammers and assorted other tools and things not originally designed to kill people. Following the British logic, they better ban just about everything except peanut butter sandwiches. Oh yeah... I forgot about peanut allergies and poisoning... oops...

Wouldn't they be better served to vigorously enforce existing law instead of making more laws? Here's an interesting thought... how 'bout people taking responsibility for their own actions? Now there's a new concept!

I don't see what's wrong in making sure people don't get accedd to the more efficient killing tools.

I'm not sure if banning knives is even possible, considering how many kinds there are around, but if it really happened, we could probably still handle our culinary needs with a rounded knife.

People that really want to kill will always find a way to do it. But by restricting the efficient weapons, we might stop some passion crime. It would be hard to stab your wife with the knife you were just using to cut tomatoes, if it was rounded. The knife is in your hand, she just told you she was cheating on you, you're mad, there's no telling what you could do on the moment with that knife in your hand.

Sometimes all it take is a second to do something you could regret all your life. I propose we do our best to make sure we don't get those seconds...

<font color = lightgreen>These statements are not directed at any person, whether here on in the off-line world.

I could kill you with a credit card. I could kill you with my keys. I could kill you with my ball-point pen. I could kill you with a washcloth. I could kill you with a handful of paper towels. Finally, yes, I could kill you with a peanut butter sandwich.

I am not kidding--I really do know how to do those things.

Thus, banning things which could be adapted into a lethal weapon is impossible, because everything is potentially a lethal weapon, if applied properly.</font>

But killing with those things take a lot longer and more thought. As I said, if someone really want to kill, nothing will stop him, but we can stop the passion crimes.

Well, I applaud the sentiment you express VulcanRider, it is crazy to try and ban everything.

Having said that, how many lives have been saved in the UK because guns haven't been available for crimes of passion - I think luvian has a point here...

I don't think so. Private handgun ownership was banned in England in 1997.

From Dan Rather reports on increase in English crime rate dated Nov 2002:

ON A JUNE evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back... But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials...The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

... The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent....


From Crime Statistics for England and Wales

This chart " 'Violence against the person' - Long-term national recorded crime trend" shows reported crimes rising steadily from 500,000 in 1998-99, to 990,000 in 2003-04. It doesn't look like banning firearms is helping, unless you're a criminal.

<font color = lightgreen>I'm not so sure passion crimes could be stopped. A crime of passion will make the person more likely to use objects not normally considered to be lethal.</font>

So, if I rip your arms from their sockets, and beat you to a pulverized death with your own arms then things are ok? Surely you wouldn't mind restricting access to those two lethal weapons you were born with would you?

Wake the heck up and smell the coffee! Then, put the SOB in prison, and forget about him, until his day with the executioner, period!

No longer >When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns< work anymore. Liberalism has made it the victums fault, or the manufacturer's, or the next door neighbors fault, but anything, anybody, except the criminal's fault!

If that's what you want to do in the UK and Aussie land, then step right up and be counted. Just don't attempt to try it on me!

<font color = lightgreen>I'm not so sure passion crimes could be stopped. A crime of passion will make the person more likely to use objects not normally considered to be lethal.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I'd say that there are way more chance that you'll calm down in the 5 mins it would take you to kill someone while hitting them with a broom than it would in the split second it take to shoot or stab someone.

I'm pretty sure that the person would have more chance to survive being hit by a broom than a bullet or knife.

I'm talking about passion crimes, not planed cold blood murders.

People that are really determined to kill will find a way to do it, there is nothing you can do against it, but it doesn't mean you have to help them by giving them access to efficient weapons.

If a 13 year old kid dedice to kill his classmates, how will he do it if he does not have access to a gun? I'd say this would reduce his threat a lot...

I don't think so. Private handgun ownership was banned in England in 1997.

From Dan Rather reports on increase in English crime rate dated Nov 2002:

ON A JUNE evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back... But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials...The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

... The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent....


From Crime Statistics for England and Wales

This chart " 'Violence against the person' - Long-term national recorded crime trend" shows reported crimes rising steadily from 500,000 in 1998-99, to 990,000 in 2003-04. It doesn't look like banning firearms is helping, unless you're a criminal. </font>[/QUOTE]..Wow. Just wow. You can really tell an American gun lobbyist wrote that article, because no one could be that gullible to ignore any political and social trends and focus on a 1997 ban that didn't change all that much in the status quo whatsoever.
Hey, did you know that gun ownership had never been commonplace in modern day Britain in the first place? Did you know that if you really want to own a gun here in Europe, you still can? People just choose not to.
It's a basic difference in the British or even European psyche that makes comparisons between us and America grossly unfair. You can hardly justify American pro-gun views by comparing yourselves to a nation that willingly rejects the mass ownership of guns. This article is just trying to abuse rising crime rates for their its pro-gun propaganda, even though handgun use hasn't been anything close to common in Britain for the last 80 years or so - the law was little more than a formality.
Europe isn't the US. We don't have a gun culture. If gun restriction laws get tightened even more over here none but a few would even flinch or care. They hardly affect anyone, precisely for the reason that it's only confirming something that society itself had already concluded - we just don't need them.

"But wait, crimes rates are up in Great Britain you say? That's gotta be related to those tough gun restriction laws, like those evil commie-hugging liberals are trying to get passed!" Yeah right.
Yes, so crime rates are up in Great Britain. Could you manipulate statistics to make it look like it's all gun control's fault? Apparently you can, as demonstrated by the above person. She however didn't once mention the increasing social and economical problems that has struck parts of Britain and Europe. Someone on a different forum wrote a short response that manages to convey the point I'm trying to make in a better way than I would (I did take out some of his weaker arguments, however).

Also, just to give an example of dropping crime rates since tightened gun control laws, and to indicate that the "tighter gun laws lead to more violence" relationship that this Joyce Lee Malcolm seems to imply somehow doesn't hold in all cases, here are some statistics on Australia:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

[ 05-28-2005, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Blimey...er...what Grojlach says! [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for the violent crime, I quite agree with what you're saying VulcanRider, its a terrible situation being caused by an almost complete breakdown in morality among certain sections of society :(

But yeah, not sure guns have much to do with it, knives are usually the weapon of choice here. If you're shot with a gun its most likely that you're black and have been shot by another black person in a different gang - "black on black" gun crime seems to be what the police are most worried about.

Oh, and just to show how useless statistics really are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...es/4468409.stm

Canada doesn't have a gun culture either, and we're doing fine.

You must weigh your options here. A clean (non jagged) bullet or knife wound, versus a pipe bomb wound?

Passion crimes. A liberal term to fit a criminal who has just made his first strike! One (1) well placed punch from a knobby knee'd 10 yr old can drop a rugby player!

<font color=plum>That's an interesting response, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. I especially like the sentence I highlighted, because it is RARELY the Americans who compare themselves to Europe in gun debates. It was <font color=lime>shamrock</font> that drew the comparison in this thread, NOT <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRider</font>.

Although I DO see another interesting trend in your response and the subsequent article you posted. Europeans criticise the American attitude towards gun ownership and point at their own societies as proof that guns aren't needed and gun laws are effective at preventing crime. Then someone points out that crime is actually going UP, despite the gun laws and the European response is "Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY other factors that should be considered."

Very well. Then take your own advice and consider that there may also be "several other factors" that lead to the number of murders in the US. Guns ARE responsible for the majority of them, simply because guns are more readily available and easy to use. However, if guns were outlawed, then people would just find a different weapon to use - such as knives. Outlaw knives, then the killers might use a club or ball bat. Outlaw those and the killers could use a screwdriver or hammer. Outlaw those and.....well, I think you can see a pattern here...and this was the point <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRider</font> was making in his opening post.

Outlawing long sharp knives just is nothing more than reactionary legislation. So what if the top chefs of the world don't use them, what about Jane Average Housewife? How many of us really use the same utensils and cooking styles of top chefs anyway?

If legislation is passed forcing citizens to prove they have a legitimate reason to own a long sharp knife, then it is a very easy step to expand that legislation to force those same citizens to prove they have a reason to own a hammer or screwdriver. BOTH of these tools could also be used in a "crime of passion", so that nullifies <font color=lime>shamrocks</font> argument.

Still, it was nice of you to acknowledge that there IS a basic difference in the American and European psyche regarding gun ownership, so any comparisons between the two really aren't valid.</font>

But then again, I am a lousy European ;)

Quote:

BOTH of these tools could also be used in a "crime of passion", so that nullifies <font color=lime>shamrocks</font> argument.

Hmm...I thought I was just agreeing with Luvian's argument there! Guns were simply the thing that popped into my head when I thought of crimes of passion, not my intention to make any kind of argument. This time anyway [img]tongue.gif[/img]

No, my general feeling on this is quite American really, I hate it when government regulates too much. I thought the banning of handguns after Dunblane was an overreaction because it only took guns from licensed users in gun clubs, criminals could still get hold of them and I take much the same view with this suggestion.

[ 05-28-2005, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I think that as long as guns are strictly regulated then that's fine. I disagree with the US idea that you are assumed the right to own a gun, as they are one of the most dangerous weapons. I too however dislike over-legislation.

As for the whole crime and guns thing, I think we have lower rates of gun crime and our other weapons offences are dramatically higher than the US's, but things aren't so simple so i won't draw conclusions.

But, as has been pointed out with the banning concept being taken to extremes being ridiculous, so would the converse argument, that we shoul be allowed anything no matter what its potential destructive power, provided it was regulated. I owuld not feel comfortable if my neighbour had a rocket launcher under the bed and a scud in the garage just in case. Oh, and a few ICBM to deter number 42 from let their dog on your property, and to prevent an pre-emptry strike from them. :D Stupid i admit, but it shows that things DO need to regulated proportional to their potential to harm.

<font color = lightgreen>Yes, the central point being made is that outlawing or restricting the ownership/availability of guns or knives does nothing to deter the rate of crime.
Furthermore, gun ownership (or a "gun culture") does not translate into a violent society. Imagine how many crimes might not happen were the criminal to think that his intended victim might be packing heat if every citizen had the ability to carry a concealed gun....

The more citizens who own guns equals the less the government can push around the citizens. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Lets look at it from a different point. I like my kitchen knife. I like it as a tool. And I also find the sharp point useful in opening packages etc.
The design of the knife is to prepare food. It is a tool created for that purpose alone. It can surely be used as a weapon as well, but that was not the intention of the manufacturer. There are other knives only designed as weapons which really should be banned.
The same thing goes for cars (another analogy frequently used by pro-gun supporters). They are designed for transportation, but may cause harm. If the car was invented today I seriously doubt it would be allowed. Yes, it does make life easier, but so does a microwave. Would we allow a microwave if thousands were killed operating them? Not really.
As for guns they have a use in hunting. These weapons usually have limitations to fit this particular use (caliber, ammo storage, ammo type etc.). Most European countries issue licenses for these guns if one pass a set of tests. Then there's the rest of the guns. The bulk majority of them in fact. What are they designed for? To kill or harm other humans of course. Now I find that completely unacceptable. We cannot allow these weapons to be sold freely. A criminal who has to fear for his own life is more likely to apply violence himself.
I took this up with a good old American friend who visited Denmark just recently. He could see my point, but also gave some interesting input I had overlooked. First of all this is part of American heritage and culture. Not something to be taken lightly. Second of all it is a fundamental idea in the American constitution that the government does not have monopoly on force and that the population is able to defend themselves against their own military. Not something to be taken lightly either. So I hesitantly agreed that open access to guns in the US might not be a bad idea.
However this is far far from universal and in fact cannot be applied elsewhere. Most other democracies have developed other shelters against the government such as strong labour unions. In this country open access to firearms and other weapons would be problematic to say the least.

<font color=plum><font color=white>Aragorn</font> - Americans DO have the RIGHT to bear arms. It is explicitly stated in our Constitution. So yes, we DO feel it is a right rather than a privilege.

<font color=yellow>mad=dog</font> - Guns are NOT designed to kill or harm humans. I've fired many guns in my time and own two handguns, but I've never fired at another human being. I HAVE shot a crap-load of cans and bottles over the years and that is the main reason I own a gun at all, because I enjoy target shooting.

I did keep my guns loaded in the house for self-defense because I had an incident in college where an armed person came into my parents driveway at 1am and looked towards the house. He was running from the police and I could see his face very clearly. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that he considered coming into the house and trying to take us hostage. I also have NO DOUBT that the reason he chose to run the other way is because of the possibility that the homeowner MIGHT have a gun of his own (and he was right, my dad had him in the sights of his pistol when he looked towards the house).

So guns DO have plenty of uses OTHER than just harming and killing humans.</font>

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.

<font color=plum><font color=white>Aragarn</font> - Please show me the Constitutional Amendment that grants us the right to own another human being.

The Right to Bear Arms (provided by the 2nd Amendment) is designed to make sure the general populace can be armed to resist our OWN government IF it should ever become as oppressive as our Founding Fathers felt the British gov't was at that time. It is NOT designed solely for protection against outside invasion. It was another measure used to put prevent our government turning into a tyranny (though many here would probably argue it is already dangerously close to that outcome after the last election ;) ).</font>

Well, it wasn't Aragorn who wrote what you were answering but me... [img]smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, the reason I wrote that it allowed people to own another human being is because, I thought the original constitution allowed people to keep slaves but was changed with the 13th amandment later...

But I was wrong... and I admit it, it doesn't say so explicitly and I apologise. I heard this some time ago and of course just believed it.
Then, now when reading your reply I actually read the constitution (well skimmed over it [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and couldn't find it saying so explicitly, guess they meant that by not addressing slavery in the original 10 amandments slavery was seen as being accepted.

<font color=plum>Well I personally agree with <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRiders</font> definition - that a gun is designed to put a metal projectile through a chosen target. And it is up to the individual to determine what that target should be. Millions of dollars is spent on R&D simply because we Americans DO love our guns in a variety of shapes, sizes and powers.

But even if you and others want to insist that the intended purpose of guns is to harm or kill other people, I and others have shown that it CAN be used for other purposes. And the fact is that the VAST majority of guns owners in America do NOT use their guns for this so called "intended purpose".

Guns DO have other purposes BESIDES inflicting injury on another person. So banning guns based on the presumption that inflicting injury is the primary purpose is nothing more than reactionary legislation that seeks to blame the object rather than the PERSON for the actions the owner takes. And it also fully supports <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRiders</font> original point - that many objects CAN be used to inflict injury even if this is not their "intended purpose". IF we are going to ban guns because they are designed to harm other people, then we would have no choice but to ban all these other tools with designs that can harm other people.

ORRRRRRRRRR we could actually try placing the blame solely on the PERSON who inflicts the harm instead of blaming the object he/she used.</font>

<font color=plum>Well I personally agree with <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRiders</font> definition - that a gun is designed to put a metal projectile through a chosen target. And it is up to the individual to determine what that target should be. Millions of dollars is spent on R&D simply because we Americans DO love our guns in a variety of shapes, sizes and powers.

But even if you and others want to insist that the intended purpose of guns is to harm or kill other people, I and others have shown that it CAN be used for other purposes. And the fact is that the VAST majority of guns owners in America do NOT use their guns for this so called "intended purpose".

Guns DO have other purposes BESIDES inflicting injury on another person. So banning guns based on the presumption that inflicting injury is the primary purpose is nothing more than reactionary legislation that seeks to blame the object rather than the PERSON for the actions the owner takes. And it also fully supports <font color=dodgerblue>VulcanRiders</font> original point - that many objects CAN be used to inflict injury even if this is not their "intended purpose". IF we are going to ban guns because they are designed to harm other people, then we would have no choice but to ban all these other tools with designs that can harm other people.

ORRRRRRRRRR we could actually try placing the blame solely on the PERSON who inflicts the harm instead of blaming the object he/she used.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]It's not about who is to blame, anyone who kills another with intend is to be blamed, and neither is it about banning guns because their made to inflict harm, something I haven't proposed. I just reject the notion that the purpose of a gun isn't about causing harm and death. I doubt that the millions of dollars spent on R&D are just to entertain civilian Americans, regardless of how much you like guns. It's more likely that new weapon technology is developed to aid the US military as they and their contractors are the main researchers in this field, and where new technology goes first and foremost.

I figured this thread deserves the text of the second amendment so we can discuss it in context rather than bits and parts.

If you ask me, who is not a lawyer nor profess to be some expert, the 2nd amendment give both the right to bear arms AND the directive to "well-regulate" them.

In other words gun control is not only constitutional, a lack of gun control is unconstitutional and at the same time blanket bans are not allowed unless for the purposes of well-regulation. I interpret "well" in this instance to mean laws that make common sense, are fair and are effective.

Banning handguns here in the U.S. would be inneffective, would make no sense, and would not be fair to honest people wanting self-defense for long, long time- not to mention political suicide.

There are simply too many handguns available, with millions upon millions manufactured every year. It would take generations for handgun supply to dry up and the sustained crime caused by the gap during disarmamnet would drive up demand from both criminals and ordinary folk looking for protection.

Indeed prohibition would breed an artifical blackkmarket just like the drug war. Street prices might increase, but not alot considering just how many freaking guns are available in the U.S.A.


Before all this could happen, we would probably have a swift change in government and a repeal on any law put forth and signed that outright bans guns. Guns would be legal and cheap once again and all would be well...unless you happen to get shot.

[ 05-29-2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Actually several of the framers of the Constitution lobbied for abolition, and putting the banning of slavery into the main document, however a compromise was made in order to get the states that ran primarily on slavery to sign on, IIRC a time limit was set on how long slaves could be imported, and after that time they could no longer be imported from Africa.

If you ask me, who is not a lawyer nor profess to be some expert, the 2nd amendment give both the right to bear arms AND the directive to "well-regulate" them. </font>[/QUOTE]What this would seem to imply, although i can't claim to be a statutory interpretation expert, is that the militia should be well-regulated, not the guns.

No, it was the article I was responding to, not VulcanRider or Shamrock in particular. Make sure you read it in its entirety, I don't think you really saw what I was getting at. It's like you just read the line you quoted, forgot about the rest and wrote your entire argument based on only those few words and VR and Shamrock's earlier debate, unfortunately.

You keep missing the point. Sure, guns aren't needed, but no one here in Western Europe would even contest that - we've been gun free for as long as I can remember. What I was saying however is that rising crime figures in Europe have very little to do with gun restriction laws, precisely because of the fact that we don't have a gun culture over here and that any formal restriction laws hardly affected anyone, because on the whole no one really cared about gun ownership in the first place. The author of that article is however trying to use completely unrelated statistics to further her own agenda. We've got a lot of social unrest and dito problems over here, but trying to put on your NRA-minded glasses as this person does and insinuating this has anything to do with a lack of guns, is simply showing a complete disregard for any social or cultural developments in Europe for the past 15 years or so. I could probably write an essay about how the cancellation of 'Twin Peaks' led to an increase in crime and use the very same statistics, but that still wouldn't make a very strong case.
I'd even go as far as rephrasing this bit
to "Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY factors that should be considered, but gun restriction legislation isn't one of them."

As for this part:
There's still very little wrong with that reasoning in itself, especially if you'd say it in response to Americans claiming that guns are needed for 'protection' and to create a 'safe society'. But I reckon you intended it to be more of an example of Europeans meddling with American affairs and forcing their own ways on you, which I agree could be seen as an attitude of hypocrisy regarding the rest of your argument. ;)
But to be honest, only if crime figures in the US were incredibly low and those in Europe ridiculously high you'd really have a point. Misleading articles and bold statements aside, that's simply not the case.

Anyway, just for the record - I may disagree with gun ownership entirely. I may have praised my own gun-free society and voiced my concerns on how a gun-ridden society like the US would make anyone feel safer (which was pretty much what I thought Michael Moore for example was trying to convey), but I don't care about anti-gun lobbyist groups or fierce gun restriction law proposals because it doesn't concern me. I may think the application of the second amendment is somewhat disappointing, but I'm not contesting its validity - I realize that in the end it's a personal decision, permitted by your laws; and I respect that.
Criminal behaviour can't be rooted out, period. You can only work towards establishing a culture that uses less lethal means to 'defend' itself and in a way lowering the fear level of said culture, but you can't establish that by banning something from one day to another that people rely on too heavily for their sense of safety. If a nation isn't ready for that, then don't do it.

I will disregard this as it has very little to do with my own post. I'm sorry if it was confusing you, but it was basically an off topic response regarding the article that paid little heed to Shamrock and VulcanRider's ongoing debate.

I don't think I've ever contested that in the first place. While you could still compare the two, I don't think applying the system of one onto the other would be really fair. While I think some gun restrictions are in order for the sake of common sense (assault weapons), the US is a gun culture - I may have little respect for gun ownership overall and I may applaud anyone giving up on them entirely out of their own free will, but I'm not forcing anyone to get rid of them.
It's nice of you to say that it's nice of me to acknowledge that ;) , but honestly - it really is somewhat of a disappointment if this is attitude is truly surprising to you. I might get the feeling you're generalizing a wee bit too much now, giving me very little credit in the process.

[ 05-30-2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

There's a glaring cultural difference there. To rephrase it somewhat, do I feel more comfortable with a society that on the whole rejects guns, even if some criminals manage get a hold of it? My answer would be yes. Not counting incidents, I actually feel a lot safer here in Europe than I would be if I moved to the US. The knowledge that every person and his toothless grandmother could be carrying a gun is hardly comforting in my opinion, and would only push me more into the direction of purchasing one myself just to keep up - destroying the sense of safety I used to have and only raising the level of fear and paranoia.

I suppose your own feelings on the subject are closer to the opposite, though.

That's a very bold statement that I would love to see you support with some evidence. While I agree with the Prohibition/War on Drugs example, and while I'm pretty sure a ban on guns in the US wouldn't work in a million years, I don't think you can hold that claim for other, less gun-fixated nations. In a similar fashion to taking cultural and social developments into account as I applied in my previous posts in this topic, I'm not going to claim that statistics are automatically conclusive; but if you look at for instance homicide rates, those are still significantly higher in the US than in Western Europe. I'm not going to make bold claims as to the effectiveness of gun restriction laws based on that figure, but I can't imagine you stating that it has no effect whatsoever in the face of this knowledge.

Also see
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf

[ 05-30-2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]