if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Mugging Marion
by Lee
Once again we see the media fabricating the news.
Former District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry was robbed at gunpoint at his Southeast apartment by some youths who had helped him carry his groceries.
Barry, who wasn’t injured in the Monday night robbery, said he gave the youths a couple of dollars for helping unload groceries from his car and they left.
They returned, however, and after Barry let them inside his Douglas Place apartment, they pointed a gun at his head and took his wallet, which contained cash and credit cards.“Obviously, I’m traumatized. To have a pistol cocked in your face is not something you cannot feel emotional about,” Barry said.
Do you know how I know this story was fabricated? Because Washington DC has the toughest gun control standards in the United States. And as any good liberal can tell you, when you enact draconian gun control laws, it means that criminals cannot get guns. So there is no way, logically, that this incident could have ever taken place.
Comments
And THAT is where you made your mistake, Lee! You ASSumed the “youths” were from DeeCee. Of course, these were “Virginia” youths, meaning that the lax gun laws of the state where the NRA is HQ’d must be the cause of Marion Berry having separation anxiety over his wallet. Which means that either Virginia needs to give up its lax gun laws, or Marion Berry needs to move to Virginia!
NOT!
Perhaps the “youths” where doing some vigilante justice based on this:
He is awaiting sentencing later this month in federal court on his guilty plea to two misdemeanor counts stemming from his failure to file income tax returns in 2000.
Given this I would think some of you would approve, perhaps the kids should have shot him.
And as any good liberal can tell you, when you enact draconian gun control laws, it means that criminals cannot get guns.
But seriously ... have you honestly ever heard someone say that enacting gun laws in one state prevents a criminal from getting a gun from another state. Got a link to anyone making this argument? Restrictive gun laws might increase the cost of carrying a gun in one state (if possession = 10 years in jail for example, criminals might be less likely to carry them) but actually prevent them getting them? without state borders thats a laughable proposition I have never heard anyone make. I wish I kept count of the straw men you knock down, you are well practised in the art :)
Well, you really can’t expect much more from a crackhead can you?
And THAT is where you made your mistake, Lee! You ASSumed the “youths” were from DeeCee.
I don’t think he’s making that assumption at all, since his argument is that the location of the criminal’s home has nothing to do with the fact that DC still has one of the most draconian set of gun laws on the planet, and that proves that criminals couldn’t possibly have access to a gun.
Either that or it would prove that gun control laws don’t do shit to actually control the illegal use of guns, and we simply can’t have that.
have you honestly ever heard someone say that enacting gun laws in one state prevents a criminal from getting a gun from another state
Padders, you’re on drugs, bud. The *universal* rational for gun control laws, including in England, is that it prevents crime. (This distinction: “criminals might be less likely to carry them...but actually prevent them getting them?” is a non-point: When you “get” one, you have one, just like to have one you have to get one.)Simply put, it does not. In some cases, it prevents some *gun* crime (although often a statistically insignificant amount) but the impact on overall crime is consistently to increase it.
The most crime-ridden shitholes in America are consistently the ones with the toughest gun laws: Chicago (which outmurders New York City despite being a fraction of the size), Washington DC, etc. On the contrary, the crime rate *in* Virginia’s major cities, where you seem to be implying the criminals could’ve actually come from, isn’t comparable. Likewise, the United Kingdom and Australia are two of the most criminally active countries in the industrialized world (and hands down the winners among the major English-speaking nations): The percentage of the population in the UK and Australia who have been victimized by crime is 25-50% higher than the US.
This was not the case until the gun bans.
That said, on the off chance that anyone were to catch Marion Barry *in the act of stealing tax money*, I have no problems with anybody taking his ass out to stop the crime. If you don’t want to get shot, don’t steal. It’s easy.
Hey Lee, just for reference, the deal where you can highlight text and click ‘quote’ to enclose it in the quote tags? That doesn’t work in Firefox, it just slaps one on the end as if you didn’t highlight anything at all. Might be Firefox, might be code, dunno.
I don’t think he’s making that assumption at all, since his argument is that the location of the criminal’s home has nothing to do with the fact that DC still has one of the most draconian set of gun laws on the planet, and that proves that criminals couldn’t possibly have access to a gun.
I think we all agree on this subject as a whole (for a change!!).
I think Donn’s point was that the next logical step in the gun-grabber’s arsenal is to demand that surrounding areas ALSO outlaw guns. They will blame either Virginia, or Maryland (or wherever) for allowing free gun flow into DC. This is the tact they’ve taken from the get-go.
Of course, it’s all BS. Guns are almost illegal in Canada, and Toronto’s murder rate is up from prior years, for example. What do the libs in Canada do? Propose even STRICTER gun laws. The idiots.
Good thing we have a 2nd amendment - guns would have been flat-out outlawed already.
TV (Harry)
Lee,
You know it’s America’s fault, GWB, and Haliburton. Because all three invented guns and the rap music that forces people to kill each other.
This was not the case until the gun bans.
What gun bans are these?
"Posted by Inspector Callahan on 01/03/06 at 02:33 PM
Good thing we have a 2nd amendment - guns would have been flat-out outlawed already.
TV (Harry)”
Good thing for those that would take them away. Right around then is when I decide the state needs over thrown.
Me and about 30,000,000 others.
Completely off-topic, but Lee was quoted in the “Best of the Blogs” at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
Cool stuff!!
TV (Harry)
Sorry, guys! I got redirected by work just after making my comment. My point was to be tongue-in-cheek with Lee. As I’m sure Lee knows, and certainly as the point has been made by NYC and Massachusetts and Chicago and D.C. officials and intellectuals, there is an opinion or position among those pro-gun control groups and people in such areas that the “lax gun control” places like Virginia and Idaho, etc. are the “cause” of the guns continuing to flow into places like D.C. and Chicago and Mass. and NYC, in spite of their harsh gun control laws to combat crime by combating guns gained from lax gun laws.
Unfortunately for the gun control folks, there is very little evidence that tracks guns flowing from lax gun law states (like Virginia) into places like D.C., and causing the crime rate, esp. violent crime in which a gun is used.
And, depending on how the new gun ban turns out in San FranKornHOle, I expect that a loss by the NRA in its lawsuit will mean an incredible rise in crime in SFKH. In this case, SFKH intelligencia will blame the law gun control govt of California and the right wing central valley counties for pouring illegal guns into SFKH.
He should have told them, “Boys, I know this chick...”
Padders, you’re on drugs, bud. The *universal* rational for gun control laws, including in England, is that it prevents crime. (This distinction: “criminals might be less likely to carry them...but actually prevent them getting them?” is a non-point: When you “get” one, you have one, just like to have one you have to get one.)
The point is not between get/have the point is that localised gun control laws can have an affect in that people don’t want to be found with them. For example, put the possesion of a gun as a death sentance the day after conviction and you would find that criminals would not have as many guns. Of course those who are going out to murder someone with a gun would not care much but those going to rob a house, sell drugs on the street corner etc would. This sort of dispropritonate punishment works, like chopping off people’s hands for stealing etc.
However, unless you have very strict punishments for possession then restricting the sale of an iteam in a place where its very easy to import one is pointless. The same applies to drugs. If you want to stop people taking drugs you need to be very tough on the people that take drugs. Unless you have borders that don’t let drugs in (very hard) then you can’t stop supply - you need to target demand. Imagine banning alcohol sales in New York but the penalty for drinking is a $5 fine. Would people really not go and buy alcohol from the next state over. What happens if the penalty is firing squad for drinking. See how this works?
including in England
The difference between the US and England is that a) we are an island so stopping drugs coming in is somewhat easier, there are far less entry points. b) we don’t have a history of hand gun / machine gun ownership (plenty of shotguns of course) so its not like we need to get rid of millions of them and c) we have strict possesion laws - ie its straight of to jail for carrying them. I have been convinced by this site that banning handguns in the US istn’t feasable however regretable that is, but I certainly think we should keep the status quo in the US.
Likewise, the United Kingdom and Australia are two of the most criminally active countries in the industrialized world (and hands down the winners among the major English-speaking nations): The percentage of the population in the UK and Australia who have been victimized by crime is 25-50% higher than the US.
This was not the case until the gun bans.
Here you show your ignorance of the UK. The changing gun laws that came in after the Dunblane massacre really changed very little. Very few people hand hand guns in the UK then and still very few do now. The law was just tightened, if for no other reason that having to look like they where doing something. This legislation (tightening) has had very little changes. What is important is that almost no one (i never heard of a single case of) a hand gun being used in self-defense. A hand gun was never a crime deterrent so how could removing the very few guns there are have any affect on crime? You could also *never* carry a gun round with you to use in self-defense so the only possible deterrent would be a burgulary - but you can still have shotguns in your house (like I do) so its not like that has changed.
However, violent crime has also fallen since then under almost every statistic. What is up are things like mobile phone and ipod theft. Guns are still an issue - the whole hip-hop/rap its call to carry a gun and how many bullets you have in your body is an indication of how cool you are has not been missed by some of the young in the UK. This is where jail terms for simple possesion need to be made very clear and well advertised.
the deal where you can highlight text and click ‘quote’ to enclose it in the quote tags? That doesn’t work in Firefox…
click the ‘quote’ button, paste in your desired text, and click ‘quote’ again to close the tag. or hightlight and drag the tags about to your quoting pleasure. if your tag’s left open, notice, the button remains an angry red.
anyway, isn’t canada all pissy about this right now too? gun control, not open tags. well, i feel safer at night knowing all those evil guns are heading across the border instead of causing trouble at home.
For example, put the possesion of a gun as a death sentance the day after conviction and you would find that criminals would not have as many guns. Of course those who are going out to murder someone with a gun would not care much but those going to rob a house, sell drugs on the street corner etc would.
This is something of a non-issue as well: I’m still robbed either way.
Would people really not go and buy alcohol from the next state over. What happens if the penalty is firing squad for drinking. See how this works?
Uh, yeah, way ahead of you there, Batman. So how it difficult for you to accept that the risk of being shot in the head is an effective deterent to, for example, burglary?
I have been convinced by this site that banning handguns in the US istn’t feasable however regretable that is, but I certainly think we should keep the status quo in the US.
The current status quo is one where people in communities that deny them the right to self-defense are killed for a sandwich. (This literally happened in Boston.) On the other hand, it’s also one where communities that encourage gun ownership have crime rates significantly lower than those in Canada.
Here you show your ignorance of the UK. The changing gun laws that came in after the Dunblane massacre really changed very little. Very few people hand hand guns in the UK then and still very few do now. The law was just tightened, if for no other reason that having to look like they where doing something. This legislation (tightening) has had very little changes.
The data from the United Nations International Crime (Survey? Study?) and the Home Office as well as Australian authorities do not support this premise. Are you arguing that the proportion of the population victimized by crime is untrue? If you want to argue that the boost in crime rates had some other cause, that’s reasonable, but the convenient timing (as well as the simple fact that a much, much larger proportion of both populations are victimized by crime than in the U.S.) is something that needs to be addressed.
What is important is that almost no one (i never heard of a single case of) a hand gun being used in self-defense.
How would you? Anyone owning a handgun and using it would be jailed. That’s a significant deterrant, especially for the law-abiding types who don’t *want* to go to jail. Would you like to see self-defense data from the United States?
A hand gun was never a crime deterrent so how could removing the very few guns there are have any affect on crime?
The exact same reason that crime skyrockets in *American* cities that discourage gun ownership but collapses in those that encourage it: Psychology. The same United Nations data shows the United States as the #2 country in the world where more people feel safe walking the streets in the dark. The United Kingdom is way down at #12. Similarly, while something on the order of only 15% of burglaries take place while the victim is at home in the United States, that number has, in some years, exceeded 50% in the United Kingdom. It’s a logical extrapolation that burglars in the United States fear their victims, and burglars in the United Kingdom simply do not. (Coincidentally, the UK outburgles the United States nearly two-to-one on a per capita basis.)
You could also *never* carry a gun round with you to use in self-defense…
Based on what?
However, violent crime has also fallen since then under almost every statistic.
Mainly because they’re rigging the data. I won’t argue with your contention that it’s “fallen”, but Britain remains one of the most criminal urban societies on Earth, far more so than the United States. People aren’t just stealing iPods and mobile phones, they’re stealing *cars*. Keep falling, then come back.
Guns are still an issue - the whole hip-hop/rap its call to carry a gun and how many bullets you have in your body is an indication of how cool you are has not been missed by some of the young in the UK.
That’s not a “gun” issue, that’s an “idolizing criminality” issue. Kids who grow up with examples of *good* people with guns, like cowboys, soldiers, cops, and so on do not revel in looting and drugdeals. In Australia, gangs have taken to carrying swords as a way of getting around the gunban, and Sydney has had to consider a sword ban. At what point do you stop and acknowledge that the problem isn’t the tool, it’s the monster in control of it?
This is where jail terms for simple possesion need to be made very clear and well advertised.
Raising the kids better goes a lot further.
well, i feel safer at night knowing all those evil guns are heading across the border instead of causing trouble at home.
Yeah, it’s a good thing they spent two billion dollars on that gun registry just so that their stranglings, stabbings, and poisoning could go up the next year. *slaps forehead*
No, Lee, don’t you realize that it’s just because those gun control laws are still much too lax? The problem is just that there isn’t enough gun control. Chicago, DC, San Francisco, they still aren’t doing enough. You must build a large wall, with barbwire atop it, set up check points, and have gun-sniffing dogs go door to door and seize those murderous guns. And while they’re at it, they should put camera’s in everyone’s houses, just to make sure they didn’t sneak any guns by the dogs, or try to build their own. Only then, will we be able to live in a truly totalitarian utopian society!
The data from the United Nations International Crime (Survey? Study?) and the Home Office as well as Australian authorities do not support this premise. Are you arguing that the proportion of the population victimized by crime is untrue? If you want to argue that the boost in crime rates had some other cause, that’s reasonable, but the convenient timing (as well as the simple fact that a much, much larger proportion of both populations are victimized by crime than in the U.S.) is something that needs to be addressed.
Aaron, you really are full of shit. I have two questions for you:
1) How many handguns were removed from people’s homes after Dunblane?
2) Can you find a Briton on this blog who will agree with your theory that the gun ban created a rise in crime?
I’m gussing the answer to 1) is not very many, and I’ll be surprised if you can answer “Yes” to 2).
How many handguns were removed from people’s homes after Dunblane?
Irrelevant: Again, the motivating issue is psychology. It isn’t a hail of gunfire that stops the crime wave when the people are armed, it’s the anticipation of one. This is precisely why Illinois passed a law allowing people who illegally owned firearms an ‘out’ if the only reason the police found out about it was because they were defending themselves against another criminal.
Can you find a Briton on this blog who will agree with your theory that the gun ban created a rise in crime?
Offhand, I only *know* three Britons on this blog, and I haven’t asked Poosh. That said, it is simply true that a significant increase in Britain’s crime rate ran roughly alongside the aftermath of the gun ban. If you want to associate something else as the cause, fine, but as I said, the timing raises the question, especially since the same dynamic has matched the imposition of strict gun control regimes in Australia and, of course, here in the United States: Cities that impose draconian gun restrictions to disarm the populace for “safety” have an alarming tendency to end up on the lists of “America’s crime capitals” within a few short years.
That said, I don’t care how you spin it: There’s no way to make these numbers look good. Britain’s crime rate is a horror, and the United Nations ranks Scotland as *the* most violent country in the developed world, with England & Wales a close second.
If not being able to use or carry a handgun makes you feel safe in the most crime-ravaged corner of the Anglosphere outside of Louisiana, fine, it’s your country, delude yourself and sleep soundly in your bed while the man in the ski-mask picks at your locks, but don’t pretend that speculative non sequiters are a rebuttal for quantifiable data.
The status quo for gun laws in California is not something a sane person wants. Gun manufacturers are forced to pay $5000 every few years for a state run “drop test” for each gun model they want to sell. Every possible cosmetic change (like color) to the gun is considered a different model. So if a gun as black/silver/camo barrel, black/silver/9or10 capacity magazine, that’s like 20 separate drop tests they have to pay for.
Like every political issue in California, it’s all about the fake outrage. Of course color does not affect how safe a gun is when dropped, but the point here is to demonstrate how virtuous Senators Boxer and Feinstein are.
Aaron, the thing is you completly miss the point. A lot of the violence in the UK is drink related violence. People getting beaten up and in fights when they get kicked out of the pubs. Arm them and instead of people getting a black eye or a broken arm, they get dead.
Fortunatly this problem is being tackled by the changing in licensing laws to try and reduce this rapid excessive drinking in short periods of time and then throwing everyone out onto the street all at the same time.
Beyond that your points make no sense. You say the gun laws changes after Dunblane made made only psychological differences, to whom? Criminals. They already knew that no one had hand guns, as does everyone in the UK. I don’t think I have ever seen a handgun in this country at all, and I have seen hundreds of other guns from all types of shotguns to the rifles we used at school.
At the end of the day I can accept that in the US trying to restrict gun ownership is now a lost cause. You have so many guns in circulation that a gun grab will just take them from innocent people and not affect criminals. You are essentially stuck with your high gun dead rate and not sure there is much you can do about it.
While you deal with that we are very happy in the UK we have a fraction of the homicide rate that you do. We definitely have some concerning statistics about violence and a worry about knife attacks but both of these can be countered with some improved legislation and good police work. The idea that allowing everyone to have a gun would decreate the amount of fights and violence when drunk people come out of a pub is beyond laughable.
Irrelevant: Again, the motivating issue is psychology. It isn’t a hail of gunfire that stops the crime wave when the people are armed, it’s the anticipation of one. This is precisely why Illinois passed a law allowing people who illegally owned firearms an ‘out’ if the only reason the police found out about it was because they were defending themselves against another criminal.
No it’s not irrelevant, because the anticipation of armed homeowners was never there because homeowners were never armed in the first place.
In my 22 years, the only guns I’ve seen are shotguns owned by farmers, guns carried by the police and guns carried by soldiers (and I’ve never actually used one). I could not name any regular suburban citizen who has ever kept a gun in their home of any sort at any time.
How could the ban possibly remove a deterrant that wasn’t there in the first place?
Offhand, I only *know* three Britons on this blog
Well there’s:
Me - disagrees with your theory
Padders - disagrees with your theory
PJ - has written comments (when Lee wrote his very flawed post about this sort of thing in the first place) that would suggest that he disagrees with your theory.
Poosh - ?
So I’ll extend that question to include any Briton anywhere. So any politican, journalist, columnist, blogger etc. I would still be very surprised if you could find any.
I don’t think I have ever seen a handgun in this country at all, and I have seen hundreds of other guns from all types of shotguns to the rifles we used at school.
What type of school was that? I’m guessing that you are from a rurual background.
A lot of the violence in the UK is drink related violence.
Well there you go, Ban alchol… that will work so well…
I’m with my fellow Brits here. I’m happy to concede that the only way gun control will work in the US is if there was a way to magically ban gunss all over the US, and seal the borders - this is not feasible, do the answer has to be deal with gun crime, and not just guns. How about having a mandatory 10 year sentence for ANY crime involving a gun? Want to burgle a house, expect a 5 year sentence if caught. Take a gun along? 15 years mandatory.
In the UK, however, guns have never really been an issue. I think that the gun ban has way less of an effect on the crime statistics than other issues
You say the gun laws changes after Dunblane made made only psychological differences, to whom? Criminals. They already knew that no one had hand guns, as does everyone in the UK.
As I said before, I think this is a valid argument, and if you have a different explanation for what motivated the outgrowth of violent crime, I’m happy to entertain that, and you do: I’m, to put it gently, dubious of the notion that the United Kingdom’s drinking problem causes more assaults than the United States’ gang problem, but it doesn’t defy the laws of physics. It is within the scope of plausibility that the United Kingdom’s gun control experience is an isolated case and that the outgrowth of rampant violent crime in the years after the gun ban has no direct correlation to *the* gun ban. I’m not saying I *believe* it, but it’s plausible.
You have so many guns in circulation that a gun grab will just take them from innocent people and not affect criminals.
According to the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College, handgun crime grew by 40% in the two years after the ban. The same data showed that in the 20 police jurisdictions with the highest levels of gun ownership in the UK, only two had crime rates above the national average, where in the 20 with the lowest, 10 did.
How does this data strike you?
You are essentially stuck with your high gun dead rate and not sure there is much you can do about it.
No rational person should care about their “gun dead rate”. Dead is dead, and it’s ludicrous (and certainly no help to the victim) to distinguish between someone murdered with a knife and a gun. That said, two-thirds to three-quarters of America’s murders have consistently been shown to be associated with the criminal subculture of gangs and drugs, IE criminals killing criminals over crimes. I’m not particularly keen on deterring these people from offing each other, but if you look, you’ll see that our murder rate is skewed by a few ultra-murderous areas like DC.
As I said of England’s, this isn’t a gun problem, it’s a crime culture problem. Take away their guns and they’re still career criminals who love their jobs.
We definitely have some concerning statistics about violence and a worry about knife attacks but both of these can be countered with some improved legislation and good police work.
I have no way to extrapolate this data, but I would be willing to wager good money that if you remove people *involved* in crime from the tally of victims (that is, people who were victims of crime because they themselves associated with criminals regularly) you would find that the average Brit is significantly more likely to wind up mugged, beaten and left for dead in a gutter than your workaday American.
The idea that allowing everyone to have a gun would decreate the amount of fights and violence when drunk people come out of a pub is beyond laughable.
The idea that it would have any effect at all on drinking is somewhat laughable, but sorry, England’s car thefts and burglaries aren’t being perpetrated by hardcore drunks, though the assaults may be. (Yet at the same time, this does reek to me of redirecting blame: When I get drunk, I don’t, for example, start stabbing people. Probably because I’m not an asshole.)
For the record, there’s also not equivalence between all “violence”: If, in a drunken haze, someone pulls a knife on a woman and she shoots him in the head, that isn’t an “escalation” of violence, that’s a prevention. The drunk had it coming.
No it’s not irrelevant, because the anticipation of armed homeowners was never there because homeowners were never armed in the first place.
See above: If you have a contrary explanation, I’m perfectly willing to entertain it, but even I am not going to accept the premise that Brits are just more violent by nature.
PJ - has written comments (when Lee wrote his very flawed post about this sort of thing in the first place) that would suggest that he disagrees with your theory.
Hmmm, I forgot PJ. So four.
So I’ll extend that question to include any Briton anywhere. So any politican, journalist, columnist, blogger etc. I would still be very surprised if you could find any.
I have to go to work in a half an hour but I will happily take you up on this later. (In the meantime, Drum, have at it, Fact Bot.)
Well there you go, Ban alchol… that will work so well…
Oh yes, that certainly went a long way to reduce violence. *cough*
How about having a mandatory 10 year sentence for ANY crime involving a gun?
Clearly, the Brits are going to have to explain this to me, since liberals also believe it but are incapable of providing a logical argument for it:
Why is a gun murder worse than knife murder?
Why is a rape perpetrated at gunpoint worse than one conducted through sheer brute force?
Why is an armed robber with a gun a worse criminal than one with, say, a sword or crossbow?
*WHAT* is with this bizarre, religious paranoia of firearms?
Why is a gun murder worse than knife murder?
It’s fixation. They’re fixated on that particular object because it’s “scary” and sources like Hollywood and the media keep perpetuating myths and innaccuracies.
We’ve stopped punishing for the actual crimes and have become hung up on the methods. I guess we could give 5 years for sneaking in through an open window and 10 years for picking the front door lock. It makes about as much sense and special sentences for crimes involving those icky guns.
Tards.
See above: If you have a contrary explanation, I’m perfectly willing to entertain it, but even I am not going to accept the premise that Brits are just more violent by nature.
I’m not offering a contrary explanation, but that doesn’t make your theory any more valid. You’re the one with the theory, the burden of proof is on you.
And as far as I’m concerned the argument “the ban made very little difference to anything” is good enough to suggest that the ban didn’t cause an increase in crime.
good enough to suggest that the ban didn’t cause an increase in crime.
But it didn’t cause a decrease, either, and that was what was intended. Why fight to pass a law that only punishes those who actually obey the laws, and makes no difference in the behavior of those who do not?
Just a couple of things, as its late.
What type of school was that? I’m guessing that you are from a rurual background.
Yeah, it was sort of rural, but it was in the CCF - army type stuff. We used special versions of the guns the army regularly use as well as other types of rifles for target practice. I agree its unusual. My point was that for a Britain I have used guns a lot more than the average person but I have still never once seen a handgun or heard of a single person that keeps a gun for self-defense.
Why is a gun murder worse than knife murder?
Why is a rape perpetrated at gunpoint worse than one conducted through sheer brute force?
Why is an armed robber with a gun a worse criminal than one with, say, a sword or crossbow?
None of them are. No one is suggesting that a murder should be punished different however that murder was comitted.
The point is that guns make it very easy to kill people. They are too dangerous and there only purpose is to kill people (as opposed to say a car).
In the UK the only person who even considers carrying a hand gun around with them is a criminal. In the same way in the US the only person who points a rocket launcher at an airport is a criminal. It really is that simple, guns just don’t have any place in UK society - I really don’t know of not a single person who would even consider wanting to have one. This is why most people support mandatory sentances for anyone having one. It would become a lot less cool to have a gun if you know that just being found with it = lots of jail time (you do already get some).
But it didn’t cause a decrease, either, and that was what was intended. Why fight to pass a law that only punishes those who actually obey the laws, and makes no difference in the behavior of those who do not?
You keep on repeating the fallacy that gun law’s don’t have any affects on criminals but this is completly wrong.
a) It’s much harder for a criminal to get a gun in the UK than it is in the US. Your average kid stealing a car is not going to have the connections to get a gun and then happen to kill someone in a botched robbery.
b) Criminals are not going to carry guns if they are going to get dispropotionate sentances by doing so. Don’t you have the same sort of thing in the US, robbery v armed robbery? Dosen’t it make a difference in sentancing independant of whether anyone gets hurt. Its exactly the same logic.
We are not trying to say that gun laws are going to stop pre-meditated murder. It might make it harder for the criminal and more likely that they will get caught - but really at the end of the day it’s not very hard to kill someone if you don’t care about getting caught - and having a gun for self-protection is not going to be any use against an even remotley planned attempt to kill someone either. What removing guns do is de-escalate conflicts between criminals and normal people. Violence turns to death rather more rapidly when guns are involved.
Aaron, I also agree that a lot of the gun problem in the US istn’t a gun problem but a drug problem. Legalise all drugs, its really the only way.
But it didn’t cause a decrease, either, and that was what was intended. Why fight to pass a law that only punishes those who actually obey the laws, and makes no difference in the behavior of those who do not?
There is one more fallacy here, gun restrictions are often imposed because gun crime is rising. Say in South Africa where gun crime is rampant. Now restricting guns - whatever the stats do over the next couple of year proves nothing because you don’t know what the actual causation is that rapidly.
Its like an economy. If its doing badly the central bank might lower interest rates. The economy is likely not to do well the next few months because interest rates take a while to have an affect - but it would be errerous in 2 months time to say ... look .. lower interest rates and GDP is down. Thus lowering interest rates is a bad thing. The same is the case with guns, generally gun restrictions start being imposed when gun crime starts getting out of hand. Solving the problem is not going to happen overnight, it might well get worse before it gets better.
But gun control laws are always intended to limit the behavior of people who have already shown to not have any respect for those limits.
Law-abiding people wouldn’t be using the guns in an aggressive fashion in the first place, and criminals wouldn’t be obeying the law anyway (that’s why they’re called “criminals"). Yet after every tragedy, liberals and other gun-grabbers do everything they can to further restrict the options of those who did nothing wrong.
Does that sound fair to you?
Is it fair when those same gun grabbers go after types of guns that weren’t even involved in the tragedy, but merely “look scary”?
Given the statistics that show no relation between gun availability and crime, and the stats that show that for every incident where a gun was used to harm another there were several defensive uses of a weapon (including where merely showing the weapon has deterred a crime from continuing) for every aggressive use of a weapon to commit a crime, why should those who did nothing wrong suffer for the actions of those who choose to break the law? Why should you take away what little protection they have?
Barry, who wasn’t injured in the Monday night robbery, said he gave the youths a couple of dollars for helping unload groceries from his car and they left.
Groceries must be a codeword for crack. I learn new things all the time here.
Hopefully these youths will just bludgeon their next victim with a fricken hammer so that we’ll appear more civilized to our overseas friends. Logic has no place in foreign public opinion.
Hopefully these youths will just bludgeon their next victim with a fricken hammer so that we’ll appear more civilized to our overseas friends. Logic has no place in foreign public opinion.
How dare you Americans to seek retribution for crimes commited. Weird to my ears.
/sarc
Clearly, the Brits are going to have to explain this to me, since liberals also believe it but are incapable of providing a logical argument for it:
Why is a gun murder worse than knife murder?
It isn’t, but there is a major difference between the Uk and the US - the only reason that someone would have a gun is to commit crime. A knife is used in several not criminal activities. Home defence isn’t culturally such an issue over here, and we don’t have to protect ourself from much wildlife - so why would someone want a gun if not for nefarious reasons?
So - Drum, the situation isn’t that law abiding citizens are having their guns taken away from them - it is just the criminals.
ps - I have no data or proof for this, its just my opinion, and I coulod be talking out of my arse.
the only reason that someone would have a gun is to commit crime
I’m not sure if that’s the case - have you never eaten pheasant? It’s much kinder than farmed chicken - they get to live in the wild all their lives, and have a fighting chance of making their escape.
From a security point of view, I’m much happier with a gun in the house than without.
It isn’t, but there is a major difference between the Uk and the US - the only reason that someone would have a gun is to commit crime. A knife is used in several not criminal activities. Home defence isn’t culturally such an issue over here, and we don’t have to protect ourself from much wildlife - so why would someone want a gun if not for nefarious reasons?
and here we have a British subject. notice how docile and easly they are.....................
I’m not sure if that’s the case - have you never eaten pheasant? It’s much kinder than farmed chicken - they get to live in the wild all their lives, and have a fighting chance of making their escape.
From a security point of view, I’m much happier with a gun in the house than without.
He means hand gun or automatic weapon. I own a shotgun which is locked in a cabinet, where it has to be by law. A license is also needed. There are also a number of regulations on transporting them to go shooting. Not convinced shooting pheasants is that kind though, they don’t always die very quickly and sometimes require the shooter to strangle them (if you have a well trained dog who hastn’t ripped them to shreads by then).
The point is no one has any other type of gun apart from criminals. Every gun that is “grabbed” is a gun from a criminal.
Have you guys never seen Lock stock and two smoking barrels? It might give you an indication on the complete differences on guns in the UK v the US. It has taken me a while to understand and accept that the US is different and you adoption our method is not going to work, the opposite is absolutly true.
and here we have a British subject. notice how docile and easly they are.....................
Are you talking from a criminal stand point here, or the government. I find it laughable that Americans still think a few hand guns is going to do anything against a government that wants to oppress you. Look at dictatorships around the world, most of them are swarming with guns.
Oh, and the British arn’t exactly docile when they get pissed about something.
But gun control laws are always intended to limit the behavior of people who have already shown to not have any respect for those limits.
But that’s a blanket statment. I occasionaly break the speed limit, which is against the law. Someone may steal a car but would be less inclined to steal a car with the aid of a gun if there is a 15 year sentance for doing so, as opposed to the few months you likely get for stealing the car. I am sure you can see there is a difference - the presence of guns in minor crimes massivly increase the chance someone will die.
Cheers Padders - that is exactly what I meant.
I find it laughable that Americans still think a few hand guns is going to do anything against a government that wants to oppress you.
A few? No. 80 million gun owners holding approximately 300 million guns, most of whom have had military or police experience? You bet your ass.
Look at dictatorships around the world, most of them are swarming with guns.
And not one of those guns are held by private citizens. You think that the average Sudanese citizen gets to carry weapons? Or North Korean? Or Chinese?
Why do you suppose that is?
And in case you missed the whole point of it, the United States government either fears the citizens of the United States (which is how it should be) or trusts them (which is an awfully close second on the “approved government moods” list).
Another argument I’ve heard is that there is no reason why citizens should be allowed to carry weapons, because who would be crazy enough to attack the United States?
Exactly.
It’s unthinkable.
Good.
80 million citizens able to fight back against an oppressive government or foreign invader is a pretty strong deterrent.
I occasionaly break the speed limit, which is against the law.
Yes, and when you get caught, you get punished.
But imagine if someone else broke the speed limit, and the government - rather than punishing that one speeder for his illegal actions - decided to ban the sale of all cars of that make and model, as well as a few others that “looked like they could speed, too”?
Fair? Logical? Reasonable?
No to all three. Because they are punishing people who have not yet broken any laws.
Think about this: Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun, but he and others are arguing that I shouldn’t be allowed to have my gun because I might hurt somebody or commit a crime with it…
I also find it amusing that the same people arguing that our government is a secret shadow fascism are also the ones saying that only the government can be trusted with control of the guns.
Next entry: The Gloves Are Off
Previous entry: Union Jackoff
Excellent point!