Originally posted by: loic2003
Whoa kids, before you wear out the letters 'p','w','n' and indeed, 'd' on your semen-encrusted input devices (for those of you that developed) lets first take a look at the article in question.
For a discussion about the neccessity of guns within modern, advanced civilisation, it's interesting -to say the least- to link to an article that does not contain a single instance of the words "firearm", "weapon", "rifle", "handgun", "shotgun" "armed", "pistol" or even "gun", and then to assume it makes any kind of relevant point. So lets break up this dancing-round-the-flagpole party and cool off your collectively-induced chubbies shall we
Sure we have an issue with crime in the UK, but there's a significant difference between a
chav half-inching a Vauxhall Nova and a couple of
kids going nuts with automatic weaponry, or
some nut showing off his sniper skills to the general public in a dramatic manner.
"pwned" indeed...
Let us continue.
From that link:
The UN reports also shows that England and Wales are the second-worst places in the world for assaults... and seventh for burglaries and car theft
Seems that all that crime isnt merely property theft. With or without a weapon, having the 2nd highest assault rate in the world isnt anything to brag about. Furthermore, you seem to not know the meaning of the term "automatic weaponry" as precisely ZERO automatic weapons were used in the Columbine school shootings, nor "sniper skills" as they managed to miss walking targets in open view at ~100 yards (meaning you should have written "showing off their lack of sniper skills"). In any event, the Columbine shootings involved the commision of, IIRC, 19 federal firearm felonies. How would tacking a few more on there change anything? As a side note, it should be "kid", singular, as one of the Columbine shooters was legally an adult.
BTW, another link showing gun crime increasing after the handgun ban. So... what exactly was that ban supposed to accomplish? And what exactly has it accomplished, other than disarming lawful citizens?
An interesting point of view about the British gun problem was provided by a gentleman named
Paul Evans. This chap was from Boston (that's in america) and he used to be a police commissioner there. He did some valiant work with reducing gun crime in Boston. This guy came to England not so long ago and took a detailed look at the gun issues over here. Although work needs to be done on the gun issues in the UK, Paul felt positive. To sum up his opinions I have this choice quote from him:
You have got a very, very small gun problem compared to what I have experienced.
Interesting.
Interesting, but not exactly "useful", since England has always had a very small gun problem compared to America. But dont worry, you chaps are closing that gap. Now, if he had said something to the effect of "I believe the latest gun control measures are working to reduce crime", it would be a point in your favor. However, since such things as homocides committed with a handgun have gone up in the UK since the passage of the ban, it would be unlikely that he would say such a thing, unless he is either stupid or a liar. Also, in your link about him he never mentioned gun control as a reason why he was successful in Boston.
As for gun deaths in the US being limited to cities,
some have researched the issue and have found differently.
From your link:
Likewise, the most urban counties in America had almost twice as many gun-related deaths by homicide as the most rural counties.
Given that the most rural counties make up for that gap by higher rates of gun suicides, and given that you can have plenty of suicides without guns (see Japan), I hardly see this as a rubuttal to Jules Maximus's statement that "Gun crimes are much much lower in rural areas and in the suburbs." If people want to kill themselves, it really isnt that hard to do; it definitely does not require the use of a gun.
More interesting facts?
Although the exact number of Americans killed by gun violence in the 20th century will never be known, it is now all but certain that it will, by any measure, vastly exceed the number of Americans shot and killed on battlefields since 1900. In fact, more Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858)
Most of those are suicides. Again, people kill themselves just fine without the use of guns, and I dont see gun suicides as a reason to be against gun ownership.
This research highlights that killings of passion are reduced when guns are removed from the equation.
As for defending yourself in the home,
some feel differently:
In fact, a gun in the home increases the risk of being a murder victim by three times and by 20 times if there has been a previous domestic violence incident in the home.
Every study I have seen that has found a statistically significant increase in risk for people with guns in their homes has included suicides. I couldnt find a link to that specific study to double check, however. See my next paragraph.
Enough. On to the aptly named "Gun Control?s Twisted Outcome" cleverly linked by 0roo0roo... twice!
Well, it certainly is an interesting paper with some valid point, for sure. Gun crime will increase in the short term when guns are removed from the law-abiding citizens. However, for those of you at an advanced-level or beyond level of education, you'll know it is common practice to approach all papers with a degree of scepticism. A lack of references should raise eyebrows, but the
blatantly obvious ulterior motive would make most people balk.
It is for this same reason that until now I am yet to make reference to the findings of
Michael Moore in his documentary
Bowling for Columbine. He raises some very interesting points that reflect very badly upon america, but you must take these findings with a pinch of salt since the guy is making money from it. Similarly, the media like to dramatise their stories in order to captivate the audience.
On a side note, I find it curious as to why other high profile americans feel they should
tell the world their
feelings on the current status of their country.
Ummmm, yeah. Every article written will have some sort of bias. What you have to do is get hard numbers, and the criteria used to arrive at those hard numbers. The last gun control debate I remember being in here on ATOT, I linked to several CDC studies, and debunked a lot of HCI "facts". Generally, I find direct links to the studies, or at least links that allow you to find out the criteria used in the studies, to be much more useful. Hard numbers and a knowledge of what was used to define those numbers is about as close to bias free as you are going to get.
Anyhow, it's conclusion time as I, like you, am tired of this thread.
Suffice to say that neither of us will convince the other.
Personally, I do not mind if this thread continues. And IIRC,
Orooroo used to be a rather firm advocate of gun control, and has since switched sides. So people's minds do change, just not as often or as quickly as they should.
Americans like the feeling of power that a gun provides, would feel their rights are infringed is more control was put in place, and enjoy the security it supposedly provides. Britains like to be more conservative and have tigher control of these weapons. A generalisation, of course.
I would generalize it more as a matter of Americans believe it is their own personal duty to defend themselves, as the government obviously cannot, and is not legally obligated. Both facts that I believe hold true in England (if the second one is not true, then you can sue your government if you get mugged), though I may be wrong in the second case. Given that Britian has the second highest assault rate in the industrialized world, it would be rather costly if they did take responsibility for your personal protection.
Obviously I feel that we should move on beyond the levels of kill for kill as I think this is a truly dated mentality and we will not advance as a civilisation if we remain this way. If we require weaponry to defend ourselves simply going about our daily lives then the social source of the problem should be addressed rather than having to arm the public.
When saddam was thought to have chemical weapons we didn't just give the public gas masks, we instead eliminated the source so he was no longer a threat (whether he really was is another discussion entirely).
Perhaps my feelings are somewhat utopian, but I would like to feel that in this day when we in the western world have such power, stability, technology and ultimately a uniform goal for living conditions, that we can eliminate the need for dated brutal killing devices amongst our law-abiding public.
In society composed completely of pacifists, such idealism may work just fine. In a world quite different from that hypothetical society of pacifists, a world I like to call "reality", some people will hurt other people to get what they want. But really, since there are no facts in question in the above quote, just your opinions and hopes, I'm not going to be debating any of this. I will say however that "the social source of the problem" is mankind and his free will, two things I do not wish to see eliminated.
I leave you with a quote from Kofi "I never met a dictator I didnt like" Annan, UN Secretary-General:
"The proliferation of small arms, and munitions and explosives has also aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."
For one thing, if I found Kofi Annan supporting my position, I'd re-evaluate it. Not necessarily change it, but definitely double check. Secondly, political instability isnt always a bad thing, it depends on the current political climate in the country, and what ends the opposition is working towards. Personally, I'm pretty darn happy that the area I live in was politically unstable ~225 years ago, and indeed you could make a pretty good comparison between the stategic situation then and a hypothetical popular uprising in the USA a couple years from now. Except, of course, it is not US military doctrine to get dressed in very bright uniforms before marching down the street carrying weapons with much shorter range than what farmers carried... but I digress.
In closing, please remember that you can have freedom, or you can have safety. Dont ever count on having both (paraphrased from Heinlein). Personally, I prefer freedom. However, this may be the point regarding which we will have to agree to held differing personal preferences.