TargetTalk

Like I said. I am not for any kind of full ban on all guns. I just see no reason for civilians to have these crazy military weapons.

Could you attempt to enlighten us as to exactly what sort of "crazy military weapons" to which you believe we in the US have unfettered access?

For civilians to have access to these weapons, it certainly doesn't make it harder for criminals to get a hold of them does it? If the weapons are somewhere that someone can steal them, does it not increase the risk of criminals getting these weapons?

Nor apparently does it make it any easier, as attested to by the flood of guns easily available to criminals in every part of the world, regardless of the local laws. As someone once observed, if all guns were to be outlawed and every one confiscated in the US tomorrow, criminals would simply hide contraband firearm imports in current drug shipments, and they'd be sold as widely and easily as drugs are today.

What about these lawfully gun owning nutcases that have access to these weapons? Not that not having access to these weapons would stop someone from hurting others, but they sure do help and make said acts easier and more effective. Surely there is some slack somewhere in the laws that can be tightened to help prevent this?

Do you have any statistics on how many time this sort of thing (i.e., a legal gun owner with no previous history of serious mental illness "just snaps" and kills someone) actually happens? Here's a hint: it's significantly less than 1% as often as a legal gun owner using a firearm to defend their life or the lives of their family or neighbors.

The issue isn't so black and white. I am not some "gun's are bad mmmk" kind of activist, but I don't understand how the people on the other side of the fence can not see that there can't be some kind of improvement.

Oh, rest assured, that as rational people with a much firmer grasp of the empirical evidence than your lot tends to demonstrate, we see numerous improvements that can be made. Why is it that you're unwilling to consider such improvements when they run counter to your party line?

Maybe, coming from the city and from a country where people aren't so diehard patriotic, I just don't understand that kind of mind-set that those from the US have about the Constitution and guns. I guess I never will.

Yes, the idea that government derives its only just powers from the consent of the governed, and that the people always retain the absolute right to replace a government that refuses to accept that reality with another one more cognizant of its proper place in the grand scheme of things, is a concept that's proven rather difficult for some people to grasp. As one of our founders once said, ""If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.""

I'm sure nowadays in the US it really wouldn't make a difference anyways, the guns are already out there.

One certainly hopes so.

alb wrote:Of course, the UK is the place where the Tony Martin incident occurred:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent. ... mar20.html

Yes it is, with an illegally held shotgun. Incidentally, shotguns have not been banned.

alb wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:

alb wrote: Actually, owning a machine gun is illegal in the U.S.

Actually, it is not.

If your state has not outlawed the possession of an automatic firearm, you can purchase one by applying for a tax stamp from the ATF. The process includes background checks and there are significant restrictions on the interstate transport of such a firearm, but legal it is.

Technically, you are correct. But the bar to ownership of such weapons is so high that they are 'effectively' illegal anyway.

The bar is only high financially, as the cost of transferrable class 3 firearms has gone up to an artificially limited demand.

Getting a supressor or a short-barreled rifle is actually quite easy. If your Chief Law Enforcement Officer does not want to sign off on the application, just create a corporation with the Secretary of State and away you go.

David Levene wrote:

alb wrote:Of course, the UK is the place where the Tony Martin incident occurred:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent. ... mar20.html

Yes it is, with an illegally held shotgun. Incidentally, shotguns have not been banned.

Why should Mr. Martin have to prove any need to have a firearm? Please don't say "because it's the law". Our laws used to hold that black men were property, not humans.

David Levene wrote:

alb wrote:Of course, the UK is the place where the Tony Martin incident occurred:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent. ... mar20.html

Yes it is, with an illegally held shotgun. Incidentally, shotguns have not been banned.

Yes, he was convicted of self defense with an unregistered shotgun. I understand that the surviving burglar was given 5,000 pounds by the British government to sue Tony Martin for injuries that he sustained during the commision of his felony.

If Martin had stabbed these home invaders with a rake, would that have been OK?

Is it the gun that made Martin's act of self defense a crime, or is it the act of self defense itself? Is it illegal in the UK to carry any kind of implement at all which can be used as an offensive weapon? Remember, Martin was convicted of murder, not of posession of an unregistered shotgun. Could Martin have even registered his shotgun if he had made the attempt?

alb wrote:You're absolutely correct, though. A locked and inaccessible gun isn't much use against a burglar.

As far as what is happening in the UK being a coincidence, there is a whole pile of statistical data that you are ignoring that suggests that it isn't.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Except in extremely rare cases, if a pistol wasn't in transit to a range or actually being worked on then, if it wasn't locked and inaccessible then it was illegal. Self defence was not an option so would not have been a deterrant.

There may well be a valid case for claiming that allowing guns to be owned for self defence, and stored in circumstances to facilitate it, would help to deter crime. That was not however the case in the UK before the pistol ban. Claiming that the ban removed such a deterrant is therefore twisting the truth somewhat.

Hurtling further and further off-topic.....

David Levene wrote:Yes it is, with an illegally held shotgun. Incidentally, shotguns have not been banned.

Although they have not been banned, using them to defend yourself is illegal. I've read of cases where people have been prosecuted for even brandishing a weapon, as they put criminals into "fear for their lives or safety".

It seems that the root cause of all of this, in the UK as well as in the US, is that people are no longer called to account for their crimes*, and that criminals are somehow entitled to to some sort of rights while committing crimes. After reading about the Tony Martin case, I'd argue that the (thankfully deceased) robber should have been in jail anyway for at least 50 years based upon his previous record of activity.

If you don't mete out meaningful punishment for crimes then what's the point in prosecuting? Letting people like this operate in society simply causes additional problems as they (a) reproduce, and (b) instill their "values" in their children and others.

*note: also, the idea of what constitutes a "crime" seems to have taken a turn for the bizarre in the UK. Defending yourself and your property, by any means necessary, should not be a crime.

alb wrote:Is it the gun that made Martin's act of self defense a crime, or is it the act of self defense itself?

More likely it was the fact that he was bragging about what he was going to do a few days before in the pub, together from the evidence from the scene, that persuaded the jury it was not self defence.

alb wrote:Could Martin have even registered his shotgun if he had made the attempt?

Yes, providing that he had a legaly valid reason for wanting one and was not barred from doing so because of his history.

Jose Rossy wrote:Why should Mr. Martin have to prove any need to have a firearm? Please don't say "because it's the law". Our laws used to hold that black men were property, not humans.

I am certainly not arguing that our laws are justifiable, far from it.

I am merely pointing out that there is no evidence that the ban on legally held pistols and the increase in violent crime in the UK are not linked.

methosb wrote:
Maybe, coming from the city and from a country where people aren't so diehard patriotic, I just don't understand that kind of mind-set that those from the US have about the Constitution and guns. I guess I never will.

Yes, that must be the difference between a nation founded as a penal colony and then its chains gradually released by its colonial masters and one founded by the rebellion of free men against a tyrannical monarchy.

Some more light reading for you:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, March 23rd 1775

BTW, the state motto of the State of New Hampshire, boldly printed on every car number plate, is Live Free or Die.

David Levene wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:Why should Mr. Martin have to prove any need to have a firearm? Please don't say "because it's the law". Our laws used to hold that black men were property, not humans.

I am certainly not arguing that our laws are justifiable, far from it.

I am merely pointing out that there is no evidence that the ban on legally held pistols and the increase in violent crime in the UK are not linked.

I should rather believe Dr. Lott's rigorous analysis.

Jose Rossy wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:Why should Mr. Martin have to prove any need to have a firearm? Please don't say "because it's the law". Our laws used to hold that black men were property, not humans.

I am certainly not arguing that our laws are justifiable, far from it.

I am merely pointing out that there is no evidence that the ban on legally held pistols and the increase in violent crime in the UK are not linked.

I should rather believe Dr. Lott's rigorous analysis.

But Lott's analysis is based on extensive data collected in the U.S., not the UK. Apparently, human beings are fundamentally different in the UK -- normal economic principles apparently don't apply there.

For several hundred years, the UK boasted one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. They also had what anti-gun types refer to as a "gun culture." Then, beginning in 1968, the British government started instituting tougher and tougher gun control laws, and the violent crime rate in the UK started rising steadily. In the late 1990's the UK instituted a total ban on pistols. And the violent crime rate soared, just like it has in jurisdictions across the U.S. where strict gun control is enforced, in contrast to other jurisdictions in the U.S. where non-discretionary concealed-carry laws were enacted and the crime rate dropped.

I'm citing the work of the economist John Lott for the U.S. experience and the work of the historian Joyce Lee Malcolm for the British experience.

David Levene wrote:

alb wrote:Is it the gun that made Martin's act of self defense a crime, or is it the act of self defense itself?

More likely it was the fact that he was bragging about what he was going to do a few days before in the pub, together from the evidence from the scene, that persuaded the jury it was not self defence.

alb wrote:Could Martin have even registered his shotgun if he had made the attempt?

Yes, providing that he had a legaly valid reason for wanting one and was not barred from doing so because of his history.

Apparently the criminals didn't get the word that Martin was prepared to defend himself, or else they were too stupid to be deterred.

And my understanding is that self defense is not considered a legally valid reason for owning a firearm in Great Britain.

David Levene wrote:

alb wrote:Consider the reality that the violent crime rate has gone through the roof in Australia and Great Britain since they banned guns, before you advocate more gun control.

Just to set the facts straight, at least for the UK, the increase in violent crime has nothing to do with the banning of cartridge pistols. It is pure coincidence, but at least proves that legalised ownership was not the cause of the illegal use.

So it was "pure coincidence" that cartridge pistols were banned, and the crime rate went up? Looks more like the direct effect of an action to me. The "bad guys" can now run rampant without fear of personal injury.

John

bruce wrote:I'm glad that where I live, the closest thing to a crime wave we get is when a few windows are broken on a Saturday night.

alb wrote:A Google search (violent crime statistics scotland) turned up the following article, among others:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... -3292.aspx

Congratulations! Scotland, as part of the UK, has overtaken Australia for having the worst violent crime rate.

LMAO. The linked article refers to a telephone survey, with an undisclosed methodology and sample size. Whereas, statistics gathered for the Scottish government for the period 2003/05 suggest a homicide figure of 2.26/100,000 population http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 4114316/25
which would compare well with the 10 safest states in the US according to
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
My earlier post was not flamebait, nor an attack on Jose and his choice to carry a weapon for self defence. it was only an expression of my relief that I do not feel the need to arm myself.
As to this

Derek wrote:I was going to comment but it's obvious he is either a troll or a socialist.
It's not worth my effort. You can't help those who won't help themselves.

It's obvious that anyone who's opinion varies in the slightest from that of "Derek", is a "troll" or a "socialist"

This has been a fairly shocking exchange of values in this thread.

How is it "civilized" to take away from the weaker (the elderly, woman, children, the frail, the handicapped) the tools they need to protect tehmselves from the stronger?

Violent criminals are strong people. They are strong in body and spirit. They are dedicated, hard working, and persistent.

They will not be stopped by logic.

Even in Scotland I'm afraid.

They can only be stopped by force.

So when you take away an individual's means to defend themselves, you leave them defenseless.

Check your own laws- I don't think any country recognizes a legal or moral responsibility to protect individual citizens. Leviathan never will. The state is quite willing, however, to trake away your own right of self defense.

This isn't shocking that tyrants would go along with this conundrum.

What is shocking is that individual human beings would not only go along with the idea . . . but think it actually makes sense.

Steve

bruce wrote:
My earlier post was not flamebait, nor an attack on Jose and his choice to carry a weapon for self defence. it was only an expression of my relief that I do not feel the need to arm myself.

Bruce, for the record I did not take your post in any way other than the way you intended.

I happen to live in an area such as yours now. But I have lived in places that are worse. I also sometimes go to a nearby city where crime is far more abundant. And furthermore, criminals know that peaceful towns and areas are also usually populated with prosperous people with a false sense of security.

If I knew when I would need a weapon to defend myself I a) would be elsewhere at that time and b) start buying lottery tickets. But I don't know when that will be so I take reasonable precautions.

bruce wrote:LMAO. The linked article refers to a telephone survey, with an undisclosed methodology and sample size. Whereas, statistics gathered for the Scottish government for the period 2003/05 suggest a homicide figure of 2.26/100,000 population http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 4114316/25
which would compare well with the 10 safest states in the US according to
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

First of all, the UN study deals with the total violent crime rate, not the homicide rate (it's a little difficult to conduct a phone survey of homicide victims). Second, I would suggest that you read, "Notes on Statistics included in this Bulletin" for a definition of what the Scottish government calls a 'homicide'. This definition differs rather drastically from the definition used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, which includes any death occurring during the commission of a violent crime as a 'homicide', including justified homicides.

The UN study applied the same methodology across 21 countries, not just Scotland. It found Scotland to have the worst violent crime rate. Phone surveys are a standard methodology used to distinguish between actual crime rate and the rate of crimes reported to the police, and are typically conducted anonymously using randomized dialing procedures to avoid sampling bias, and controls are used to eliminate bias caused by memory loss or 'telescoping', among other things. If you think that the UN study is flawed, perhaps you would care to research it and explain why.

It's interesting to see the difference in mindsets between subjects and citizens.
For the Scottish guy, good luck with the devolution thing...you might be a free and independent country again some day.

corning wrote:So it was "pure coincidence" that cartridge pistols were banned, and the crime rate went up? Looks more like the direct effect of an action to me. The "bad guys" can now run rampant without fear of personal injury.

To convince me that it was anything other than coincidence you would need to show that the pre-ban legal ownership of pistols was a deterrent to crime. With the scarcity of cases of legally owned pistols being used for self defence (I cannot remember hearing of any) I think you would find it difficult to make that link.

With fewer than 1 person in 1000 owning pistols, and those pistols being effectively inaccessible for self defence use, they really weren't much of a deterrent.