Guns Don't Kill People, Gun Control Kills People

[Acrimonious]

ROFL The Brits apparently had a 5-week amnesty to turn in illegal knives...


It sounds like the gun amnesty bullshit they pulled a few decades ago, the same bullshit Australia recently pulled, and the same bullshit California has done a few times for "assault weapons."

 

[Cranky Bastard]

ROFL The Brits apparently had a 5-week amnesty to turn in illegal knives...

What's next? Slingshots? Rolling pins? Baseball bats? Butter knives?

Screwdrivers!?

"Carrying a screwdriver in commission of a crime? Life in prison!"

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Sheeeit.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Stupid sheeple never learn.

 

[headvoid]

You wanted a link to a lone psycho stabber? Here's a Brit-stabber for you, and a cupcakeer at that. They let him out to go shopping recently. Apparently he went nuts in a department store and stabbed 17 people.

In the decent states in America (the ones without draconian gun laws) he would have been shot.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006380337,00.html

Not one of them was killed

 

[headvoid]

Here's one link. I'm sure I can drudge up more of them from British sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5366544.stm


Some highlights:
"An audit at The Royal London Hospital found a rise in admissions for stabbing injuries over the last decade.

The evidence appears to show that knife injuries are an epidemic, the team told the British Medical Journal."

"In London last year there were 1,200 reported stabbings, and 30% of homicides involved a knife, police and Home Office data show."

"Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This is a direct consequence of Labour's failure to tackle violent crime on our streets."

In summary: Guns are banned. Violent crimes are now being comitted with knives. Violent crime is on the rise. The government has failed to control it and is calling it an epidemic. If half of the citizens in the U.K. were armed with concealed pistols (and the bobbies were allowed to carry pistols) criminals might think twice about muggings, beatings, stabbings, and shootings.

From your own fuckin article you tool

However, in England and Wales, 6% of all violent crime is knife related - a figure which has remained stable for several years.

In summary, Would you trust half of all Americans to carry concealed pistols? Who dedides which half? You? You've just made a mistake in this article you quoted, I wouldn't trust you to run the local candy store.

 

[The Question]

Nobody has to trust us -- We get to trust Ourselves. We don't need a nanny, and it's the fact that we're getting closer and closer to having one that's fucking things up, not the other way around.

In any case, the fact that Britain has fewer random shootings isn't a testament to a lack of available weapons as it is a testament against the lack of responsibility with the weapons available to Americans. Stigmatizing gun ownership stigmatizes the knowledge that accompanies responsible gun ownership -- which results in no fewer owners, but far fewer responsible owners.

 

[headvoid]

So we are just resorting to your own opinions now?

Glad we got that sorted then

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

But, I do agree that trying to push the same model on America is basically impossible. It is a different situation and the size of the country and many other variables should be considered.

The primary vrariable is that you are "subjects" of your sovereign government - i.e. you are not Free and what liberties and rights you possess are granted to you be your government.

Conversely, in the US (in theory at least) the government is "subject" to the sovereignty of the people, and We The People have declared that our rights and liberties are inherent. What is inherent cannot be "granted" and therefore cannot be taken away without tyranny.

A disarmed people is, by definition, an unfree people.

In short: you Brits are pussies who have bent over and let your tyrant masters fuck you up the ass.

 

[The Question]

So we are just resorting to your own opinions now?

Glad we got that sorted then

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with my opinions. They're mine, therefore they are law. So there, and neener-neener-boo-boo-peas, and so forth.

 

[Acrimonious]

Not one of them was killed

No, but if one of them had a gun, that knife-wielding cupcakeer would have been dead, rather than let loose on shopping holidays by the authorities.

 

[Acrimonious]

From your own fuckin article you tool


In summary, Would you trust half of all Americans to carry concealed pistols? Who dedides which half? You? You've just made a mistake in this article you quoted, I wouldn't trust you to run the local candy store.

I would trust every American to carry a concealed weapon, until they proved themselves unworthy of that trust. So did the people who wrote the bill of rights and ammended it to the US constitution.

I didn't make a mistake in the article. The fact is that LONDON has a severe problem with stabbings. England and Wales do not have such a pronounced problem because they don't have the concentrated population that London has. Crime is always higher in larger cities. The same is true in the USA.

 

[headvoid]

No, but if one of them had a gun, that knife-wielding cupcakeer would have been dead, rather than let loose on shopping holidays by the authorities.

And if he had a gun? Would that be before or after they have "proved themselves unworthy of that trust"???

What would you rather have, a gun wielding cupcakeer or a knife wielding cupcakeer?

 

[Acrimonious]

And if he had a gun? Would that be before or after they have "proved themselves unworthy of that trust"???

What would you rather have, a gun wielding cupcakeer or a knife wielding cupcakeer?

And now we get to the crux of the issue, headvoid. I'd rather have a gun-wielding cupcakeer.

You don't prohibit everyone from breathing just because someone might get a cold and transmit it. You don't prohibit everyone from having sex, just because someone might transmit HIV. You don't prohibit people from drinking because they might drive a car and cause an accident. Likewise, you don't prohibit people from driving a car because they might have a drink and cause an accident.

You don't prohibit people from owning a weapon of any sort (knife, gun, brass knuckle, bo staff, sword, etc) just because they might do something that's already illegal with it. The criminal act is what is illegal, and that is what they should be punished for. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Just like black people are black people until they have proven themselves to be cupcakeers. White people are white people until they have proven themselves to be white trash or rednecks, etc.


So to answer your question, until we are capable of predicting the future and determining who will commit a crime before they do it, yes, we let everyone have weapons. If and when they misuse them, they are punished for it within the constraints of the law.

Again, yes, you let the man own a gun until he cracks and shoots people. Then, you throw him in jail (assuming he isn't shot by all of the other armed citizens around him) and take his weapons away.

Statistics have shown that violent crime rates drop when criminals fear a response from an armed citizen. Criminals don't fear the police, unless the police are there at the scene of the crime. Since most criminals aren't completely stupid, they wait until the police are gone to commit crimes. However, if every single citizen in the area is potentially armed, criminals will think twice about committing any sort of crime. When a criminal's potential victims have the right to defend their lives and property and are willing to do so, they are the criminal's newfound fear.

It's a very simple and logical argument.

If you're a killer or a robber and you know that all weapons are illegal and that all of the good law-abiding citizens do not have weapons at hand and the police are at least 3 minutes response time away from you, are you going to think twice about using one of your illegally obtained black-market weapons to kill or rob?

Converseley if yo're a killer or robber and you know that every one of your potential victims might have a weapon and be proficient at using it, are you going to think twice about using your illegally (or possibly legally) obtained weapon to kill or rob?


If you can answer those two questions honestly, there is no need to discuss it further because you will come to the conclusion that an armed populace is preferable to a disarmed populace.

 

[headvoid]

If you're a killer or a robber and you know that all weapons are illegal and that all of the good law-abiding citizens do not have weapons at hand and the police are at least 3 minutes response time away from you, are you going to think twice about using one of your illegally obtained black-market weapons to kill or rob?

There is no need to use a gun to rob in a gun free environment - so the question is mute.

Converseley if yo're a killer or robber and you know that every one of your potential victims might have a weapon and be proficient at using it, are you going to think twice about using your illegally (or possibly legally) obtained weapon to kill or rob?

See above.

By this argument - Are you happy for Iran to have Nukes? It's exactly the same logic.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Iran has guns, too.

Maybe the UN can disarm Iran with some strict gun control. Would that remove murderous impulses?

 

[Acrimonious]

There is no need to use a gun to rob in a gun free environment - so the question is mute.

It's not a moot point. Guns are illegal (for the most part) in the UK, but some criminals still use guns, because it is overwhelming force. Machine guns are (for the most part) illegal in the U.S.A. and yet gangsters and drug runners still use them, again, because they're overwhelming force.

Criminals don't care about laws, and they will go to excesses to succeed in their crimes.

See above.

By this argument - Are you happy for Iran to have Nukes? It's exactly the same logic.

I would have been if the Shah were still in power, however, the Ayatollah has already proven himself to be tyrannical and dangerous. If I were an Iranian citizen I would have revolted already (or died trying to). Regardless, let him get his nukes. If he uses one there will be nothing left of him or his country. The backlash would be overwhelming. In addition, it's quite likely that he won't have long range delivery capabilities for some time. It's quite likely that he would blow his wad early, thus ensuring his destruction before he is a significant threat to my country. Therefore, I don't care. Lastly, the odds are good that my country could shoot his ICBM down before it was able to deliver its warhead. Again, not much of a direct threat to my country (who has an abundance of nukes anyways) so I don't care.

For arguments sake: let Iran get nukes. I'm far more concerned about what China and North Korea are up to.

 

[headvoid]

It's not a moot point. Guns are illegal (for the most part) in the UK, but some criminals still use guns, because it is overwhelming force. Machine guns are (for the most part) illegal in the U.S.A. and yet gangsters and drug runners still use them, again, because they're overwhelming force.

How come criminals don't use guns all the time in the UK then? The reason is that the "overwhelming force" required is normally only muscle, physical violence or knives etc. So your arguement proves my point - In the UK overwhelming force does not necessarily include guns - therefore they are not as widespread.

For arguments sake: let Iran get nukes. I'm far more concerned about what China and North Korea are up to.

This doesn't make sense - your arguement depends on everyone having the weapon. Your point about a gun wielding cupcakeer. Or are some cupcakeers more deserving than others?

 

[Acrimonious]

How come criminals don't use guns all the time in the UK then? The reason is that the "overwhelming force" required is normally only muscle, physical violence or knives etc. So your arguement proves my point - In the UK overwhelming force does not necessarily include guns - therefore they are not as widespread.



This doesn't make sense - your arguement depends on everyone having the weapon. Your point about a gun wielding cupcakeer. Or are some cupcakeers more deserving than others?

Criminals don't use guns all the time in the UK because not all of them have them. It's the same as full-autos in the US.

My argument does not depend on everyone having a weapon to defend themselves with. My argument depends on everyone having the right to defend themselves. All it takes is a few people willing to defend themselves to put a huge number of criminals in fear of reprisal...

More precisely, my argument depends on the government not forbidding law abiding citizens from defending themselves. If you pass a law making it illegal to defend yourself, you open yourself up to criminal attacks.

One simple example is locks on a door. They don't stop a break-in, but they do deter it. In either case, the police won't arrive in time, but sometimes the presence of the lock makes the burglar think twice about making so much noise to get in. The same holds true with firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens. All it takes is a few to deter crime.

Just look at the current politics on the Mexican border in the U.S.A. We have a Sherriff's deputy who shot the tires out on a car carrying illegal immigrants after the driver of that car tried to run the Deputy over. That deputy is now in prison. (The deputy was Hispanic, might I add)

We have two border patrol agents (also both Hispanic) who fired at an illegal immigrant who was also smuggling hundreds of pounds of drugs across the border. They are both in prison now as well.

Lo and behold, the coyotes (smugglers of illegals) and the drug-runners are becoming more and more bold as they see the U.S. government penalizing its own law enforcement agents for enforcing the laws.

The same holds true with gun control. As you remove the liberties of citizens and deny them the right to defend themselves, the criminals become increasingly bold. Worse yet, as you remove the liberties of citizens and deny them the right to defend themselves from tyranny, politicians become increasingly bold.

 

[headvoid]

Just look at the current politics on the Mexican border in the U.S.A. We have a Sherriff's deputy who shot the tires out on a car carrying illegal immigrants after the driver of that car tried to run the Deputy over. That deputy is now in prison. (The deputy was Hispanic, might I add)

We have two border patrol agents (also both Hispanic) who fired at an illegal immigrant who was also smuggling hundreds of pounds of drugs across the border. They are both in prison now as well.

My god, that's dumb