Gun Control. Knife Control. Tomorrow, pointy sticks?

[shamrock_uk]

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.

[Grojlach]

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

[Luvian]

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

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Luvian: 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...

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!

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Grojlach: 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.

That's an interesting response, Grojlach. I especially like the sentence I highlighted, because it is RARELY the Americans who compare themselves to Europe in gun debates. It was shamrock that drew the comparison in this thread, NOT VulcanRider.

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 VulcanRider 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 shamrocks 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.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Cerek: I especially like the sentence I highlighted, because it is RARELY the Americans who compare themselves to Europe in gun debates. It was shamrock that drew the comparison in this thread, NOT VulcanRider.[qb]

But then again, I am a lousy European

BOTH of these tools could also be used in a "crime of passion", so that nullifies shamrocks 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 ]

[Aragorn1]

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. Stupid i admit, but it shows that things DO need to regulated proportional to their potential to harm.

[Azred]

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]

[mad=dog]

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.

[Cerek]

Aragorn - 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.

mad=dog - 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.