[Athens]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's the point. If they are law abiding people, why do you need to restrict their freedom with more laws? Murder, attempted murder, assault etc. are already illegal, and general carry stiff penalties I might add.

For the same reason why we need traffic laws. To protect people from other people. So if a area is a no shooting area its because its to populated for accidents. To protect kids from finding a gun and shooting a brother while playing with it a law is passed to require ammo to be locked under key and only the permit holder to have access to it. People including law abiding people get hot tempered at times in road rage, requiring the gun to be locked in a trunk during transport mitigates the risk. Requiring a safety course prior to ownership as law mitigates the risk of incompetent gun usage. Learning how to handle a gun so you don't shoot yourself or those around you by mistake. Those that want to own a gun legally who will follow the laws will also follow the rules to make ownership safer for every one else.

No law is going to change things for criminals.

Case in point for a very stupid knee jerk law just passed here not to long ago. A ban on body Armour except for those that work in law enforcement and security and some other special cases. I call this a bad law because it was intended to keep body armor out of the hands of criminals which it won't do. What it does is take away the option for the night clerk at a 24 hour store or a hunter who wants to reduce the risk of being shoot. Recently a co-worker was up at Stave Lake camping and some idiots where firing rifles in their direction which on its own was breaking the gun laws because the area they where shooting in was restricted. Only allowed to shoot in the direction north of the road they where on not towards the lake. But thats besides the point they had bullets flying past them and this knee jerk law strips them of taking some protection just because cops don't want to deal with criminals (who wont follow this law) that have body armor.

Good laws, trigger locks, storage rules and such, bad laws total bans.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The first step is to rephrase your last sentence. Replace "by firearms" to "WITH firearms," and that helps put things in an accurate perspective. Firearms don't do anything by themselves, any more than saws or spoons do. PEOPLE do things with the these objects, good or bad depending on what those people do with them.

In 2009 the traffic death rate in the US was the lowest it's been since 1950, with about 33,800 people killed on the highway. Highway death data is pretty easy to get in an unambiguous form; firearm related death data is almost always skewed by some political spin or other.

If we had raw data from which we ourselves could draw conclusions, the "secondary data" (information about where the other data comes from and such) points to something very interesting: a whole lot of "gun deaths" are within a small group of people who are involved in drug importation and distribution. As in "bad guys killing other bad guys." Random shootings are rare-very rare.

And frankly "machine gun murders" are almost unheard of in the US (though it's hard to get "reporters" to actually use accurate terminology to characterize a firearm in their reports, with "assault rifle" being used to describe just about everything). There is a very small "pool" of LEGAL machine guns in the US, which are sold among collectors at an extremely high premium (from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars), and there is absolutely no evidence that any of these legal machine guns has EVER been used in the commission of a crime by the legal owner of that gun. Ever. Illegal machine guns? Probably a lot of them, and probably a lot less expensive to the bad guys, too.

That is pretty much the exact same thing up here. Most of the people killed by guns are criminals killing criminals. Those few innocent people killed by guns are wrong targets or by standers and thats so rare I can only think of a few cases.

What gun laws should be for is restrictions based on safety of others like small children in the home. A law that requires a unattended weapon to be locked is a good law. A law that requires a person to take a safety course on how to use a gun, clean a gun and how to store a gun is good. A law that just bans guns = bad.

Personally I think the difference between Canada and the US is the justice system, the penalty for the crimes vs the gun laws when it comes to how often a gun is used. The type of reasons and whos committing the crimes is probably a bigger indicator. IE a lot of our robberies are committed by people looking to get some money just to score some drugs. They generally already have mental issues either from the drugs or other illness. Typically are not dangerous people out to hurt any one. Not all but I would say a good majority. Our social care net keeps most normal people from hitting rock bottom where desperation sets in. Its very rare to see a normal healthy mentally fine person homeless and starving. Cross over to the US, depending on which state you live in you have some social security net and other places none. You do have otherwise normal people so desperate they will do anything for money and because the penalties are a lot harsher sometimes it means do or die, to get away because being caught is just as bad as being dead.

The social economics, and desperation are probably a better demographic to go by on why crimes include more gun usage or more violence the the gun laws themselves.

To gage how effective gun laws are it should look at the accident rates not the criminal rates. From state to state or from country to country which locations have what laws and in those locations whats the number of accidental shootings or weapon discharges that result in injury. If one state requires people to take a safety course and another state does not, I would be willing to bet real money the state that does not has a hire rate of accidents related to fire arms with no criminal intent.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Firearms don't do anything by themselves, any more than saws or spoons do.

Firearms do something by themselves. If there's a button, it will be pressed. Because that's the nature of a button. If there are firearms, firearms will be fired. And firearms are made to kill; saws and spoons are not.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Firearms do something by themselves. If there's a button, it will be pressed. Because that's the nature of a button. If there are firearms, firearms will be fired. And firearms are made to kill; saws and spoons are not.

Saws are used as murder weapons. Someone highly enough motivated can find a way to kill with a spoon. Firearms themselves are not dangerous, but as I said, what people do with them can be. It takes a conscious decision to "push the button," or pull a trigger. Humans make these decisions, and if the human is sane, stable and mature, such decisions are usually good. On the other hand, people who are not stable, sane or mature tend to make bad decisions and run over their exes with cars, throw someone else's dog into traffic, and yes abuse firearms. But it is a human decision to do these things, not something that the nature of the objects forces them to be used.

[TETENAL]

It does not require a highly motivated individual to kill with a firearm. Being drunk suffices.

It is possible to kill someone with a saw. But it's not easy. Saws make cutting trees easy. Firearms make killing people easy. That's the difference. Fewer firearms (including fewer legal firearms) mean fewer killings. This particular incident in the Netherlands pertained legal weapons. Stricter gun control could have prevented the tragedy. The perpetrator was in psychiatric treatment. How can you argue that it's good to have a weapon in such a person's hands?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Firearms do something by themselves. If there's a button, it will be pressed. Because that's the nature of a button. If there are firearms, firearms will be fired. And firearms are made to kill; saws and spoons are not.

And the Firearm loads itself too? A firearm is a tool like all other tools. Its how the tool is used that dictates a crime or not. A hacksaw is a lethal weapon. And a Spoon can kill to depending on how the person uses the tool to do so...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

It does not require a highly motivated individual to kill with a firearm. Being drunk suffices.

It is possible to kill someone with a saw. But it's not easy. Saws make cutting trees easy. Firearms make killing people easy. That's the difference. Fewer firearms (including fewer legal firearms) mean fewer killings. This particular incident in the Netherlands pertained legal weapons. Stricter gun control could have prevented the tragedy. The perpetrator was in psychiatric treatment. How can you argue that it's good to have a weapon in such a person's hands?

Bullshit, I can kill a man quicker with a knife then I can with a gun at close range. Fewer firearms means fewer firearm killings, but something else will take up the slack, say knifes? And you cant argue it was good for the guy in the Netherlands to have had legal weapons. Some where something failed that allowed him through the cracks to own a gun. Had he not had a gun he would have probably used a sword or a car... You anti gun people really piss me off.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Athens 

For the same reason why we need traffic laws. To protect people from other people.

Most traffic rules have nothing to do with safety but are rather for the regulation of traffic flow. Nevertheless, most of these rules are unnecessary. It's a growing trend that in many of these areas with traffic and safety issues that they take away traffic lights, signs and throw out the rules. The result is that while it looks chaotic, traffic flows better and accidents go down.

I experience this about three times a year. There is a busy intersection near where I work that has a four lane divided street one direction and a two-lane the other. A large gas-station on one corner and a truck stop on the opposite. It is also an industrial area with many factories, businesses and a large trucking company hub. There is heavy traffic, including lots of semi traffic. Several times a year, for some reason, the electricity goes out at that intersection and the gas-station that seems to last for about a day. Sometimes two. Traffic moves much faster and accidents are not an issue.

As it turns out, people are actually pretty smart and don't need someone to micromanage their actions. I mean, god forbid we don't have a four-way stop every hundred feet.

So if a area is a no shooting area its because its to populated for accidents. To protect kids from finding a gun and shooting a brother while playing with it a law is passed to require ammo to be locked under key and only the permit holder to have access to it.

And you are naive enough to think that in the privacy of their own home, people are compelled to actually follow laws like this…because it is a law? Got any evidence at all that it actually has any effect whatsoever? Have you ever actually looked at how utterly TINY the incidences of such accidents are? It's damn low compared to other types of accidental deaths.

People including law abiding people get hot tempered at times in road rage, requiring the gun to be locked in a trunk during transport mitigates the risk.

Evidence? Not to mention that if you have a carry permit, which you can get in 48 states (most of which are shall issue states) you don't have to do any such thing. It can stay right on your person, right within easy reach.

Requiring a safety course prior to ownership as law mitigates the risk of incompetent gun usage. Learning how to handle a gun so you don't shoot yourself or those around you by mistake.

Seemingly logical, but is there any evidence that this has any net positive effect?

Those that want to own a gun legally who will follow the laws will also follow the rules to make ownership safer for every one else.

I hate getting drawn into these idiotic, pragmatic arguments. The point for me is that the efficacy of these laws is entirely immaterial. I am not in favor of any laws that violate my right to choose what kind of firearm I may own, how I may carry it and where and how I may store it…because someone may or may not put themselves or others in danger. Practicality is not a justification for infringing on peoples' rights. Punishment of these people for harming others is all that is within the right of the government to enforce, and it is all that is necessary.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I hate getting drawn into these idiotic, pragmatic arguments. The point for me is that the efficacy of these laws is entirely immaterial. I am not in favor of any laws that violate my right to choose what kind of firearm I may own, how I may carry it and where and how I may store it…because someone may or may not put themselves or others in danger. Practicality is not a justification for infringing on peoples' rights. Punishment of these people for harming others is all that is within the right of the government to enforce, and it is all that is necessary.

Winner! One of the points gun opponents fail to consider is that the likelihood of getting shot is so small that it does not constitute the right of infringement on gun owner's rights. You can't protect yourself from everything. There are more states that are considering "Constitutional Carry," where one doesn't need a permit to buy a gun, or carry one, treating it as just what it is; a piece of property you own, and the use of which you are held liable for.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Firearms do something by themselves. If there's a button, it will be pressed. Because that's the nature of a button. If there are firearms, firearms will be fired. And firearms are made to kill; saws and spoons are not.

Then they should be taken away from police, federal agents, security guards etc etc. I mean, people with a gun in a holster just can't control themselves !!! And those guns in cabinets or safes, they're just calling out to be used. Bastards.

[Chongo]

Anything can be used to kill. G. Gordon Liddy once boasted he could kill a man in seconds "by shoving a pencil into the back of his neck." More and more the machete has become the weapon of choice for murder.
machete murders - Google Search

Is there a waiting period and background check for machete purchases in the U.K.?
BBC News - Husband jailed for wife's chilling machete murder

He's shown on camera (smiling) buying the machete used to kill his wife after she asked for a divorce.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Most traffic rules have nothing to do with safety but are rather for the regulation of traffic flow. Nevertheless, most of these rules are unnecessary. It's a growing trend that in many of these areas with traffic and safety issues that they take away traffic lights, signs and throw out the rules. The result is that while it looks chaotic, traffic flows better and accidents go down.

I experience this about three times a year. There is a busy intersection near where I work that has a four lane divided street one direction and a two-lane the other. A large gas-station on one corner and a truck stop on the opposite. It is also an industrial area with many factories, businesses and a large trucking company hub. There is heavy traffic, including lots of semi traffic. Several times a year, for some reason, the electricity goes out at that intersection and the gas-station that seems to last for about a day. Sometimes two. Traffic moves much faster and accidents are not an issue.

As it turns out, people are actually pretty smart and don't need someone to micromanage their actions. I mean, god forbid we don't have a four-way stop every hundred feet.

Ever look at the driving situation in India or China, both places with chaotic roads with no enforcement. China has enough traffic laws to make the most experienced drivers cringe. But no enforcement. Traffic laws such as no drinking and driving, speed limits, no passing on the right, signaling and the hardware that is required in cars such as Airbags, seat belts are all safety rules not really for flow of traffic. But that would be another debate, I dont want to side track the thread.

And you are naive enough to think that in the privacy of their own home, people are compelled to actually follow laws like this…because it is a law? Got any evidence at all that it actually has any effect whatsoever? Have you ever actually looked at how utterly TINY the incidences of such accidents are? It's damn low compared to other types of accidental deaths.

All the people I know who owns guns follow the rules religiously, myself included.

Evidence? Not to mention that if you have a carry permit, which you can get in 48 states (most of which are shall issue states) you don't have to do any such thing. It can stay right on your person, right within easy reach.

Seemingly logical, but is there any evidence that this has any net positive effect?

And how easy is it to get a carry permit. I'll see if I can dig up some stats between the US, Canada and Europe. 3 Totally different gun environments. US (Easy to get a gun, few rules depending on state) vs Canada (Easy to get a gun, lots of rules, good and bad ones) vs The Netherlands (Really hard to get a gun and lots of rules)

Reasons for this sample, I have friends in the US and Netherlands who can help me collect accurate data on hunting accidents and in home accidents. Excluding all crime related stats because that does not apply. I am going to make a assumption now before I go dig up stats that the US will have the highest rate of home accidents with Netherlands having the lowest. Because gun ownership is hard and low in the Netherlands im really going to focus on Canada VS US which have close enough gun ownership rates to do a fair comparison.

What is the most gun friendly state to compare against? Im assuming Texas would be one of them?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Chongo

Is there a waiting period and background check for machete purchases in the U.K.?

He's shown on camera (smiling) buying the machete used to kill his wife after she asked for a divorce.

Maybe they just need more cameras.

ANYTHING can be used to kill someone, but very few things can be used for self-defense by just about any able-bodied adult. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. Making guns harder to get increases crime and reduces the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Want some more statistics to collect? How about looking at population density in the US vs. Holland? Do you have police officers per capita? Do you have some way to measure average police response time in Holland vs. elsewhere?

I keep a gun because no matter what happens the cops are 15-20 minutes away. They're nice folks, but they bring chalk to murder scenes, and that cool yellow tape that says "Do Not Cross." If I lived in Holland, I'd wear wooden shoes and I probably wouldn't NEED a gun (except to shoot myself for living in Holland).

I guess it comes down to this: Do people have the right to defend themselves, or not? Are we limited to spears and big rocks? Compound bows?