Discussion on the BBC Regarding Gun Legislation

[Sukerkin]

There is a discussion thread on the BBC site about gun ownership and gun legislation in Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/are_gun_laws_tough_enough.html

Now I don't know if talking with you fellows over the years has 'corrupted' me a little (I don't think so as my opinions have always been this way) but some of the empty-headed bleating in some of the posts there make me despair of the wisdom of some of my fellow-countrymen.

 

[knuckleheader]

Hey, you Brits ought to be able to figure it out for yourselves. And don't try to tell us this side of the pond what our gun laws will be. Thank you.
We have enough liberal "know better than you" types here.

 

[Ken Morgan]

It’s rare that long guns are used in crimes of any kind, kind of hard to conceal. It’s also rare that a licensed person with licensed weapons commits a crime with the said weapons. Would banning all guns make things safer for the general populace, I think in all likelihood it probable would, but I don’t think it’s the right course of action.

Many of our American friends Suk will argue that the government taking away our weapons is this huge conspiracy towards the downwards drive towards fascism and our right to defend ourselves from government tyranny.

I just think that 99% of these guys have something snap inside of them, and up until that “snapping” moment are as sane as you or I. If someone wants to cause harm to others, they will find away to do it, with drugs, poisons, homemade explosives, knives, a metal bar or a piece of wood laying around the house. Taking away firearms will not change the intent of such people, but it will take away much of the lethality of whatever it is they are going to do.

Firearms are a part of our culture. We use them for practical reasons on the farm, and for sport or hobby reasons. Most people raised in the big cities have no use for guns because all they see are illegal handguns used in crimes. So making more laws to ban weapons is a good thing to them, like anyone with criminal intent is ever going to listen or heed a law.

The dead will be mourned and buried, the authorities will investigate, ensure all the rules and procedures were followed, see if there are any loopholes to fill in, and life will go on until someone else snaps.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Nearly all gun legislation is modeled on the premise that the state can reduce the number of illegal acts committed using a gun by restricting access to them.

In countries where guns are commonplace (the USA), such laws serve little purpose other than to restrict the abilities of people who tend to be law-abiding from acquiring guns (or *more* guns if they already have them). Such laws do little or nothing to restrict access to guns by those who the laws are intended to most impact - the criminal community.

In countries where there has never been wide-spread private ownership of guns (England), such laws may be more effective for their intended purpose.

However, even in such countries, laws of this nature are more likely to prevent only a certain number of gun-related crimes.

In both types of countries, lack of access to a gun may serve to prevent tragedies that are caused by spur-of-the-moment killers, otherwise-honest people who 'just snap' and do something horrible with a gun. Such people may well choose to use a different weapon if a gun is not easily available, or they may decide not to commit the act at all. Even if they do commit the act with another weapon, their destructiveness may be somewhat limited (this may not be the case, given the recent stabbing deaths in Japan as examples).

Lack of easy access may not stop a person intent upon committing murder, a person who plots rather than being overcome by a moment's passion. Nor is it likely to put a stop to the criminal who is intent upon using guns in commission of their crimes. As we know from many examples, demand is usually met with supply; black markets will arise to serve the needs of criminals intent upon obtaining guns.

It can also be argued that restrictive gun laws in either types of country serve to put criminals on notice that citizens are less likely to be armed; this can be argued to embolden them.

In general, it is my opinion that restrictive gun ownership laws can be effective on a very small subset of gun-related crime in countries in which guns have never been commonly in private hands. I feel such laws are highly unlikely to have a net positive effect in countries such as the USA in which there are nearly as many privately-owned guns as there are people, there has been a traditional gun-owning culture since the date of the USA's founding, and there is a base distrust of the motives of governments that seek to disarm citizens for *any* reason, no matter how altruistic they may seem.

Even in countries like England, it's a lot of impact on lawful gun owners (one commenter in your linked thread wanted annual psychological examinations of all licensed gun owners!) for very little positive effect.

What more commonly happens is that a tragedy happens, and many horrified people demand that someone 'do something'. They don't much care what that something is, or how effective it is likely to be, as long as something is seen to be done. I find such knee-jerk reactions to be counterproductive and misguided at best. It's unfortunate that some people react that way to any tragedy. I've heard people complain about volcanoes the same way - demanding that the government 'do something' about them.

 

[Empty Hands]

Hey Sukes, welcome to the Den of Evil.

First, empty headed comments on the internet are the rule, not the exception. Newspaper/news site threads, particularly local ones, are usually the worst. So I wouldn't despair too much.

Second, I generally see two major responses to crime problems or really any set of problems. 1) Address the root causes somehow or 2) combat, or worse just cover up, the symptoms. Addressing crime in Britain mostly follows path two, from what I've seen. Rather than addressing the causes of crime, the governmental response has been to ban guns, and now knives are getting the same treatment. Of course, the problem hasn't truly been addressed, so the problem continues, and the banning gets ever more ridiculous.

However, addressing root causes are usually much more challenging and complicated than the solutions usually put forth on this site. Ever increasing enforcement and ever increasing draconian punishments, a course pursued in the USA (so I'm not just picking on the UK ), is also just another method of combating the symptoms. I don't know what all the answers are, but they will involve more than tough sounding talk and putting more people in jail.

This response is also a typical human response, and you see it everywhere. There is a thread active now about 3 states making filming the police in public illegal. Problem: abuses by the police, which are increasingly being documented. Solution: don't address the abuses, ban the recording. Very typical of this mindset. Addressing root causes is a long, difficult process, and it satisfies no one's emotional needs. So it usually isn't done. And the problems continue. Hooliganism in UK cities, police abuses in the US, drug crime in the US, etc etc etc.

 

[Langenschwert]

Now I don't know if talking with you fellows over the years has 'corrupted' me a little (I don't think so as my opinions have always been this way) but some of the empty-headed bleating in some of the posts there make me despair of the wisdom of some of my fellow-countrymen.

Weapons folks have to stick together. Banning guns is rubbish. A criminal can get a gun if he wants one easily enough. Even if you could effectively keep them out of a country, remember that guns are medieval technology. Anyone with a metal lathe can make one in his basement. Even if it only fires one shot, make ten of them.

What they do here is divide and conquer. Go after the handgun owners and the long gun hunters do nothing. Go after crossbows and the classic archery people do nothing. Go after crossbows and the sword practicioners do nothing.

Here in Canada the RCMP can move a firearm from legal to prohibited with no judicial review of any kind. The only thing that stops them from banning EVERYTHING is the fact that people have successfully sued to be compensated for losing their guns. They can't afford to ban everything at once, even if they'd like to. But piecemeal, they'll get everything if we let them.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[knuckleheader]

Hey Sukes, welcome to the Den of Evil.

Hooliganism in UK cities, police abuses in the US, drug crime in the US, etc etc etc.

Do you imply no police abuse occurs in the U K, etc. etc.?

 

[Empty Hands]

Do you imply no police abuse occurs in the U K, etc. etc.?

You really think that's what I said?

The answer is "no."

 

[knuckleheader]

Hey Sukes, welcome to the Den of Evil.

First, empty headed comments on the internet are the rule, not the exception. Newspaper/news site threads, particularly local ones, are usually the worst. So I wouldn't despair too much.

Second, I generally see two major responses to crime problems or really any set of problems. 1) Address the root causes somehow or 2) combat, or worse just cover up, the symptoms. Addressing crime in Britain mostly follows path two, from what I've seen. Rather than addressing the causes of crime, the governmental response has been to ban guns, and now knives are getting the same treatment. Of course, the problem hasn't truly been addressed, so the problem continues, and the banning gets ever more ridiculous.

However, addressing root causes are usually much more challenging and complicated than the solutions usually put forth on this site. Ever increasing enforcement and ever increasing draconian punishments, a course pursued in the USA (so I'm not just picking on the UK ), is also just another method of combating the symptoms. I don't know what all the answers are, but they will involve more than tough sounding talk and putting more people in jail.

This response is also a typical human response, and you see it everywhere. There is a thread active now about 3 states making filming the police in public illegal. Problem: abuses by the police, which are increasingly being documented. Solution: don't address the abuses, ban the recording. Very typical of this mindset. Addressing root causes is a long, difficult process, and it satisfies no one's emotional needs. So it usually isn't done. And the problems continue. Hooliganism in UK cities, police abuses in the US, drug crime in the US, etc etc etc.

Hey Empty Hands, could you provide the link to the thread promoting
the crimininalization of video taping police?

I'll go one better. Empty headed main stream reporting and demonization of firearms is the rule! World wide.

 

[Sukerkin]

Hey, you Brits ought to be able to figure it out for yourselves.

On the whole we have - it's only that I was made to despair by a number of empty-headed posters who don't think through the logical consequences of their demands.

And don't try to tell us this side of the pond what our gun laws will be. Thank you.

Wouldn't dream of it. I have my views but, other than the 'model' of behaviour portrayed by the American fictional media (which is being taken up by foolish youths over here), US modes of conduct on gun ownership or use don't impact my life. I have voiced what I think here at MT before and am not inclined to venture into that territory again - not today at any rate.

We have enough liberal "know better than you" types here.

I thought you were over-supplied with Far Right Neo-Totalitarians and actually had a shortfall of true liberal thinkers ... goes to show how wrong an opinion can be.

 

[knuckleheader]

So, according to you. Only left "liberal" thinkers have a grip on common sense?

ha ha ha ah ha ha

 

[Empty Hands]

Hey Empty Hands, could you provide the link to the thread promoting
the crimininalization of video taping police?

It's called "Are Cameras the New Guns?" and you have a post in it.

 

[Sukerkin]

So, according to you. Only left "liberal" thinkers have a grip on common sense?

ha ha ha ah ha ha

Er, no. Next question ...

Oh and don't get me going on how liberal means one thing to we English and another to you American's - we've been round that loop more than enough times and everyone is well sick of hearing me bang on about it.

 

[knuckleheader]

It's called "Are Cameras the New Guns?" and you have a post in it.

You are correct sir, I've stumbled upon it while banging away the keyboard. Thanks

 

[knuckleheader]

Er, no. Next question ...

Oh and don't get me going on how liberal means one thing to we English and another to you American's - we've been round that loop more than enough times and everyone is well sick of hearing me bang on about it.

I shall then address American liberals as statist/socialist communist.

European liberals as "the confused ones."

 

[CoryKS]

There is a discussion thread on the BBC site about gun ownership and gun legislation in Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/are_gun_laws_tough_enough.html

Now I don't know if talking with you fellows over the years has 'corrupted' me a little (I don't think so as my opinions have always been this way) but some of the empty-headed bleating in some of the posts there make me despair of the wisdom of some of my fellow-countrymen.

You're an American, Suke. You just don't know it yet.

J

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Nearly all gun legislation is modeled on the premise that the state can reduce the number of illegal acts committed using a gun by restricting access to them.

I don't know if you could be more wrong about this.

Gun restriction law, and weapon restriction laws in general, are about controlling the population. The crime aspect is their excuse.

Throughout history, weapons restrictions have sought to limit the ability of a populace from standing up for itself. From Shogun era Japan and owning Samurai swords, to their restricting Okinowans from having any weapons (which is how we get such things as the kusuri-gama, nunchaku, and tonfa), to Nazi Germany's restrictions on firearm ownership.

In the U.S. the French Louisiana code required colonist to stop all Blacks, including slaves, who possessed anything which could be used as a weapon, even such things as canes.

Up until the 1960's, it was permissible in California to carry a loaded firearm as long as it was visible. But when the Black Panther Party did it, the California legislature came to gether to ban it. There are many examples of gun control laws in American used to restrict the ability of minorities to carry firearms like others, not because they would be criminals, but because they might defend themselves.

So, as I first said, the aim of gun control laws is not to prevent crime, though that may be what they say. But in reality, it is to control the populace. Otherwise, you tell me why the .50 caliber rifle is banned in CA, when no one has ever used one in a crime anywhere in the U.S.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't know if you could be more wrong about this.

Gun restriction law, and weapon restriction laws in general, are about controlling the population. The crime aspect is their excuse.

I used the word 'premise' to mean the same as 'excuse' in your terminology.

So, as I first said, the aim of gun control laws is not to prevent crime, though that may be what they say.

I did not say the purpose behind the laws was to prevent crime; I said the premise. I did not wish to get into a political mud-slinging statement about the 'real' reason behind gun control laws; and frankly I have every reason to believe that many people who support gun control laws do so because they believe the premise given, even if it is not the purpose for the law.

There are no doubt powerful people and organizations who have motives other than reducing crime for introducing gun control legislation. As you and I both noted, their 'excuse' (or 'premise') is that such laws will reduce crime. And many decent citizens with whom I disagree about gun-control laws believe that premise. It is not all one grand conspiracy, but I am sure there are those who have ulterior motives.

 

[Archangel M]

I just think that 99% of these guys have something snap inside of them, and up until that “snapping” moment are as sane as you or I.

My experiences lead me to HIGHLY doubt that. Maybe they were not technically "insane" before the snapping moment, but in my experience quite a few people who you may think are "normal" in routine contact are anything but.

I have spoken to people who I thought were absolutely "normal" in all respects till the right (or wrong) word was said and then all the "crazy" about mind probes, government mind control, alien abduction and tin hats started coming out.

 

[Empty Hands]

I have spoken to people who I thought were absolutely "normal" in all respects till the right (or wrong) word was said and then all the "crazy" about mind probes, government mind control, alien abduction and tin hats started coming out.

I see you've met my aunt.