Gun sales jump following election

[Darth Wong]

That's only true in the same sense that the USPS has killed people by delivering bombs to them, or a piece of brightly-colored paper has killed someone by flapping in the wind and causing the horse they were riding to flip out. I'd say the bomb killed the people, and the phone was just a trigger mechanism. I mean, hell, we could step back even further and say that fingerprints have killed people because it was the ridges of the fingers that pressed the buttons of the phone that detonated the bomb that killed people.

If you want to be as pedantic and anal-retentive as that, I won't stop you.

You're full of shit and don't want to admit your example was piss-poor. Cellphone triggers, where calling the trigger cellphone detonates the bomb, is quite different than how USPS has been utilized to deliver bombs. The USPS, UPS, Federal Express, et al may have been used to transport a bomb but not to TRIGGER it. I specifically refer to instances where the cellphone becomes an integrated and essential part of the bomb.

Are you aware that an analogy, by nature, is supposed to be similar only in one particular respect, ie- the reason for which it was invoked? It does not have to be identical in every respect, and you cannot necessarily defeat an analogy by pointing out that there are points of distinction. There are always points of distinction in an analogy; that is why it is called an analogy rather than an identical situation.

In this case, both are facilitators, and both are being misused in order to create this outcome. The fact that one is used as an electronic trigger and the other is used as a delivery system is completely irrelevant to the point, and you do not substantiate your argument by indignantly hopping about it.

[Darth Wong]

Phones have been used to kill people. That is a fact. Your refusal to acknowledge facts does not alter reality, but it does make you a dishonest piece of shit.

And water has been used to torture and kill people. From your behaviour in this thread tangent, it would appear that you wouldn't know a logical deduction if it reared up and bit you in the ass. The fact that an object can be used to cause death and injury is not in any way relevant to a discussion of devices that were expressly designed to cause death and injury, and which are in fact so remarkably effective at that job that every time a small-arms shipment goes into Africa, civil wars immediately flare up.

There is a reason that it's a bad idea to bring a knife to a gunfight: guns are unusually good at killing people. That's why the gun was invented hundreds of years ago, for fuck's sake. Why on Earth are people running around making these asinine arguments to diminish the danger of guns? If they weren't particularly dangerous, they wouldn't be any good at their jobs!

Of all the arguments anyone could come up with in defense of guns, the idea that you can potentially use anything to kill people is one of the worst ones.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not to mention all the reasons why firearms are different in terms of potential for abuse versus benefit to society. How many bombs in the United States are there versus cellphones in use (how many people have been saved because emergency calls are now easier where ever they are, how much tax revenue and jobs created?). Its obviously inappropriate to point out that cellphones can be used to trigger bombs when they very sparingly are relative to the number in use and that number's contribution to society when compared to the number of people killed deliberately and accidentally due to commercially purchased firearms in the United States relative to the number of guns and their contribution to society.

[erik_t]

Phones have been used to kill people. That is a fact. Your refusal to acknowledge facts does not alter reality, but it does make you a dishonest piece of shit.

Seriously? This is your contribution? Coyote and I are having what I think both of us would consider to be a reasoned thoughtful pages-long discussion on when it is or is not reasonable to ban something due to the misdeeds of a few, and whether or not guns fall under that description... and you snipe from the sidelines that cell phones have been used to trigger bombs?

I'm not being sarcastic: do you think you're stimulating any thought other than a few neurons firing off in anger and disappointment?

[Broomstick]

Phones have been used to kill people. That is a fact. Your refusal to acknowledge facts does not alter reality, but it does make you a dishonest piece of shit.

And water has been used to torture and kill people. From your behaviour in this thread tangent, it would appear that you wouldn't know a logical deduction if it reared up and bit you in the ass.

Go back and re-read the thread. He stated categorically that phones do not kill people. In fact, they have been used to do so. I objected to the factual error and nothing more in subsequent posts. I even refrained in my first reply from being insulting about it.

A lot of different things have been used to kill people but that wasn't what I was disputing. The ONLY thing I disputed in this most recent series is the notion that somehow phones can't be used to kill. They can, and have been so used. As I said: FACT. I was not using to defend or oppose guns or gun ownership, I was correcting an error.

Seriously? This is your contribution?

No, if you go back to earlier pages I had quite a bit to say on the main topic(s) here and see no need to repeat it. As I said, I objected to your factual error regarding the use of phones to kill people. So sorry if being found in error gets your panties in a twist. If you wish to discuss any of the points I made in posts prior to your nonsensical statement that phones can't or haven't been used to kill people I'd be happy to revisit them with you.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Go back and re-read the thread. He stated categorically that phones do not kill people. In fact, they have been used to do so. I objected to the factual error and nothing more in subsequent posts. I even refrained in my first reply from being insulting about it.

WHO CARES?

Seriously, you're posting to quibble over the details of a meaningless and big-picture speaking, misleading analogy? He just disputed your analogy on the basis of its relevance, and you continue chasing that particular issue rather than saying, "okay you're admitting they can kill people...moving on"...why?

A lot of different things have been used to kill people but that wasn't what I was disputing. The ONLY thing I disputed in this most recent series is the notion that somehow phones can't be used to kill. They can, and have been so used. As I said: FACT. I was not using to defend or oppose guns or gun ownership, I was correcting an error.

WHO CARES?

A red herring a nitpick at best. He's still been disputing the argument at the big-picture level, and you're running around quibbling over this.

[Broomstick]

Just to make clear what I was referring to, with emphasis added but no other changes made:

Well I'm glad you can so nonchalantly drop your MESSness as if it's relevant, but this example is not valid. You can't link any deaths to the use of phones. It's this fear-mongering rights-restriction, I think, that bothers people, not as much the very idea of monitoring. If you could call someone and, in the very act of making that call, send a powerful shock through the headset and kill them, and if tens of thousands of people were killed this way each year, I think people might have a different view of the situation.

Actually, the use of cellphones to remotely detonate bombs is well documented and has been used for years. I don't know what the rate of deaths per year via phone use actually is, but you assertion that phones haven't been used to kill people is false. Please note that for future reference.

As I said, I corrected a statement that was in error. Hell, by board standards I was even polite.

You're right, it's been blown out of proportion. GOD FORBID anyone try to inject some FACTS or ACCURACY into a debate, it's so much more fucking entertaining to shit down each other's throats.

[erik_t]

Phones have been used to kill people. That is a fact. Your refusal to acknowledge facts does not alter reality, but it does make you a dishonest piece of shit.

And water has been used to torture and kill people. From your behaviour in this thread tangent, it would appear that you wouldn't know a logical deduction if it reared up and bit you in the ass.

Go back and re-read the thread. He stated categorically that phones do not kill people. In fact, they have been used to do so. I objected to the factual error and nothing more in subsequent posts. I even refrained in my first reply from being insulting about it.

And they don't, you moron. No more than the wires inside the detonator killed someone.

Let me try to make this easier for you. A phone killing someone would involve, I dunno, holding a phone and bashing someone's head in with it. The phone being involved in a long chain of events that eventually led to a death is just asinine. I mean, a person could hear over the phone that a loved one is missing, then have a heart attack and die. Did the phone kill them, too?

I mean not only Mike's point that you're just picking items that have or have not killed someone... but you're just selecting laughable Rube-Goldberg-esque events to "prove" your "point".

I'll not waste any more of Mike's precious bandwidth and server storage arguing about THE HORRIBLE DANGER OF THE TELEPHONE with you.

[Broomstick]

Fuck it. I'm done with this thread. Like I said, I corrected a factual error. YOU have to get all self-righteous and twist it into some bullshit one-upmanship. Really, to hell with this place. It's really gone down the toilet. It's all about pissing on other people and being an internet tough guy.

Fuck you all. I've got real problems to spend my energy on.

I wasn't trying to score points you fucking morons, I was trying to point out a FACT. But fuck it, this place isn't about logic and debate. I swear, erik_t is acting like I ripped off his manhood when all I did was point out a flaw in his argument.

Fuck it, just fuck it. Go piss on each other some more.

[Formless]

And they don't, you moron. No more than the wires inside the detonator killed someone.

Let me try to make this easier for you. A phone killing someone would involve, I dunno, holding a phone and bashing someone's head in with it. The phone being involved in a long chain of events that eventually led to a death is just asinine. I mean, a person could hear over the phone that a loved one is missing, then have a heart attack and die. Did the phone kill them, too?

Interestingly, and to take this away from the stupid cell-phone hijack, is that not the same logic behind the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people?" After all, the gun was just a series of event starting with the finger pulling the trigger, the hammer hitting the primer, the bullet exploding down the barrel and traveling down the range to hit the target, and that is what kills the person? You know, pulling the trigger didn't do the killing. The person choosing to pull it, knowing what that series comes down to, did.

[erik_t]

I don't know, once you start involving the human brain you start getting into some philosophical arguments that I'd rather avoid. At some level, everything is a tool, of course. Guns don't make choices, nor do phones, cars or anything else. People make decisions. These decisions may be facilitated by the existence or capabilities of some item or another - in the unlikely scenario that you live across a deep un-bridged ravine from your sworn enemy, you may choose to kill him if you have a gun but will not make the choice without a similar ranged weapon. This is an extreme example, but the concept holds in general.

And this gets back to the point that Coyote was making earlier, about how many of those deaths would have occurred without guns being involved. Again, of course, the only correct answer is that we don't know. It's tempting to pick some other area with similar socioeconomic factors but without omnipresent firearms, but there are way way way too many variables and too few data points to really draw a solid conclusion.

[Ryan Thunder]

So what if they are designed to injure or kill? the next question is, is that a problem?

Yes. I can't understand why you want to own such a thing. I can maybe understand going down to a firing range and borrowing one to shoot off a few rounds with, but taking it home afterward? Nah...

Is there never a reason to kill? Is there never justification to kill? Or are you just a pacifist?

There are times when it is forgiveable. But why should you be so preoccupied with those (incredibly rare, might I add) situations that you would pre-emptively over-equip yourself to deal with them?

So I guess its alright with you, then, if I, your hypothetical next-door neighbour, decide to use, say, a nuclear warhead as a space heater, then, right? You'd be just fine with that, because even though its designed to cause death and destruction on an unimaginable scale, I'm not using it for that, right?

What if I wanted to build my house out of live artillery shells?

Strawman. Nukes are designed to blow up countries, artillery are designed to blow up battlefields, so obviously they must be equvelent to guns which can just put a hole in a human!

Because shredding a person is totally different from splattering their brains on a wall, right?

He is talking about a weapon that can defend a person. You are talking about weapons that can defend nations.

Assault rifles fall under that category. Assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, etc.

Sane people who aren't being trained to fight foreign armies have no need for that kind of ridiculous firepower.

Actually, I believe it is a matter of court record that the California courts said that the police can not always be there to protect you. [...]

So, to answer my statement that the police are failing to protect you, you provide an example of the police failing to protect (a) citizen(s). Brilliant. Moving right along.

Collective punishment? Are you fucking mad?

You don't call a blanket ban "collective punishment?"

No, I call it "public safety". What is so difficult for you to understand?

So far the discussion seems to go something like "Guns make it easy to kill people." "OK, so why don't we get rid of them?" "OH, but what about all the people who want to have a device that makes it easy to kill people? We wouldn't want to punish them! No, we should let people keep the death projectors in their home."

You ingoramus. He made a very long point that guns are NOT pure killing machines! They are designed to wound, or they don't do their job properly.

He made a long point, yes, and then he chopped it off at the knees by admitting that guns inflict injury so effectively that they kill anyways. If they wanted to cause serious injury without causing death, they would do so more often than not.

Also, I would like to see you back up this pacifist bullshit that it is never right to kill someone. The government does not say so, or there would not be the death penalty.

Who was talking about strawmans, again? I said that you do not have a right to the power to kill. I can't even relate to your desire to have a right to the power to kill, maim, and destroy easily, even if you somehow don't have the right to actually do it.

Why? Because I have no idea who the fuck you are! Why should I trust you with that power when I wouldn't even trust myself with that sort of power?

Ethically, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself if your own survival is at stake. Or even better, when other peoples lives are at stake! Why does everyone assume that a self defense situation only ever means defending your own self sentered self?

Because the likelihood of that ever actually happening is slim to none?

Besides that, going by your logic, stuff like imposed speed limits are wrong.

Bullshit. He never argued against reasonable restrictions, he argued against motions to ban them outright, dumbass.[/quote]

So imposing an arbitrary speed limit for public safety is somehow different from imposing a ban on firearm ownership for--wait for it--public safety. Right?

[Darth Wong]

Fuck it. I'm done with this thread. Like I said, I corrected a factual error.

No, you nitpicked an argument, which is a red-herring fallacy.

YOU have to get all self-righteous and twist it into some bullshit one-upmanship. Really, to hell with this place. It's really gone down the toilet. It's all about pissing on other people and being an internet tough guy.

Fuck you all. I've got real problems to spend my energy on.

Is this how it's going to be? Every time someone gets called out on something, they say "fuck this place" and make a big show of leaving? And you're screeching about people playing the "internet tough guy" routine when you've been screeching about how erik_t is a "dishonest piece of shit" for this ridiculous cell-phone diversion?

I wasn't trying to score points you fucking morons, I was trying to point out a FACT. But fuck it, this place isn't about logic and debate. I swear, erik_t is acting like I ripped off his manhood when all I did was point out a flaw in his argument.

Fuck it, just fuck it. Go piss on each other some more.

You're lying. You did not merely "correct a factual error". You decided to be incredibly pedantic. Erik_t said "You can't link any deaths to the use of phones", you replied that "the use of cellphones to remotely detonate bombs is well documented", he replied that "That's only true in the same sense that the USPS has killed people by delivering bombs to them, or a piece of brightly-colored paper has killed someone by flapping in the wind and causing the horse they were riding to flip out. I'd say the bomb killed the people, and the phone was just a trigger mechanism", and you immediately shot back with "You're full of shit and don't want to admit your example was piss-poor. Cellphone triggers, where calling the trigger cellphone detonates the bomb, is quite different than how USPS has been utilized to deliver bombs."

Your rebuttal was based on a classic red-herring fallacy: the analogy was perfectly adequate for the purpose of answering you, since it made the point that by your convoluted logic, virtually anything can be linked to deaths, thus making the phrase "linked to deaths" pretty much worthless. You can throw stones from a glass house all night, but a simple perusal of posts here, here, and here will show that the person who first went for the "internet tough guy" routine here was you.

It's pretty easy to just say that you're all about logic and everyone else is full of shit, but the fact is that you don't even know what logic rule was broken. If you did, maybe you would have realized that the breach was on your end. When someone says "linked to deaths", it is generally understood that he is trying to establish that the object or drug in question is unusually dangerous, not that it belongs to the almost limitless class of "objects which can potentially be misused to result directly or indirectly in death". And then, to scream that you're leaving because you can't stand the way people argue for pride rather than reason ... the irony is simply delicious. After all, your posts are recorded. Anyone can see what you did for themselves.

[Kar Kar]

Bear in mind that when the economy bottoms out in the USA, and you hit the bottom of poverty, you are well and truly fucked and desperate. Desperate, hungry people, or desperate addicts, will turn to crime to feed their needs.

That'd be a nice point if it didn't ignore the issue of availability of firearms. There's a reason homicides are committed two and a half more times with firearms in the US than Canada, and it isn't because Canadians are so courteous with murder.

On the other hand, places like in Europe or Canada have social safety nets that keep people from falling into such deep despair. They don't have the need to turn to desperate crime.*

At least my poor ass will far more likely get stabbed instead of shot.

There are many other factors in this than "satisfying the kill boner" . So unless you have something else besides ad-hominem attacks...?

Sure there are other factors, like having a tiny penis.

*That leaves only the amoral thrill-seekers, such as yobs in Britain (BTW, I'd be more terrified to walk in "gun-free" London than in any city in the USA, because of the yobs I've heard of. They are unarmed. But being armed isn't the problem, it;s the violence that is the problem, to me).

Oh wait crime has been on the decline in the UK. Guess you shouldn't be getting your information from sensationalist rags then.

PDF UK parliament paper on crime stats since 1900 Link
And some sort of cheat sheet essay site Link

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly, and to take this away from the stupid cell-phone hijack,

Yes, that would be a relief.

is that not the same logic behind the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people?" After all, the gun was just a series of event starting with the finger pulling the trigger, the hammer hitting the primer, the bullet exploding down the barrel and traveling down the range to hit the target, and that is what kills the person? You know, pulling the trigger didn't do the killing. The person choosing to pull it, knowing what that series comes down to, did.

No, because all the components in that gun were expressly designed and assembled for the purpose of creating a lethal event.

Look, you can potentially misuse almost anything to kill someone. The example I gave earlier was water. But a gun is expressly designed to kill people, and it is very, very good at that job. Sure, I could potentially sneak up on you and kill you by clubbing you on the back of the head with a frozen turkey leg, but that doesn't mean frozen turkey legs are dangerous.

Let's take another example: both bicycles and SUVs are vehicles. Both of them can potentially cause injuries in the event of a collision. But an SUV is unquestionably far more dangerous, so much so that people would probably say a bicycle is not really dangerous at all while an SUV is. The logical disconnect here is that people are thinking in terms of a black/white fallacy: either something is completely safe (ie- it is impossible to use it to kill someone no matter how hard you try) or it is dangerous. That is, as mentioned above, an obvious logic fallacy. There are degrees of danger inherent in any technological device.

[Count Chocula]

Kar Kar,

Your citing of the Parliament pdf would carry more weight if it didn't stop at 1999. Here's some more recent info on crime stats in the UK, from 2001:

Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

And the source? Not the NRA-ILA, but BBC News

Here's an even more recent one, from 2007:

FIREARMS: A YEAR IN NUMBERS
There were 21,521 reported crimes involving firearms in England and Wales in 2005/6, according to the Home Office.

That's a 55 per cent increase on a decade earlier, when there were 13,876 gun-related offences.

It averages 414 gun crimes every week.

50 of the total firearm crimes were murders.

7,248 were for other violent incidents against another person.

Gun-related incidents hit their peak in 2003/04 when there were 24,094 recorded offences.

Here's the source

Note that since handguns were banned in 1997 the gun crime rate has increased. The logical conclusion is that, despite the handgun ban, more guns were used in crimes in the hands of criminals, since the Queen's subjects can no longer defend themselves with the same.

Unfortunately, the same article screwed the pooch with the next statements, which were clearly designed to elicit an emotional response:

Six out of every 100 people in England and Wales are believed to own a gun - more than in Iran or Nigeria.

The international gun league is headed by America where 90 out of every 100 citizens have a firearm.

Note the "are believed" and "international gun league" phrases - I leave your imagination to fill in the hoped-for reaction of the readers. The Mirror's bias, or at least that of its editor, is clear.

By the way, shit like this:

There are many other factors in this than "satisfying the kill boner" . So unless you have something else besides ad-hominem attacks...?

Sure there are other factors, like having a tiny penis.

tends to negate any valid points you may have, as the stench of verbal diarrhea overshadows the still-edible bits of corn in your argument. See Mike's posts in this threat about debating fallacies.

Going wayyy back to the OT, the jump in gun sales is probably, in part, a reasoned apprehension on the part of those making the purchases. Realize I have no first-hand knowledge of this since I live in Florida and we all pretty much already have what we want, but I can relate my experiences from living in California.

When California enacted its "assault weapons ban" it went farther than Federal law. I, and at least a dozen of my acquaintances, made damned sure we bought our semiauto AKs, AR15s, and standard 20, 30 and 15-round (pistol) magazines before the stupid-ass 10-round magazine law went into effect.

Perhaps after a little time, we will see data that reveals what kind of guns were purchased post-election. My guess is that they will be the types of guns people think Obama would ban - such as AR15s and semiautomatic pistols. What will actually happen is, of course, a topic for 2009 or 2010.

[Darth Wong]

Note that since handguns were banned in 1997 the gun crime rate has increased. The logical conclusion is that, despite the handgun ban, more guns were used in crimes in the hands of criminals, since the Queen's subjects can no longer defend themselves with the same.

No, that is one possible conclusion. It is not a straight logical deduction at all, because there is no control group. That's the problem when you do things like taking two snapshots 10 years apart and assume nothing else has changed.

[Formless]

Yes. I can't understand why you want to own such a thing. I can maybe understand going down to a firing range and borrowing one to shoot off a few rounds with, but taking it home afterward? Nah...

Then we are fundamentally opposed. I doubt you would understand at this point.

There are times when it is forgiveable. But why should you be so preoccupied with those (incredibly rare, might I add) situations that you would pre-emptively over-equip yourself to deal with them?

Because that isn't coming overequiped, that is coming with the equipment designed for the job. If you don't have the right tool for the job, you can't do the fucking job! Sure, there are other weapons, but a gun is the best of them. What is so hard to understand about that?

Because shredding a person is totally different from splattering their brains on a wall, right?

What? You said that somehow a fucking NUCLEAR WEAPON was equivalent to a PERSONAL FIREARM, a strawman if I ever saw one. What does this statement have to do with that?

Assault rifles fall under that category. Assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, etc.

Sane people who aren't being trained to fight foreign armies have no need for that kind of ridiculous firepower.

Bullshit. What about those who are disabled like Broomsticks husband? What about hunters? What about the fact that even if they don't need one, it doesn't matter as long as they don't hurt anyone? And you call that an argument.

So, to answer my statement that the police are failing to protect you, you provide an example of the police failing to protect (a) citizen(s). Brilliant. Moving right along.

Perhaps you should hear their reasoning. No matter how many police they have on the job, if your life is in danger right now or there is a burglar in your home right now you need to be able to defend yourself right now. The police can send someone, but no matter how many cops they can reasonably field, it is going to take them time to get someone to the scene. The cops are not some kind of omnipresent force of nature delivering justice at will just because someone is in danger. People still need to be able to take care of themselves, not be babysat by the police.

No, I call it "public safety". What is so difficult for you to understand?

So far the discussion seems to go something like "Guns make it easy to kill people." "OK, so why don't we get rid of them?" "OH, but what about all the people who want to have a device that makes it easy to kill people? We wouldn't want to punish them! No, we should let people keep the death projectors in their home."

Because most of those people, and the numbers cited back this up, aren't using them to kill people. But then, you don't believe people have the right to kill, as you say below, so until we can agree on that point, we are at an impasse.

He made a long point, yes, and then he chopped it off at the knees by admitting that guns inflict injury so effectively that they kill anyways. If they wanted to cause serious injury without causing death, they would do so more often than not.

They sometimes kill people, you dolt! Coyote admitted that they sometimes kill, but his point was that they are not designed to kill, they are designed to injure. And he also said that most of the time, that is what they do.

Who was talking about strawmans, again? I said that you do not have a right to the power to kill. I can't even relate to your desire to have a right to the power to kill, maim, and destroy easily, even if you somehow don't have the right to actually do it.

Why? Because I have no idea who the fuck you are! Why should I trust you with that power when I wouldn't even trust myself with that sort of power?

"Right to the power to kill" is the same thing as "right to kill," imbecil. I don't want to kill or maim people in RL, but by damn, sometimes you don't have a choice! Perhaps the situation does not come up very often, but that entirely depends on where you live, and who you are.

And by the way, saying that you wouldn't trust yourself with a gun is appealing to personal experience, a fallicious argument, especially when I am pretty sure you don't have any experience to draw upon. Learning the safety rules of shooting and learning how to use one of these things responsibly means learning how to trust yourself. I know that doesn't mean you can trust others either, but when the numbers say that only seven people out of one thousand (and likely fewer, taking repeat felons into account) gun owners commit crimes with them, I guess I also won't prejudge a gun owner until he proves to be untrustworthy by his own actions. The potential dangers of unknown strangers is no argument.

Because the likelihood of that ever actually happening is slim to none?

Are you going to support that statement, or are you going to continue to look stupid?

So imposing an arbitrary speed limit for public safety is somehow different from imposing a ban on firearm ownership for--wait for it--public safety. Right?

Prove that it is a major public safety issue, and then we will talk. And before you try another strawman, remember that we are talking about weapons that are not already heavily restricted like assault rifles and grenade launchers and NUKES RAR!!!!11!

@ Wong: I concede that point, and in fact have from the start. Guns are designed to be used in a manner that can potentially be lethal, and will certainly cause harm if the user so wishes. The idea I wanted to get across is that either way, the issue is with the person who decides to use it, and take the responsibility for that action. So the issue is not "do you trust guns," its "do you trust the people who own/use them?"

[Count Chocula]

Conceded. I should have said that that was my conclusion.

[Bluewolf]

Note that since handguns were banned in 1997 the gun crime rate has increased. The logical conclusion is that, despite the handgun ban, more guns were used in crimes in the hands of criminals, since the Queen's subjects can no longer defend themselves with the same.

I would argue that the social problems of the UK that have been more prominant recently probably have had a hand in that rather then the banning of guns themselves. Shootings here are still so rare that the media can make a big thing over it. I would also argue that maybe gun crime could include posession of firearms and not any actual shootings? This is turn could be due to higher reporting rates but I would have no evidence to back that up. I am mearly making guesses here but we have never really had much gun crime.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. I can't understand why you want to own such a thing. I can maybe understand going down to a firing range and borrowing one to shoot off a few rounds with, but taking it home afterward? Nah...

Then we are fundamentally opposed. I doubt you would understand at this point.

A better rebuttal would be to point out that he does not need to understand. In anything that could be reasonably called a "free society", the onus must be on the regulator to establish that regulations are necessary, rather than the individual to show that he should have the freedom to engage in something the regulator does not understand.

I don't understand why a guy would want to have sex with another guy either, but that doesn't mean I would restrict his freedom to do so.

Perhaps you should hear their reasoning. No matter how many police they have on the job, if your life is in danger right now or there is a burglar in your home right now you need to be able to defend yourself right now.

The problem with microscopic reasoning like this is that social policy must generally be made on macroscopic reasoning, not microscopic reasoning. If a policy caused X more deaths due to widespread weapon proliferation but saved Y deaths due to self-defense incidents, then the question is whether Y is greater than X. If it isn't, then you can't appeal to the microscopic scenario in order to challenge the macroscopic policy.

Now of course, I know that people dispute the notion that weapon proliferation can cause deaths. But we don't seem to have a problem applying that logic elsewhere in the world: for example, Americans generally do not dispute that widespread availability of AK-47s in Africa can be linked to civil wars there (and in fact, civil wars in Africa flare up whenever new arms shipments arrive).

@ Wong: I concede that point, and in fact have from the start. Guns are designed to be used in a manner that can potentially be lethal, and will certainly cause harm if the user so wishes. The idea I wanted to get across is that either way, the issue is with the person who decides to use it, and take the responsibility for that action. So the issue is not "do you trust guns," its "do you trust the people who own/use them?"

Fair enough. The problem is that I have very low trust in the average person, and so would prefer to see him reduced in power, and we can both agree that a gun is power. Just look at how the average person uses a car! Now mind you, the average person is just careless, not actually homicidal or reckless, but the minority of drivers who behave in a borderline insane fashion in traffic is still large enough to give one pause.

[Darth Wong]

Note that since handguns were banned in 1997 the gun crime rate has increased. The logical conclusion is that, despite the handgun ban, more guns were used in crimes in the hands of criminals, since the Queen's subjects can no longer defend themselves with the same.

I would argue that the social problems of the UK that have been more prominant recently probably have had a hand in that rather then the banning of guns themselves. Shootings here are still so rare that the media can make a big thing over it. I would also argue that maybe gun crime could include posession of firearms and not any actual shootings? This is turn could be due to higher reporting rates but I would have no evidence to back that up. I am mearly making guesses here but we have never really had much gun crime.

It's also worth pointing out that when the absolute number of shootings is small, a relatively small increase in the number of shootings can look like a huge percentage increase. The Americans, by contrast, have such a huge number of shootings yearly that you could add a thousand homicide shootings per year and it would only increase the total by something like 8 percent. When totals are small, uncontrolled factors and even random noise become more significant.

[Rye]

Kar Kar,

Your citing of the Parliament pdf would carry more weight if it didn't stop at 1999. Here's some more recent info on crime stats in the UK, from 2001:

Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

And the source? Not the NRA-ILA, but BBC News

Here's an even more recent one, from 2007:

FIREARMS: A YEAR IN NUMBERS
There were 21,521 reported crimes involving firearms in England and Wales in 2005/6, according to the Home Office.

That's a 55 per cent increase on a decade earlier, when there were 13,876 gun-related offences.

It averages 414 gun crimes every week.

50 of the total firearm crimes were murders.

7,248 were for other violent incidents against another person.

Gun-related incidents hit their peak in 2003/04 when there were 24,094 recorded offences.

Here's the source

Note that since handguns were banned in 1997 the gun crime rate has increased. The logical conclusion is that, despite the handgun ban, more guns were used in crimes in the hands of criminals, since the Queen's subjects can no longer defend themselves with the same.

What's your source on that? How many people were defending themselves with guns in the UK in such situations before they were being used to successfully massacre children? To my knowledge, guns have never been that prevalent here (at least in modern times), certainly not to the extent of realistic mass personal defence; the modern upsurge has a shitload more to do with gun culture amongst the poor and criminal classes than it does with Joe Public having access to guns.

Unfortunately, the same article screwed the pooch with the next statements, which were clearly designed to elicit an emotional response:

Six out of every 100 people in England and Wales are believed to own a gun - more than in Iran or Nigeria.

The international gun league is headed by America where 90 out of every 100 citizens have a firearm.

Note the "are believed" and "international gun league" phrases - I leave your imagination to fill in the hoped-for reaction of the readers. The Mirror's bias, or at least that of its editor, is clear.

The Mirror is a horrible tabloid. Still, for all the assertions of the pro-gun crowd, our homicide rates and our homicide by firearm rates are nothing like America's, or indeed individual states in America.

tends to negate any valid points you may have, as the stench of verbal diarrhea overshadows the still-edible bits of corn in your argument. See Mike's posts in this threat about debating fallacies.

LOL! Uhm, you might want to try that too. One bad argument wouldn't negate another good one.

[Formless]

A better rebuttal would be to point out that he does not need to understand. In anything that could be reasonably called a "free society", the onus must be on the regulator to establish that regulations are necessary, rather than the individual to show that he should have the freedom to engage in something the regulator does not understand.

I don't understand why a guy would want to have sex with another guy either, but that doesn't mean I would restrict his freedom to do so.

Ah, true. Always nice to learn from a better debater than myself. However, part of the reason I said that is to recognize that this conversation with him will go nowhere until one of us understands each other. Otherwise, no conversation can be had.

The problem with microscopic reasoning like this is that social policy must generally be made on macroscopic reasoning, not microscopic reasoning. If a policy caused X more deaths due to widespread weapon proliferation but saved Y deaths due to self-defense incidents, then the question is whether Y is greater than X. If it isn't, then you can't appeal to the microscopic scenario in order to challenge the macroscopic policy.

Granted, of course, although I believe the courts (and I am working from memory, so do bear with me) made the case that they could not simply hire more cops to fulfill the need to protect people on every occasion. More people would die and more property would be stolen if they didn't recognize people's right to defend themselves, specifically their homes as I remember it.

Now of course, I know that people dispute the notion that weapon proliferation can cause deaths. But we don't seem to have a problem applying that logic elsewhere in the world: for example, Americans generally do not dispute that widespread availability of AK-47s in Africa can be linked to civil wars there (and in fact, civil wars in Africa flare up whenever new arms shipments arrive).

Well, the situations are not exactly the same, considering the extremely bad sociopolitical conditions found in Africa. You yourself have often said that in our countries, even the poor are relatively rich.

Fair enough. The problem is that I have very low trust in the average person, and so would prefer to see him reduced in power, and we can both agree that a gun is power. Just look at how the average person uses a car! Now mind you, the average person is just careless, not actually homicidal or reckless, but the minority of drivers who behave in a borderline insane fashion in traffic is still large enough to give one pause.

Well, I personally believe that the average person needs more power, at least relative to the government in charge of them, but I understand why you would be distrusting of them due to your belief that the average person is stupid. Also, in a society where the people are educated at a basic level, they tend to act more responsibly. I know that there are many people who don't understand the realities of guns, and fear them unreasonably because they have been given a mythical deadly quality even when they are not being used.

[Flash]

Note that since handguns were banned in 1997 the gun crime rate has increased. The logical conclusion is that, despite the handgun ban, more guns were used in crimes in the hands of criminals, since the Queen's subjects can no longer defend themselves with the same.

Darth Wong has already pointed it out, but that is not the only logical conclusion. It could be that the rate of reporting gun crimes in Britain is now higher. And in fact, comparing crime statistics in Britain for that time period is tricky, as in 2002 they changed their reporting standards. This could help account for the rather drastic change. Also, from here.

But these figures might be worse than they seem.

* The Home Office says that the increases are partly due to changes in the way crimes are recorded and much of the increase can be put down to a huge jump in offences involving imitation weapons.
* Imitation weapons were used in 3,332 offences in 2004/05, an increase of more than half (55%) from 2003/04. Although some of these weapons can be converted to fire bullets, it is unknown how many such weapons exist.

So, we already have some alternate theories as to why there has been such a huge jump in firearms offences in Britain for that time period. (Woo, this criminology degree is good for something after all.)

It's also worth pointing out that when the absolute number of shootings is small, a relatively small increase in the number of shootings can look like a huge percentage increase.

Indeed. From here. Gun crime makes up less than 0.5% of total crime in Britain and Wales. 566 serious or fatal injuries involving guns were recorded in 2006/2007, as compared with 645 the previous year. So we can see that even a small change in total numbers really skews the percentages.