Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As is your right, but just governance does not necessarily require your consent.

I would say a government has the duty of making prudent decisions when it comes to the safety of its citizens. Though it is within the government's rights to allow civilians to carry around lethal weapons made to kill people wherever they'd like with no training whatsoever, I don't see how anyone can argue that is a prudent and wise decision. The governance in this decision was just in that it was done in within the parameters of the legal system, but that does not mean it was a good decision.

Given your statement, you must also hold it is within a government's right to restrict guns, even heavily so, so long as it is done with just governance.

[KnightofChrist]

ONS was created by Parliament, and if I recall correctly funded by it as well. I have doubts of its independence from government when it was created by it and most certainly if it is funded by it. Still the link posted in my last post should honestly give pause to their trustworthiness. Anyway, y'all have fun on the never ending merry-go-round.

[PhuturePriest]

One thing I find very interesting (and perhaps points to the almost deification of firearms in America's gun culture, in my opinion) is that pro-gun advocates who are of the mind that we should have very few gun laws and we should be free to carry whatever type of firearm we please anywhere we please, seem to only think along those lines when it comes to firearms. I question how comfortable they would be if a law were passed and 90% of the population suddenly walked around with swords, for instance.

What if, for the sake of argument, the 2nd amendment also said citizens have the right to walk around with lethal explosives, or even flashbangs, for that matter? What about armed drones? Tanks? Fighter jets? Would you support this legal right simply because the constitution says so, or would you sit back and wonder if we shouldn't perhaps draw a line for the sake of public safety?

I ask this out of honest curiosity. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Nihil Obstat]

19 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I would say a government has the duty of making prudent decisions when it comes to the safety of its citizens. Though it is within the government's rights to allow civilians to carry around lethal weapons made to kill people wherever they'd like with no training whatsoever, I don't see how anyone can argue that is a prudent and wise decision. The governance in this decision was just in that it was done in within the parameters of the legal system, but that does not mean it was a good decision.

Given your statement, you must also hold it is within a government's right to restrict guns, even heavily so, so long as it is done with just governance.

Within reason, yes. I agree that they should be bound by prudence in choosing specific policies. But typically we are still bound by imprudent laws. Though we can and should try to change them.

[veritasluxmea]

2 hours ago, beatitude said:

I wasn't speaking of the violent crime rate in general, but the gun homicide rate. That is much more concrete and easier to compare directly than general violent crime, which is nebulous in how it's defined from country to country.

So what I'm saying is that doesn't prove causation. The US does review and implement stricter gun laws after tragedies. Are they successful? Maybe. I think a review of people's backgrounds would be helpful. However it seems if people just keep trying and trying to get rid of guns, eventually you'd reach a point where guns would be illegal but still around. You can't un-invent a gun. There was a guy who recently 3d printed his own handgun that actually works. And then people who legitimately need and use guns wouldn't have recourse to them. 

2 hours ago, beatitude said:

As it happens, at the moment I live in a 'bad' inner city area that is one of the UK's gun crime hotspots (linked to gangs and drugs), and I still walk around by myself and would feel no safer carrying a weapon. I feel safe enough in the first place. I use my common sense and that's enough. I have no interest in guns and neither do most people here, aside from people who use them for sports, who can still get them.

If we're going with personal stories I also live in the city and work and travel in a bad area. Fortunately during the day it's fine to travel around and like you said, as long as you use your common sense you're fine. I've had a few encounters which I've been able to walk away from. However, I would feel much, much safer if I was armed and trained to use a gun. It's to much money and hassle for me right now (money for gun, safe, training classes, and everything) but it would be something I'd do when I have my own place and family.

I'm glad you're fine with the guns laws in your country and don't have a problem with the way things are. That's how I feel about where I live, too. I'm not suggesting Britain or anybody there needs to change. The family I lived with in high school had a gun safe in their basement and their dad and kids would go off quietly and practice handling guns, shooting targets, and so on. When we lived in suburban areas, hours away from the nearest city and police, we owned guns just in case (and yes, my parents knew how to use them). For most families, guns are treated respectfully and carefully and just aren't a big deal. 

2 hours ago, beatitude said:

Where is the benefit? It seems to me that a lot of people want to own them just because they like the idea of a gun or they see it as something central to personal rights/identity, not for any practical purpose, and to be honest that doesn't make much sense to me.

The benefit is that many children and disadvantaged people- people you want to protect from harm- are saved by guns. 

20 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

 

Quote got messed up here ^ Is there actually a law banning people from walking around with swords? There are a lot of anime nerds around here who have real swords and honestly no, I wouldn't care if I saw them walking around with them. 

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, veritasluxmea said:

Quote got messed up here ^ Is there actually a law banning people from walking around with swords? There are a lot of anime nerds around here who have real swords and honestly no, I wouldn't care if I saw them walking around with them. 

I don't know if there's an actual law banning it (and I'm not particularly motivated enough right now to look,) but I would be willing to bet if I walked down the street or into a restaurant with a real katana that could cut people in half, someone would call the cops and I would be escorted off the premises. I like swords and even I'm not particularly keen with people walking around with them. I'm not an expert with them, but I'm competent enough to know the vast majority of people who have them have no clue how to use them, and the only thing more dangerous than a properly trained swordsman is an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Which happens to be the same with guns, coincidentally. I'm sure you've seen one of the many video compilations of people accidentally shooting themselves and others.

[Socrates]

The gun law I support is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And if despotic-minded politicians and their toadies find it too harsh on them, then too flippin' bad for them.  They can move to France.

[PhuturePriest]

6 minutes ago, Socrates said:

The gun law I support is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And if despotic-minded politicians and their toadies find it too harsh on them, then too flippin' bad for them.  They can move to France.

That's Mr. Toad to you, cowboy.

I don't know much about France, but I would personally love to move to Britain. If you would like non-supporters of the 2nd amendment like me out of the country, how about taking real action and pay the fees to send me on my merry tea-drinking, Mr. Bean-watching, British loyalist way? I hear Britain could use some vocations anyway.

[Not A Real Name]

I personally wish people would take a test before owning a smartphone.

What is this?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Ban the cars!

Jk jk.

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Not A Real Name said:

I personally wish people would take a test before owning a smartphone.

What is this?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Ban the cars!

Jk jk.

The idea of riding by horse is so much more romantic, no?

[Spinozist]

13 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Guns in the UK were heavily restricted/banned on the premise that it would reduce gun crimes, yet gun crimes increase rather than decrease. That is a failure, it is a failure because the opposite of what was hoped happened. 

Comparing crime rates in UK to the USA is a bit like comparing crime rates between one state in the US to the whole of Europe, not an fair comparison what-so-ever. I also question the reliability of the O.R.C stats that you and @beatitude posted, government will protect government policies and the O.R.C. has more than once from my memory been accused of data manipulation. They are no more trustworthy than any of the other sources for stats in this thread. For example: http://www.research-live.com/news/government-accused-of-crime-research-bias/3001634.article

Anyway, like I said before, we've done this before, a bazillion times. I may stick my head in again, but then again I may not. I'm quite sure we've all made up our minds on the subject and none of us will be changing our positions.

O.R.C should be O.R.S, my apologies for the typo.

You quote a tabloid-level article from 2003, more than 10 years ago, which cites a monthly change in UK gun violence, which may only be picking up fluctuations, while I cited both a government source (ONC) and an independent source (Citizens Report UK) for annual gun violence in 2014, 2 years ago, and both the independent source and the government source find that the annual rate is dropping. I compared this data to a US government source (presumably, this source would suffer the same biases as other government sources). I'll leave it to the interested reader to decide which information is more reliable.

If you'd like to provide a reliable recent and alternative source for annual rates that disagrees with the sources I gave, I'm always open to changing my opinion on the basis of new data.

6 minutes ago, Spinozist said:

You quote a tabloid-level article from 2003, more than 10 years ago, which cites a monthly change in UK gun violence, which may only be picking up fluctuations, while I cited both a government source (ONC) and an independent source (Citizens Report UK) for annual gun violence in 2014, 2 years ago, and both the independent source and the government source find that the annual rate is dropping. I compared this data to a US government source (presumably, this source would suffer the same biases as other government sources). I'll leave it to the interested reader to decide which information is more reliable.

If you'd like to provide a reliable recent and alternative source for annual rates that disagrees with the sources I gave, I'm always open to changing my opinion on the basis of new data.

Should be ONS, and as Beatitude pointed out, it's not exactly a government source, since it's independent. Citizens Report UK is entirely independent, and actually not very trusting of government stats overall, see http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/about/

[KnightofChrist]

6 hours ago, Spinozist said:

You quote a tabloid-level article from 2003, more than 10 years ago, which cites a monthly change in UK gun violence, which may only be picking up fluctuations, while I cited both a government source (ONC) and an independent source (Citizens Report UK) for annual gun violence in 2014, 2 years ago, and both the independent source and the government source find that the annual rate is dropping. I compared this data to a US government source (presumably, this source would suffer the same biases as other government sources). I'll leave it to the interested reader to decide which information is more reliable.

Both the ONS and CR UK have the same 2014 data because both use the ONS data, (CR UK states in the link provided its source is ONS). So rather than giving two different sources, you've basically given two different links with same original source, ONS. Parliament created the anti-gun laws, Parliament created ONS, ONS is funded by the government, ONS apparently produces data that is favorable to the effectiveness to its creators anti-gun laws. I've never known an organization that is not bias in favor of its creator, superior and/or source of money, I therefore question its so-called independence. But I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Quote

If you'd like to provide a reliable recent and alternative source for annual rates that disagrees with the sources I gave, I'm always open to changing my opinion on the basis of new data.

There is a interesting Harvard study, while not as recent as you may like (2007), it does cover many of the topics we are discussing in this thread. Violent crime in the UK before and after the passage of anti-gun laws, UK violent crime verses US violent crime, whether or not less guns lead to less murder/suicide/violent crimes, etc. The subsection pertaining to the time of creation the of firearms to modern times is particularly interesting to me. As gun ownership spread, the number of murders decreased in places like Britain. Anyway, it's somewhat long but an interesting read.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[PhuturePriest]

My feelings on the topic are that, ultimately, I would rather limit my self-defense to only a knife if it meant we decreased mass homicides. If by limiting guns we decreased gun violence but increased knife violence, that for me is preferable. Guns have the capability of doing something like we saw in Paris. Knives limit the user and his deadly capabilities. 

I'm 5'6". I'm a person who would greatly benefit from having a gun if I were ever attacked. But I'm willing to sacrifice that if it means decreasing the amount of lost lives.

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

My feelings on the topic are that, ultimately, I would rather limit my self-defense to only a knife if it meant we decreased mass homicides. If by limiting guns we decreased gun violence but increased knife violence, that for me is preferable. Guns have the capability of doing something like we saw in Paris. Knives limit the user and his deadly capabilities. 

I'm 5'6". I'm a person who would greatly benefit from having a gun if I were ever attacked. But I'm willing to sacrifice that if it means decreasing the amount of lost lives.

Interesting side note. Perhaps relevant, perhaps not. Knives are garbage for self-defense. They're excellent for shanking an unsuspecting victim from behind, and they're excellent at causing incredible damage very quickly. Not good for defending oneself.

I carry my knife as a tool only.

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

Interesting side note. Perhaps relevant, perhaps not. Knives are garbage for self-defense. They're excellent for shanking an unsuspecting victim from behind, and they're excellent at causing incredible damage very quickly. Not good for defending oneself.

I carry my knife as a tool only.

Perhaps. With training they can become a good offensive weapon, but you are certainly limited in your options, especially if you are untrained.