Guns: will a ban reduce crime?

[pompey_spud]

It might not be the government's fault, but in Britain, a teen certainely just can't go into their shed and take their father's gun.

 

 

 

Lets not get into how readily avaliable guns are in Britain, my point is, if America made it a lot harder to get guns, then less households would have them, therefore less teen have access to them, therefore less killings.

[Somnambulism]

Another issue is that gun control doesn't just cover banning guns, but enforcing good practice when it comes to their storage. I know that in the UK one must have a license to own firearms, and in order to obtain said license the applicant must have the means to store the gun securely - generally in a gunsafe. What's more, the police will check that this practice is adhered to, and revoke the license if it is not.

[angryjoe]

However; I didn't put this because i thaught people may see it a patronising

 

 

 

It is obvious. But like I already said, it's not just one plus one when you're dealing with the diversity of 300 million compared to a fifth of that that barely has the conflict of interest of the 300 million.

 

Agreed, like what Parabola said too.

Yeh i do agree with what parabola said to an extent but i just think you can't argue with that statistic. Especially when im saying that that the gun laws are only one factor. And i dont think that the diversity of 5 times more people could count for 55 times more gun murders.

[Bubsa]

Now you're putting words into people's mouths :\ He meant that they snap and then reach for the gun, not see the gun and snap. If the gun isn't there, he's saying it's harder to take the frustration out on such a grand scale.

 

 

 

That's funny, he didn't mention anything about that. I guess you know more about what he says than himself.

 

 

 

Man, forget this. You show your outrage when someone makes a false conclusion, and yet you continue to do so yourself.

 

 

 

Pointless to argue, I'm out.

[Satenza]

 

Lets not get into how readily avaliable guns are in Britain, my point is, if America made it a lot harder to get guns, then less households would have them, therefore less teen have access to them, therefore less killings.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is denying that if you remove the readiness of a tool it becomes harder to get. There are implications of doing so, such implication may outweigh the cost of having guns avaliable. It's all about what price the individual puts onto liberty and freedom.

[Parabola]

Yeh i do agree with what parabola said to an extent but i just think you can't argue with that statistic.

 

 

 

The whole point of what I was saying was that you CAN argue with that statistic as it is essentially meaningless when so many other factors are involved.

 

 

 

Scotland, on the whole, consumes a lot of porridge. There are very few tigers there. Thus, porridge is an effective tiger repellant.

[pompey_spud]

 

Lets not get into how readily avaliable guns are in Britain, my point is, if America made it a lot harder to get guns, then less households would have them, therefore less teen have access to them, therefore less killings.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is denying that if you remove the readiness of a tool it becomes harder to get. There are implications of doing so, such implication may outweigh the cost of having guns avaliable. It's all about what price the individual puts onto liberty and freedom.

 

@ Bold- Its what shadow seems to be doing...

 

 

 

But what is this obsession with freedom and liberty? Americans don't have the right to masterbate whilst riding a hippo in the middle of New york, and people are cool with that. Some freedoms are just not worth the trouble they would cause, and I feel guns are one of these. Self defence is not an issue. Use a golf club, or a baseball bat instead.

[angryjoe]

Yeh i do agree with what parabola said to an extent but i just think you can't argue with that statistic.

 

 

 

The whole point of what I was saying was that you CAN argue with that statistic as it is essentially meaningless when so many other factors are involved.

 

 

 

Scotland, on the whole, consumes a lot of porridge. There are very few tigers there. Thus, porridge is an effective tiger repellant.

That is an extremely minor factor, a major factor is that Scotland doesn't have the right climate for tigers and that Scotland is part of the British Isles and I can't imagine a tiger swimming the channel.

 

 

 

Gunb laws however, i believe along with many others, are a major factor on the difference in shootings in the UK and the US.

 

 

 

 

 

To add to that; basically is what you are trying to say that gun crime and gun laws are as unrelated as tigers and porridge?

[vilageidiotx]

Its foolish to ban something with high demand and expect the item to disapear. I have several examples to prove my point.

 

 

 

A: We will start on common ground, runescape. Jagex cut the "supply" of party hats, and demand skyrocketed. This didnt make it impossible for them to come in, as some people "duped" or copied theirs and made alot of cash

 

 

 

B: The prohibition. Alchohol was made illegal, but the nation didnt want to be sober, and the demand for alchohol skyrocketed, so some people started making "bootleg whiskey" and would then smuggle it to hidden bars. This gave rise to the gang scene that the 20's is famous for.

 

 

 

C: Drugs. Because they are illegal there is high demand, and i shouldnt have to go into detail how bad the drug scene is.

 

 

 

Its foolish to think that you will make guns go away by passing laws. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply. The majority of people who kill or use guns in gang crimes probably dont care what is illegal. If someone really wants someone dead they will find a way.

[Parabola]

To add to that; basically is what you are trying to say that gun crime and gun laws are as unrelated as tigers and porridge?

 

 

 

Not at all, that was just a stupid example of how statistics can say a lot of things when in reality there are far more factors that affect them. It wasn't serious.

[baron8000]

To add to that; basically is what you are trying to say that gun crime and gun laws are as unrelated as tigers and porridge?

 

 

 

Not at all, that was just a stupid example of how statistics can say a lot of things when in reality there are far more factors that affect them. It wasn't serious.

 

 

 

I think what parabola is saying is that correlational evidence proves nothing.

[pompey_spud]

Its foolish to think that you will make guns go away by passing laws. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply. The majority of people who kill or use guns in gang crimes probably dont care what is illegal. If someone really wants someone dead they will find a way.

 

You're missing my entire point,

 

 

 

Of course you won't stop gang members, and people who really need or want a gun. What you will stop however, are these impulsive teens, being given one too many wedgies, noticing their dad's 'protection' pistol, and taking it to school, and wreaking havoc, as this protection pistol wouldn't have existed.

[Viktorkrum77]

Didn't Britain even ban the ability to use self defense against someone breaking into your own house? You need self defense, no matter a ban on guns, people will get a hold of them, it's not hard at all, you could easily illegally get them from Mexico, Columbia, who knows, it's the same as drugs.

 

 

 

If one person has one and no one else is aloud to, then you're going to have death because no one can defend themselves. If just one person has a gun, and holds it up to the gunman, the gunman is not going to shoot.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Of course you won't stop gang members, and people who really need or want a gun. What you will stop however, are these impulsive teens, being given one too many wedgies, noticing their dad's 'protection' pistol, and taking it to school, and wreaking havoc, as this protection pistol wouldn't have existed.

 

You think that banning guns will make that pistol disappear off of his shelf? You are poorly mistaken. That's almost as idealistic as thinking prohibition will make alcohol disappear, is just doesn't work that way.

[angryjoe]

To add to that; basically is what you are trying to say that gun crime and gun laws are as unrelated as tigers and porridge?

 

 

 

Not at all, that was just a stupid example of how statistics can say a lot of things when in reality there are far more factors that affect them. It wasn't serious.

Yes i know, even said, that there are far more factors but i'm trying to say that gun laws/restrictions are one of, if not the biggest factors.

 

 

 

I do know what your getting at but i just believe that those statistics show more than you give them credit for.

[vilageidiotx]

Its foolish to think that you will make guns go away by passing laws. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply. The majority of people who kill or use guns in gang crimes probably dont care what is illegal. If someone really wants someone dead they will find a way.

 

You're missing my entire point,

 

 

 

Of course you won't stop gang members, and people who really need or want a gun. What you will stop however, are these impulsive teens, being given one too many wedgies, noticing their dad's 'protection' pistol, and taking it to school, and wreaking havoc, as this protection pistol wouldn't have existed.

 

 

 

Ok, what is the real culprit though? Its society. Maybe we should try to fix society first. The kid will still suffer. What you wish to do is put a bandaid on a tumor, it might hide it but it will get worse and worse until its a real problem.

 

 

 

Also, you tend to forget the "collateral damage". You are taking away the freedom of alot of people. You can say what you want, but there are alot of people who like guns and use them resposibly. Music had been linked to violence, but im sure you would protest if they took that away. Its the same thing. The sad thing is as society gets worse, or the tumor grows that is, you will need more and more bandaids to cover it. Music might be the next thing you lose, its not implausible and, actually, the wheels on that one have already started turning.

[pompey_spud]

But because of anti-gun laws, very few people have guns, including the burglars. Its similar to the cold war, I suppose. The burglar gets a pistol, the homeowner gets a pistol. So the burglar brings a shotgun, so the homeowner also gets a shotgun. So the burglar brings a tank, and the homwowner follows suit. See what I mean?

 

 

 

With our system, apart from the gangs and whatnot, no one has guns. And so a burglar will rarely even take a weapon, and the homeowner will have something like a cricket bat. A LOT safer, don't you agree?

[angryjoe]

Didn't Britain even ban the ability to use self defense against someone breaking into your own house?

Im not too sur but i think that technically yes but it's highly unlikeys that youll be punished for roughing up a robber a bit - as long as you don't do them serious damage as in beating them half to death.

 

 

 

And i don't reckon you deserve to be shot just for robbing really.

[Viktorkrum77]

But because of anti-gun laws, very few people have guns, including the burglars. Its similar to the cold war, I suppose. The burglar gets a pistol, the homeowner gets a pistol. So the burglar brings a shotgun, so the homeowner also gets a shotgun. So the burglar brings a tank, and the homwowner follows suit. See what I mean?

 

 

 

With our system, apart from the gangs and whatnot, no one has guns. And so a burglar will rarely even take a weapon, and the homeowner will have something like a cricket bat. A LOT safer, don't you agree?

 

 

 

Does Britain border Mexico, Central America, and South America? No. Does America? Yes. Where do most of the drugs/illegal weapons come from? Those exact places I mentioned, it will be easy to get them here with or without gun laws rather than in Britain, which is an island.

[pompey_spud]

Of course you won't stop gang members, and people who really need or want a gun. What you will stop however, are these impulsive teens, being given one too many wedgies, noticing their dad's 'protection' pistol, and taking it to school, and wreaking havoc, as this protection pistol wouldn't have existed.

 

You think that banning guns will make that pistol disappear off of his shelf? You are poorly mistaken. That's almost as idealistic as thinking prohibition will make alcohol disappear, is just doesn't work that way.

 

 

 

But guns aren't alcohol. I can't think of how to word this, just an example. Because of anti-gun laws in the UK, only a few inner city gang members carry guns, and only farmers have them in their house. Seems like the system works to me...

 

 

 

And @ Villageidiot, I agree, we should find a way to get rid of the violence which exists in society today, but the readiness of guns to hormonal teenagers is still very worrying.

[pompey_spud]

But because of anti-gun laws, very few people have guns, including the burglars. Its similar to the cold war, I suppose. The burglar gets a pistol, the homeowner gets a pistol. So the burglar brings a shotgun, so the homeowner also gets a shotgun. So the burglar brings a tank, and the homwowner follows suit. See what I mean?

 

 

 

With our system, apart from the gangs and whatnot, no one has guns. And so a burglar will rarely even take a weapon, and the homeowner will have something like a cricket bat. A LOT safer, don't you agree?

 

 

 

Does Britain border Mexico, Central America, and South America? No. Does America? Yes. Where do most of the drugs/illegal weapons come from? Those exact places I mentioned, it will be easy to get them here with or without gun laws rather than in Britain, which is an island.

 

But smuggling of weapons from Eastern Europe is rife. The situation isn't as bad as what it would be in the US, I agree, but there are still a hell of a lot of firearms being smuggled into the country across the channel.

[WutangFlu]

*imagines what it would be like if this wasn't a separate thread* :uhh: :ohnoes:

[Parabola]

Didn't Britain even ban the ability to use self defense against someone breaking into your own house?

 

 

 

No. That is absolute balls.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

But guns aren't alcohol. I can't think of how to word this, just an example. Because of anti-gun laws in the UK, only a few inner city gang members carry guns, and only farmers have them in their house. Seems like the system works to me...

 

But we have had guns for so long, banning them now would do NOTHING. We live in a completely different society than that of the UK, you can't change that by banning a few weapons. Trust me, people will find ways of obtaining them, or they will just create something that is far worse.

[1_man_army]

Didn't Britain even ban the ability to use self defense against someone breaking into your own house?

 

.

 

 

 

No a farmer went to prison for a few years for shooting an intruder in the back by creating some sort of booby-trap which killed the boy. He was convicted of manslaughter I believe, as it was deemed as excessive force. After a few years he was released & I think his conviction was overturned.

 

 

 

In the UK you have the right to defend yourself & your property as long as the force you use reasonable force. However, the problem is that legally speaking the term "reasonable force" isn't implicitly defined so there is a grey area within the law.