When we outlaw guns...

[9sublime]

If gun control worked, then why would the police need guns? The fact is, it doesn't. It's impossible to keep arms out of criminals hands in today's world with the black market of weapons.

The only way to counteract this is to allow everyone carry a gun. Ultimately, it's a question of who you would rather have protect you: yourself or the government.

BTW -- I'm looking forward to your stats that display how America has "a very high gun crime rate compared to the rest of the developed world".

The British police don't use guns. And Englands gun rate is very low, London probably being the worst.

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries.

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Regardless, I'm not even saying we should ban guns, I think that the UK should permit certain guns for self protection. If you ban guns, only the outlaws have them. I'm just saying you don't really need a MAC 10

 

[9sublime]

How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

Are you British too? Well I think it was aimed at me... it was pretty a pretty shank insult to be fair, on par with calling me a limey.

 

[Think for myself]

Are you British too? Well I think it was aimed at me... it was pretty a pretty shank insult to be fair, on par with calling me a limey.

I am American, but I will agree. Not a very clever insult, much like those who insinuate that I am French for being against the war.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

How so? If that is intended to be an insult, I assure you I am not offended.

I know this isn't what Roker meant, but from my persepctive, Britain's government was set up in a fashion where the government owns the rights -- the federal gov't is the sovereign, and it loans these rights to the citizens.

The U.S.' Founders saw the inherent potential for tyranny (and indeed it came to fruition inside 200 years later) and so they created an entirely different model where the citizens is the sovereign, and he loans the power to the government to "provide for the common defense" and "maintain tranquility", etc.

Why this is significant is because Brits have a completely different outlook on the government/citizen relationship wherein the citizens have to justify maintaining their rights. In the U.S., the onus is on the goverment to justify why they are taking the rights away. Completely different model.

 

[Think for myself]

The real question is why shouldn't people be allowed to have a MAC-10. The burden of proof doesn't lie with with the people, but with the government. That's what makes America's Founding Principles supreme, the fact that our inalienable rights come from the Creator, not the government.

Until you can provide me with evidence that the government can effectively ban MAC 10s in a fashion that will save the lives of innocents, then maybe I'll buy into it.

You raise a valid point, and I thank you for that.

What possible purpose does a weapon like a Mac 10 serve, other than to kill people? I would not use that type of weapon for home defense, as it is poorly made, inaccurate, and unreliable. It is marketed at gangsters. I would prefer that gangsters remain unarmed.

 

[Think for myself]

I know this isn't what Roker meant, but from my persepctive, Britain's government was set up in a fashion where the government owns the rights -- the federal gov't is the sovereign, and it loans these rights to the citizens.

The U.S.' Founders saw the inherent potential for tyranny (and indeed it came to fruition inside 200 years later) and so they created an entirely different model where the citizens is the sovereign, and he loans the power to the government to "provide for the common defense" and "maintain tranquility", etc.

Why this is significant is because Brits have a completely different outlook on the government/citizen relationship wherein the citizens have to justify maintaining their rights. In the U.S., the onus is on the goverment to justify why they are taking the rights away. Completely different model.

An excellent point, which is why I am against banning guns, but regulating who can purchase and own them.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Fair enough, Sublime, but consider these stats:

o Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. The following changes occurred from 1987 to 1996 in Florida: the homicide rate decreased by 36% and the handgun homicide rate decreased by 41%.

In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economist John Lott and Bill Landes discovered the following:

o States that allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60% and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80%.

This all really does make sense. Are you going to attack a city or state that has a lot of guns or no guns? Even insane people prefer targets that can't shoot back. That's why schools and post offices are the two most common locations for mass shootings. Because people are prevented from carrying guns in these so-called "Gun Free Zones", so it essentially provides people bent on mass random murder a free opportunity to go on their rampage.

 

[9sublime]

In the UK I don't think the attitude of the people is at all justifying their rights. Maybe thats what it seems like to you from the US, but its not the case. We don't have something as clear cut as the first ammendment for our rights, but we still defend them and try and keep our right to privacy etc.

As for guns, answer this:

If your house is robbed in the UK, the chances of the intruder being armed is minimal, while the chances of a robber in the US being armed is high because of the legality of guns. Which is better, the two exchange fire or fists?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You raise a valid point, and I thank you for that.

What possible purpose does a weapon like a Mac 10 serve, other than to kill people? I would not use that type of weapon for home defense, as it is poorly made, inaccurate, and unreliable. It is marketed at gangsters. I would prefer that gangsters remain unarmed.

I would prefer that gangsters remian unarmed as well, and that's why people who have a history of violence or gang activiites should not be allowed to purchase weapons. But law-abiding citizens with nothing more than a few traffic stops, should be allowed to get any gun they want pending the proper permits, psych tests, etc. unless the government can unequivocally prove that removing that gun from the citizens' hands will ultimately make them safer.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

An excellent point, which is why I am against banning guns, but regulating who can purchase and own them.

Exactly.

 

[Think for myself]

Exactly.

Fair enough. Start with enforcing the current laws.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

As for guns, answer this:

If your house is robbed in the UK, the chances of the intruder being armed is minimal, while the chances of a robber in the US being armed is high because of the legality of guns. Which is better, the two exchange fire or fists?

Then you have some very unresourceful intruders. Any idiot can get a gun illegally, so when you outlaw guns (as the thread contends), only outlaws have guns.

If I were to rob a house, I would most definitely prefer to rob one in the UK then the U.S. because of the almost guarantee that the one in the UK will be unarmed and therefore pose less resitance.

 

[9sublime]

I think it depends on the type of area you live in wether or not you are allowed to have a gun or not, especially the right to carry one.

As for shooting innocents if you're a nutter, these people wouldn't have the guns in the first place most of the time to do the shooting.

 

[9sublime]

Then you have some very unresourceful intruders. Any idiot can get a gun illegally, so when you outlaw guns (as the thread contends), only outlaws have guns.

Its actually much, much harder to get a gun in the UK compared to the US. There are very few armed robberies on homes, they only occur in banks and jewlers. The only real gun crime in the UK is on the estates of cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I think it depends on the type of area you live in wether or not you are allowed to have a gun or not, especially the right to carry one.

I disagree.

In a column titled “25 Years Murder-Free in 'Gun Town USA'”, the author describes how one Georgia town, being fed up with the skyrocketing crime rates, passed an ordinance that required each home to possess a weapon. Since then, 25 years murder free, despite dire predictions of “Wild West showdowns”.

Who in their right mind would choose to commit a crime in a town where every household is required to maintain a weapon, when they could instead go after places such as Illinois’ Morton Grove which banned guns for anyone not a member of the city’s police department (a city, which incidentally, experienced an increase in crime of 15.7% immediately following the ban).