Gun control in UK - A Total Failure

[crazylegs]

If you think I should travel to Juarez and troll for government reports I'd rather not.

I'd rather not work for a few hours comparing figures and stats but I did to prove my point, why won't you?

[ditchdj]

Because it's a message board, not a court trial. I presented my opinions, provided links to show why I believe it, and drew my own conclusion.

You know, I used to be believe in relying on the government to protect my life and well-being. Played by the rules of the anti-self-defense league. It never worked. When I learned how to fight back and stand my ground things got better for me. People around here love to steal things. I've been ripped off several times. I personally feel better and secure keeping a .357 magnum with a case of hollow-tipped bullets nearby in the closet, should anyone try to escalate it and "graduate" to burglaries or home invasions. Why should I take your stance and simply rely on the police to protect me and my property when they've failed ME several times??? What incentive do I have to do that??? The UN might think better of me? Gimme a break.

[Rapscallion]

the orgy of violence and murder right on their own south border. Gangs of drug gangs cutting people's heads off, gunning down children, setting people on fire.

So, what is the Mexican stance on gun control so we can have some sort of comparison?

If it has rigorous gun control, then it's not really a guarantee that gun control is a failure, since it's not the sort of thing happening over here.

If it has lax gun control, then it's not really an argument for gun control, since similar laws in the US haven't brought about a similar situation.

Just one of those thoughts. Not sure this line of argument is going to make any sort of point for you.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Because it's a message board,

It's one where we debate - one side presents its theories/hypotheses, and then the other side tries to rebut them. Arguments based on heart strings being pulled are not going to work. Arguments that can be backed up by facts and logic have a much better chance of success.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

So, what is the Mexican stance on gun control so we can have some sort of comparison?

If it has rigorous gun control, then it's not really a guarantee that gun control is a failure, since it's not the sort of thing happening over here.

If it has lax gun control, then it's not really an argument for gun control, since similar laws in the US haven't brought about a similar situation.

Just one of those thoughts. Not sure this line of argument is going to make any sort of point for you.

Rapscallion

Not to mention the fact that our poor gun control in this country have helped to exacerbate the situation south of us, as illegal guns flow into cartel's hands from US suppliers....

[Slytovhand]

You know, I used to be believe in relying on the government to protect my life and well-being. Played by the rules of the anti-self-defense league. It never worked. When I learned how to fight back and stand my ground things got better for me. People around here love to steal things. I've been ripped off several times. I personally feel better and secure keeping a .357 magnum with a case of hollow-tipped bullets nearby in the closet, should anyone try to escalate it and "graduate" to burglaries or home invasions. Why should I take your stance and simply rely on the police to protect me and my property when they've failed ME several times??? What incentive do I have to do that??? The UN might think better of me? Gimme a break.

Ah, now, see - you're in the wrong thread. The thread you think you're arguing in is called "Gun Control" - this is "Gun Control in UK - A Total Failure". Sure, they have some of the same words in the title, but they are still 2 completely different threads, 2 completely different arguments and conclusions...

Now, while people here aren't demanding that the US take UK (or Australia's) gun control laws on (though there is statistical evidence to suggest it might not be a bad thing... only time would tell...), OTOH, people here have suggested that the UK and Oz take on US's gun control laws. And that's not good.

So, the comparison between any 2 countries really isn't a good one. All that's being said is how it has affected us. End of story. (oh, that and us trying to deny the crap that has been presented as 'argument').

[Tanasi]

I have no way of knowing if gun control is/was a sucess or not, IMO only the English subjects can answer that question. Personally I wouldn't want to live under such laws as they currently have so I'm thankful to be where I am. I wonder how many Englishsters that formerly owned firearms have been victims of violent crime??? Not agruing just wondering.
About Texas, Texas is in the unique position that Texas was it's own independent republic before it was admitted as a state. Part of the agreement is Texas can secceed to again become it's own idependent republic, it can also divide into 4 or 5 states (I forget how many.) With Bush unless he renounced his citizenship I'd say he'd still be legal but that all going to be a moot point fairly soon.

[crazylegs]

Because it's a message board, not a court trial. I presented my opinions, provided links to show why I believe it, and drew my own conclusion.

Perhaps, but you've yet to supply a single set of independant data that corroborates any of your claims, and have ignored a huge amount of data that refutes them.

[Evandril]

As a side note...My comment about Texas was OT, bad habit another forum has gotten me into

Having been to Japan, where they have at least as restrictive a gun control law as the UK...I'd have to say if it's in-place, and *working*...Keep it. Comparing a place that does NOT have the rules in place, and the problems we'd face trying to apply them...Just doesn't work, from a logical standpoint. Would be similar to using methods to 'civilize' a tribe of vegitarians on a tribe of cannabals

[Rapscallion]

I have no way of knowing if gun control is/was a sucess or not, IMO only the English subjects can answer that question.

I can walk down the street and be fairly certain that someone insane is unlikely to have a weapon that can kill me at range. If that's down to the original laws or the newly enacted ones complained about in the video, then that's debatable - I'd reckon the former. The laws referred to in the video are the newer ones that mostly took certain guns away from those who did abide by the law. My limited experience, though, is that the laws do work. I've never seen anyone threatened by a gun, I've never threatened anyone with a gun, and I've never been threatened by a gun. I don't even think I've seen a gun in the ... er, metal outside of museums and airport security immediately after 911.

Personally I wouldn't want to live under such laws as they currently have so I'm thankful to be where I am. I wonder how many Englishsters that formerly owned firearms have been victims of violent crime??? Not agruing just wondering.

Must admit I'm curious as well, but I'd reckon it would be no more in percentage terms than the rest of the population.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

That's where we strongly differ Raps. I know people that have been threatened with a gun, and know people that have successfully defended themselves from being attacked and/or robbed just by simply revealing that they have a gun. To think that just by revealing it and not even using it was enough to thwart a crime attempt. Someone I know has this for his signature online and I think pretty much sums it up......

"Civilian disarmament is based on the assumption people are irresponsible (unless they work for the government). This country was founded on the opposite premise. Rather than suspect the people, we are to suspect the government and keep it under control."

[crazylegs]

That's where we strongly differ Raps. I know people that have been threatened with a gun,

And between us, Raps and I probably know around 500 people who never have been. Because there are such tight controls on the use and sale of firearms it hardly ever happens.

[Rapscallion]

That's where we strongly differ Raps. I know people that have been threatened with a gun,

Is that why you think you should argue against a law in a different country? We don't have the levels of gun crime in this country that the US does. A major flaw in your argument was assuming that the UK is like the US.

and know people that have successfully defended themselves from being attacked and/or robbed just by simply revealing that they have a gun. To think that just by revealing it and not even using it was enough to thwart a crime attempt. Someone I know has this for his signature online and I think pretty much sums it up......

"Civilian disarmament is based on the assumption people are irresponsible (unless they work for the government). This country was founded on the opposite premise. Rather than suspect the people, we are to suspect the government and keep it under control."

I tend to view it as being disarmament being because we're far more mature as a culture. We don't hold on to guns in the way that babies hold on desperately to a favourite toy.

We have a different culture over here. Putting up a video from a US pressure group that's designed to scare people in the US into campaining against gun control in the US is not an argument for gun control measures in the UK being a failure. You've ignored the counters put forward by Crazylegs and myself, including the statistics.

I really am trying to see what you're arguing here.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

You've ignored the counters put forward by Crazylegs and myself, including the statistics.

OI, you pommy bastard!! What about mine??? (sheesh... think you can dump all your convicts on us and then just forget we exist! HA!!! )

I do certainly have a certain amount of agreement with your preceding statement there - most of Europe has gone through all their wars and problems with governments and stuff - and democracy has been the result. Works in most countries (Spain's still having a few issues, though). Perhaps we need to acknowledge it takes about 1500-2000 years to get to that stage, and maybe cut the US some slack?? (of course, that still leaves Aus and NZ to be explained for our lack of civil wars recently...).

[crazylegs]

"Civilian disarmament is based on the assumption people are irresponsible"

Right, lets look at this part of the phrase without the rest of it shall we?

People ARE irresponsible. This is why we require legislation to prevent people from operating 2ton machines while drunk, why we have laws that require you to wear safety harnesses while working at height, why we have laws that tell you the appropriate level of force to chastise children.

These laws are not put into place because the government has nothing better to do, they're put into place because certain members of society have gone against what these laws state and previously there was nothing to punish them with. The government didn't put them into place because they wanted to but because the PEOPLE wanted them put into place.

If you think that the general populous is responsible chat to a police officer, or a paramedic, or a firefighter. These people will tell you just how irresponsible the general populous is, hell if you really want to find out join a volunteer first aid charity and find out for yourself first hand!