Gun control works so well in the UK that kids are wearing "stab vests"

[dead0man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sbane]

You are right deadman that gun control does not stop violence. But maybe, just maybe, it prevents the innocent loss of lives in the form of stray bullets?

[dead0man]

You might be on to something there.  How many legally fired "stray bullets" killed somebody last year?

[opebo]

Shootings and stabbings are both caused by poverty - i.e., by the owners.  Gun control, etc., is incidental.

[Lunar]

I think you forgot to include the part of that article that says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and the parts that recommend alternative solutions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2167542/posts

[Sbane]

You might be on to something there.  How many legally fired "stray bullets" killed somebody last year?

Legally fired? I meant drive by shootings by gangsters from legal or illegal weapons which lead to civilian deaths. And I am not sure how many such deaths occur but even one is too many. If gangs want to kill each other that's fine with me as long as they don't take innocent people with them.

[dead0man]

But making guns illegal isn't going to stop that kind of thing.

[Lunar]

I oppose gun control too, but don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to avoid quoting the part of the article that says knife incidents are "incredible rare?"

[Associate Justice PiT]

But making guns illegal isn't going to stop that kind of thing.

     The problem with making guns illegal has always been that the guy who wants to rob the 7/11 will manage to get one anyway.

[Lunar]

But making guns illegal isn't going to stop that kind of thing.

     The problem with making guns illegal has always been that the guy who wants to rob the 7/11 will manage to get one anyway.

That's more true in the United States than the UK.  Also, not everyone who wants to rob the cornerstore has easy access to the illegal arms black market.

I say this as an opponent to gun control   You have to make better arguments or I'm going to keep being a devil's advocate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

But making guns illegal isn't going to stop that kind of thing.

     The problem with making guns illegal has always been that the guy who wants to rob the 7/11 will manage to get one anyway.

That's more true in the United States than the UK

     Gun control can never work in the United States because most people see no problem whatsoever with getting a gun for your own purposes (hunting, self-defense). I suspect it's only really popular in big cities (like my own, unfortunately).

[opebo]

But making guns illegal isn't going to stop that kind of thing.

     The problem with making guns illegal has always been that the guy who wants to rob the 7/11 will manage to get one anyway.

No, you're wrong.  The impulse robber would be totally prevented from robbing the store by gun control.  Only the very serious, motivated, and well connected criminal could find a gun and afford to buy it in a gun-control society.  So, yes, maybe a very small percentage of the convenience store robbers would still get guns, but it would deter most.

Also, keep in mind that convenience store robberies are a very small percentage of murders/attempted murders.  Lots of killings are, as one would expect, 'loved ones' killing loved ones.  These are the sort of people that if guns were not allowed might have a more difficult time accessing them (because they're ordinary people and not well connected to or comfortable in a criminal underworld).  Thus the impulsive shooting of loved ones would be reduced. 

Of course the flaw in this is that in most of the rather nonsensical gun control advocated in the US, 'responsible citizens' can still get a gun through licensure procedures, etc.  The only effective gun control would be an outright ban, since the main benefit is to prevent otherwise 'law abiding' people from getting them, not criminals.

[Silent Hunter]

Actually the number of gun killings in London went down quite considerably last year- and even with the rise in knife killings, the total homicide figure still fell.

London only had about 160 homicides last year and there was less than 1000 for the whole country, which has about a fifth of the population of the United States.

[dead0man]

I oppose gun control too, but don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to avoid quoting the part of the article that says knife incidents are "incredible rare?"

It's actually illegal to post entire articles in forums (unless they are short) and blogs and what have you.  I normally only keep the first several paragraphs.  (and did something happen to the link in my OP or did I forget it?)

[Sbane]

But making guns illegal isn't going to stop that kind of thing.

Not in America it won't but it seems to have that effect in Britain. All of America would have to ban guns at once for it to have any effect and even then we would have to strictly check people at the borders...so in effect its not possible. But in theory gun control should at least bring down the number of innocent bystanders being shot. Violence may not go down but I do find it preferable that it occurs in the form of knifefights rather than gunfights.

[dead0man]

..and I didn't post this to start a gun debate, but feel free.  I don't care what the UK gun laws are, the people that live there freely elect the people that pass the laws and are free to leave if they don't like what the majority wants those laws to be.  Who the hell am I to complain?



I'm just standing here holding my gun and making fun.



(I don't actually own a gun nor am I currently holding one)

[Sbane]

..and I didn't post this to start a gun debate, but feel free.  I don't care what the UK gun laws are, the people that live there freely elect the people that pass the laws and are free to leave if they don't like what the majority wants those laws to be.  Who the hell am I to complain?



I'm just standing here holding my gun and making fun.



(I don't actually own a gun nor am I currently holding one)

I don't want to have a gun control debate either, mainly since I think we agree mostly. People want to have guns to go hunting and I think they should have the right to have it. I just found it interesting that gang violence is perhaps just as prevalent in Britain as in America yet the chance of mistake identity/crossfire killings is much lower. Of course when it comes to things like muggings knives are just as bad as guns.

[Jens]

..and I didn't post this to start a gun debate, but feel free.  I don't care what the UK gun laws are, the people that live there freely elect the people that pass the laws and are free to leave if they don't like what the majority wants those laws to be.  Who the hell am I to complain?



I'm just standing here holding my gun and making fun.



(I don't actually own a gun nor am I currently holding one)

I don't want to have a gun control debate either, mainly since I think we agree mostly. People want to have guns to go hunting and I think they should have the right to have it. I just found it interesting that gang violence is perhaps just as prevalent in Britain as in America yet the chance of mistake identity/crossfire killings is much lower. Of course when it comes to things like muggings knives are just as bad as guns.

I think that Al some time ago found a statistic that stated that in the UK the victim knows his or her killer in more that 90 % of the cases while in the US this was only the case in 50 % - The risk of actually successfully killing with a gun is higher that with a knife. (admitted I lack the statistic evidence to prove it and can't be bothered to find it. Mortally stabbing someone is much harder that pulling a tricker which also can be done at a greater distance)

[Smash255]

I oppose gun control too, but don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to avoid quoting the part of the article that says knife incidents are "incredible rare?"

It's actually illegal to post entire articles in forums (unless they are short) and blogs and what have you.  I normally only keep the first several paragraphs.  (and did something happen to the link in my OP or did I forget it?)

Oh please.  You come across with the asinine title, don't even mention the article itself says knife attacks are very rare.   Also from the title and portion of the article you post try to insinuate that knife attacks in the U.K are out of control  or something like that meanwhile the homicide rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S

[Lunar]

I oppose gun control too, but don't you think it's intellectually dishonest to avoid quoting the part of the article that says knife incidents are "incredible rare?"

It's actually illegal to post entire articles in forums (unless they are short) and blogs and what have you.  I normally only keep the first several paragraphs.  (and did something happen to the link in my OP or did I forget it?)

First of all,  I doubt you as a libertarian really care about posting an article in full in a message board. 

Secondly, IF YOU WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT ILLEGALITY, YOU WOULD HAVE LINKED TO THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION.  No?  Or is this a faux-attempt to care about the "internet law" in order to skirt your intellectual responsibilities?  I had to Google it to find the Freep article that linked to another article to find the actual source.  Surely you'd be more legal to provide a link to the original source?

Third, despite your legal statement of a wikipedia article that apparently governs the rules of FreeRepublic, FreeRepublic still felt fit to post the article in its entirety.

[Lunar]

Sorry if that sounds angry, but I don't like threads that apparently dishonestly omit key facts in their attempts to spin articles, especially if they're Ayn Rand Junior Fan Club threads.  Other people on the forum are around to criticize the stupidity of other articles, but I gotta call them out when I see thems that aren't already calleds out.

[dead0man]

First of all,  I doubt you as a libertarian really care about posting an article in full in a message board.

I always do it that way and have since long before I came to this message board.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly did forget to include the link.  If you haven't noticed, it's not my style to post articles and not include a link.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had a non wiki link first, but it was a bit too "lawyery" for my taste.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

..and they got sued for it and lost.  I may not be understanding you fully here.

Sorry if that sounds angry, but I don't like threads that apparently dishonestly omit key facts in their attempts to spin articles, especially if they're Ayn Rand Junior Fan Club threads.  Other people on the forum are around to criticize the stupidity of other articles, but I gotta call them out when I see thems that aren't already calleds out.

No skin off my teeth.  I enjoy being called out for my bullsh**t, especially if it really is bullsh**t.  I won't deny spinning things, we all do it whether we acknowledge it or not.

[Lunar]

Ok, but why does Free Republic post the entire article still despite being sued?

I believe you forgot it (you do usually include a link).  It just seemed sketchy to not include key passages and a link to the original article.

[k-onmmunist]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and if there wasnt guncontrol, they would have to wear bulletproof vests too.

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and if there wasnt guncontrol, they would have to wear bulletproof vests too.

Really? How many children wore bulletproof vests before the current gun control measures were introduced? How many wear them in the US or in Switzerland?