I think its relative to your countries gun control situation - I have strong anti-gun views and will oppose them for the uk, however if I resided in the US/SA i'd still be anti gun but there are too many guns in those societies that I can sympathise with peoples desire to own one. But the diatribe rushed out by the NRA ie guns don't kill - people do.. No freckin kidding - we have strong gun control And far less gun deaths = simple fact. Columbine after columbine happens and still the NRA spiel continues "Guns are pretty bunny wabbits given a bad image by commies!"
i wish i had a population simulator, in which i had 100 people that had concealed weapons and no one had any idea other people had guns, then a robber would come and point a gun to one of them, what would happen considering that the line of view of each person encompassed 3 or 4 people?
That's what we're talking about: risk limitation. Knives and martial arts are not nearly as dangerous as a gun. Moreover, I can reasonably know that my neighbour owns a knife already. I can eye-ball his physique and make a pretty good guess at how much of a threat he would be in a physical altercation, too. That abstraction of a gun's design and function is (again) a reduction to the absurd. Unless you are talking about hunting rifles or specialised sports guns, hand guns are designed to kill people. That's the purpose of your average Saturday Night Special. You can't practically go hunting with them; they are also too inaccurate for sports marksmanship. They are legally bought for self-defense against people, and illegally, to commit violent crime against people, because those are their sole applications. That's fallacious reasoning. Criminals will always try to keep the upper hand. This is their game, remember? In a society where it is legal to carry concealed, they will simply assume that you carry a concealed. They will simply assume that you have a gun in the house. They will be prepared: they are planning the attack after all. They will have the gun ready before you can reach for yours. What you have, basically, is a situation of escalation. The whole idea of gun ownership and carrying a concealed is based around the illusion that an ordinary law-abiding citizen carrying a gun can somehow level the playing field against a criminal who is prepared to confront a possibly armed person. Now think it over. Research shows that 40% of criminals will pass on an opportunity if they suspect their intended victim is armed. As such, a gun is to some extent a useful deterrent, but only if the public knows it is there. A concealed is useless in terms of prevention. In terms of defense --well, you're dealing with the 60% who are happy to confront you, even if they suspect you are armed. Why? Because they have a bigger, better gun, and are ready to use it.
[continuing from Nexxo's post]....this is not the matrix were you can pull a gun fast enough to prevent you from becoming a bag of meat full of bullets.....
Oclocker: read my post above and then do some research into Firearms ownership in Switzerland. They have the most liberal firearms laws in Europe, but have very little firearms related crime. I did see an article in a newspaper that compared the deaths per 1000 people in Britain and America (I think it was the Daily mail a few years ago). We are not very far behind the Americans and we have no private 'handgun' ownership and limited 'long-gun' ownership. So how do you relate the two? On a (slightly) related note, if we have (say) 1 person killed every day by the use of a firearm/violent crime, why is this worse than the 10 people killed every day on Britain's roads? Why is it more acceptable (in society at large) for people to be killed by a car than it is by violent crime? Andy
Nexxo my point was there is not and never will be any reason to make individual gun ownership public knowledge. You have no idea of my situation and your answer was flawed (in my case) to the extreem. If you wish to debate the merits of "what if's" there are hundreds of cases where armed individuals have prevented crimes and also where the situation escalated its a discussion neither of us would win At the end of the day I live in a violent country ( not the matrix DXR 13kE sorry dont know where your post popped up from or what was your point do you have one?) I choose to own and carry a gun and dont interfere with anyone so I dont see why it should be made public. I hope I never have reason to use it but should one day it be needed it will be there
My research shows me that in Switzerland, firearms are kept under very strict conditions. First, all citizens issued with a firearm are trained in its use --as part of their statutory military draft. Second, each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home (they are NOT allowed to carry it outside the home) with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is kept SEALED and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized (as in: not ordered by the government, in defense of the country) use takes place. Not quite the same as keeping your own handgun in your desk drawer, or carrying concealed, is it now? Gun deaths per 100.000 population: USA (2001): 3.98 (homicide) 5.92 (suicide) 0.36 (other) England/Wales (2002): 0.15 (homicide) 0.2 (suicide) 0.03 (other) More factoids: Of the 46 school shootings worldwide, 35 occured in the US. Between 1993-1999, gun deaths in the United States have declined 27%. Why? The same reason why violent and drug-related crime in the US has been declining since the 90's: Roe vs. Wade. Draw your own conclusions. Now compare this to societal changes in the UK and the increase in gun crime. It's kinda interesting*. Because accidental death is a fact of life. Any life activity involves some risk. People need to drive. People do not need guns. * Guns don't kill people, children groing up in deprived conditions to become criminals kill people... but it helps to have access to a gun.
i know were you live, i have family there, as for the matrix comment, think of it, if you have a criminal pointing at you with a gun what is more probable? A) you take out your gun and shoot him faster than he can shoot you? (matrix scenario were the hero (neo) is always faster than the bad guy (smith) ) B) take out your gun slower than he can shoot you? (he is already pointing at your head and is very pissed of and will shoot you to get money for drugs, you were not expecting it and your gun is in your pocket/holster.) edit: Nexxo, there are more gun suicides then homicides?
As an aside, DXR_13KE was referring to a probability matrix, not the film. Your personal situation is not a valid argument for a general principle. I think I should be able to carry a gun. I think I should run the country, frankly, seeing as I'm an intelligent, reasonable, sensible person who knows right from wrong and watches with frustration how corrupt and incompetent politicians and ineffectual judges make a hash of things when I can so clearly see what should be happening. But you know what? The rest of the world is not like me, does not think or behave like me nor share my values and opinions. There are people out there, ordinary folk who can barely handle the responsibility of a car or alcohol, let alone something as potentially lethal as a gun. And therefore we have to have laws and restrictions. Not to limit my freedom, personally, but that of all those people out there who frankly can't handle it. So, sorry, but although I'm sure that you personally are a responsible gun owner, many people around you most probably are not. Which is why you need rules and restrictions. Which is why you get things like Columbine when you don't.
I am not saying we dont need rules and restrictions I am saying (for the 3rd time) There is no need to make ownership public knowledge (I thought that is what this thread was about?) Anyway this is going no where This is the opening 2 lines of this post South Carolina last week became the latest in a growing number of states to make the names of people who have a license to carry a concealed weapon a state secret. Five other states might not be far behind in a battle that pits a public policy of open government against the right of people to keep their gun ownership records private. You have no interest in my point and have not given one reason why they should be public
Nexxo i was referring the super human ability to move and act really fast present in the film. A probability matrix is interesting in this case, but not necessary... i think. by the way, NEXXO FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
Okay Nexxo, I stand corrected on the murder stats. What has Roe vs Wade got to do with it btw? Abortion? I don't understand your conclusions. How does legalising abortion lead to a reduction in the drug and violent crime rate? Going further, people don't need to drive. People need to travel, that is something completely different. I can get from A to B on a bike or by public transport. I don't have to have a car. My choice is to have a car. I am now in posession of a lethal weapon. How is this different to being in posession of a firearm? I can still kill lots of people with my car. I can even use it while drunk and claim that it was due to the alcohol that I killed someone who I didn't like. They would be just as dead as if I'd knifed/shot/beaten them to death. The only difference would be the length of sentence. Death by dangerous driving carries a much lighter sentence than murder. Why? Because it is more socially acceptable to kill someone with a car than by some other violent means.
It should be made public because (I argue) it concerns the public --because it represents a potential risk to the public. Same as if I want, for instance, to store hazardous substances on my premises, or sell alcohol: I have to apply for a public licence, and the public can raise an objection if they feel compromised in their safety or are worried about public order. Moreover, a gun functions either as a deterrence or a defense. A deterrence is only effective if the public knows about it (which was why Israel let slip the "secret" that they have nukes, for instance). A defense can take advantage of the element of surprise, but if I'm a criminal in, say, Texas, I would be very dumb to assume that someone does not have a gun. So there is no point in keeping it secret, but some very good reasons for making it public. Basically, by aborting the criminal (the book "Freakonomics" expands on this: economics is social psychology). Women seek abortions generally because they quite realistically judge themselves to be in a very unideal position to raise a child: because they are poor, and/or messed up, and/or living in atrocious circumstances. The case Roe vs. Wade made abortion freely available on National Health from 1973 onwards. The result? Around 1993 --20 years later-- saw the start of a sharp decline in violent and drug-related crimes that are typically committed by young people. Crimes that were age-independent (crimes of passion, for instance, or fraud) remained the same. No other statistic or event correlated with this drop as well as that single change in abortion law: pregnancies that would otherwise have given birth to children growing up in deprived circumstances to become criminals about 20 years on, were being aborted. In the UK, gun and drug crime are interrelated and on the rise since about 2000, even though overall crime is slightly on the decline. The UK also hit the bottom of the league table of 21 industrialised countries in terms of child welfare in 2000-2003 (Unicef). UK child poverty has doubled since 1979. Professor Jonathan Bradshaw from York University, one of the report's authors, put the UK's poor ratings down to "long term under-investment and a "dog-eat-dog" society"... Guns don't kill people; deprived children growing up to become criminals kill people. Because generally, people kill someone by car by accident. In those cases where it is found to be a quite deliberate act (and people have tried), they go down for murder, same as they pulled the trigger on a gun. However there are calls for tougher laws as the general opinion is that driving recklessly or under the influence is much the same as wielding a weapon irresponsibly.
unless they: A) flip out B) get into a mess involving guns and/or a robbery and make the problem worse. C) find themselves in a chain reaction were everyone that has a gun reacts to someone shooting, thinking that that person is a bad guy and that he is there to kill you.
If they want to, that has nothing to do with privacy. Your right not to answer is what has to do with privacy. To be honest, I don't consider the second of those two to be freedom. I explained what I believe freedom to be above, and that does not include the choice to do anything to anyone, since freedom applies to all, or applies to none. Yes, they can indeed. You punish people when they do that, you don't punish all people simply because some might do that. Irrelevant. The fact that freedom allows for bad choices is not a good argument for facism. edit: Woops, missed page 2 of this, editing in progress. Really though, you have no idea whether he's going to break into your house at night and stab you 40 times because he got a craving for Holy Nexxo or not though. Like I said, risk limitation of this sort is ineffective, the UK's firearms crime rates have steadily been rising since we (effectively) banned firearms. The cost is too great, the rewards debatable at best. Even if I accept your argument, so what? Knives have legal and illegal purposes, yet they are not illegal. Killing someone in self-defence is a legitimate and just act. So both have legitimate, legal uses, both can be used to harm others, both can be used to do illegal acts, and both can be used to make killing easier. One is illegal, one isn't. Public hysteria and populism at it's worst, frankly. Anyway, can't be bothered replying to the rest. Quite simply, private gun ownership is no business of anyones. Murder, assault, grevious bodily harm - these are of concern, and should be accordingly punished. Do not remove freedoms just because it makes people feel safe though, do not remove freedoms because some people make bad choices, and do not remove freedoms, simply because freedom is our natural and correct state of being. Me owning a gun does not impinge upon you, you not letting me own a gun impinges upon me. We should always take the choices in society that allow us greater freedom. So we should take the choice to not criminalise ownership of firearms.
My car has a unique identifier: a number plate. Anyone can read it. Why is that? Why is gun ownership being a matter of public record a punishment?
Because it forces people to give up something that is private, in order to exercise their freedom of choice in life. Personal information is property, forcing someone to give up property simply because they want to exercise a right, is punishment.
