Rant Gun Control?

AFAIK there are no restrictions on a crossbow other than being 18. (Same laws apply to rifles and shotguns in Florida)

 

we do not know what the physical examination involves. The part where you have to read a number plate from a set distance in the UK driving test is technically a 'physical examination'. I think stopping blind people from owning fire arms is quite reasonable.

 

An amusing tangent; an arrow/bolt counts as live ammunition so grabbing an arrow and pointing it at someone is illegal encase it "goes off"

 

Have you taken the time to consider what the precise cause and effect is there. Is there a real relationship at all or is it coincidence or nonsense from the pro-gun lobby (las time I heard, the US had more problems with gun crime than the UK). Even if the premise is true, is it a chicken and egg situation. Were the laws brought in to try to combat the said problem with gun crime? In short, examine the source and the argument closely.

Statistically, the majority of burglars (at least in the UK) are drug addicts. Do you really think that they think about things this logically? They'll burgle the house regardless, after all they are just getting the cash for their next fix. I doubt guns genuinely act as a deterrent in this case. You have to remember that said criminals do not follow the same thought patterns as you or I.

As before, they are not considering life or death. I mean, seriously, how often does anyone consider their own mortality? I'd wager even less when you are a drug addict after your next fix.

So I think that the deterrence argument is useless. Personally, I am happy with the legislation we have in the UK (not being a fan of guns or violence in any ncircumstances). Any move towards stricter legislation can only be a good thing. Any further becomes a moot point as people will always find other weapons (read: knives in the UK).

Off topic: If knife crime is such a problem in the UK, how come only 277 people died from stabbings in 2007-8 out of a total of 58,960 premature deaths (for convenience defined as under the age of 65).

 

my last point is to show you that you can control a variable, if you can prevent 1 crazy person from getting a gun then its 1 crazy person that has a higher probability of assaulting you with a hammer and not a gun.

hence, if you choose not to test people psychologically and physically then you are making sure that a crazy cross eyed idiot with an attitude can run around with a gun instead of a hammer.

 

The best gun controls happens when an adult teachs you to use a firearm the right way

 

http://planetzman.com/featured/sixty-five-million-firearms-owners-killed-no-one-yesterday
The man has some valid points..
And yes, I'm all for the right to protect yourself.
Even if my goverment outlawed that option many moons ago. Now only the criminals have guns and we are stuck between them and the police. It sucks.

 

agreeed.

 

Which is great if we can trust all adults to use a firearm the right way, but we can't. Hence the need for laws to control the availabilty of firearms to a certain degree.

 

Logically your argument doesn't contain any statistics.

Its not like you can re-purpose a gun into a can opener can you. it was designed to incapacitate, injure and kill. it is its function, and implementation. you are right philosophically however once you have a gun you are more likely to use it as you have "teh power".

Would you do crazy stuff with a can opener? you would with a gun.

 

adults (I hope) should have more common sense then a 15 year old

 

Again it's something that would be great if all adults did have more common sense than a 15 year old but that just isn't the case.

 

Having a gun means you're more likely to use it?

Perhaps mathematically, but in the real world guns don't turn people into killers.

Just look at home exercise equipment

 

Yeah but home exercise equipment requires effort to use, having a gun makes murder less effort

 

I was being facetious, but I stand by the point; guns do make it easier to kill people, but not by any significant margin and by no means do they encourage murder.

 

Well, like others have said, some of these "issues" are already in effect.
I have no problem with a background check or even having some sort of practical exam to prove that I, as a law-abiding citizen, can use these "tools."
I have my concealed handgun license and I've never used my weapon. *Thank God*
I had to prove my proficiency with a pistol to get the license, get fingerprinted, etc.

Now all that to buy a gun? Seems like too much to me.

My biggest concern is the evaluation. how is that regulated and what's to say that it's not pencil whipped like so many other things the gov't does?

Then the transfer fee? I don't dig it. I have to pay or have the buyer pay to purchase/sell a weapon? Eh...Makes me sick.

 

Actually I think guns make it far easier to kill people, there's a huge difference between standing some distance off and pulling a trigger to send a bullet into someone and being right next to them struggling with them as you either bludgeon them or stab them to death. Having a gun very much disconnects the action with the consequence and while I agree with you that guns don't necessarily encourage murder I think it's much easier to grab a gun and go shoot someone then it is to grab a knife and stab someone.

 

i live in Belgium, with some very strickt gun control. everyone having a gun has to subscribe in some shooting club, and practice at least a few hours each month (not sure how much). i think it is prohibited to use a gun outside a shooting range. i guess Belgium is too densely populated to allow people to shoot in their backyard.
there are also some strange rules about not storing the weapon and ammo in the same room

and you can only carry a gun if you have a 'reason'.
reasons: being a cop, being a registrated hunter in a restricted part of an closed to public forest, going to your shooting club, returning from your shooting club. (that's about it)

i for myself, i own a bow. 28pounds, enough for killing a man at a distance of about 30m (depending on arrow tip and weight). i'm able to shoot 5 to 10 arrows a minute, if i'm in a hurry.
no registration, but i'm not allowed to carry it stringed in plublic (i can string it in a few seconds however). i don't even have to be 18. same applies to a crossbow. at the shooting club they told me the last one who died from a bow was in 1956 someone whose bow broke while shooting, hitting him on the head.

my point? bow owners have more common sense than gun owners p)
seriously now: i believe the few hours in a shooting range EACH month, makes for some very strong social control about gun safety, each time again you have to follow ALL securety measure/checks, with all your peers looking at you. a valiable alternative to mental checks?
and i believe the regulation on bows is too soft.

/end rant

 

Exactly, they make killing someone much, much easier, why do you think entire armies switched to unwieldly and slow firing matchlock weapons? It made killing much easier, even if they were incredibly inaccurate and slow and difficult to reload.

The main advantage of a firearm is you can kill someone very easily from range. If your wife finds your gun and points it at you from across a room, the only thing you can do is beg for your life or hope she'll miss. Whereas if she had a knife, she'd have to get up close to you and try and stab you. Unless you've had training, close combat is pretty difficult to do effectively, an over exaggerated thrust and a dodge and now you have the advantage. With a gun, you point and shoot, much easier and more importantly, much safer for the killer. Someone is less likely to pick up a knife and kill someone because of the fear something will go wrong and they'll end up dead themselves, with a gun, much less can go wrong, it doesn't rely on your strength or fighting skill, pretty much anyone can pick up a gun and shoot someone with it.

I don't really, think about it, give a bow to someone, how many people would be able to hit someone (let alone kill them) at 30m? Not many. What makes guns so dangerous and why the rules should be so strict on them is that if you have a working hand and a working eye, you can pick up a gun and kill someone with it quite easily. It's not quite as simple as Use gun on man, but it's the easiest way an untrained average person can kill someone.

 

on the other hand, being able to kill a man using a bow requires quite a few months/years training and a strong arm.(so no 12 year olds finding your bow and diciding to 'play' war or the like) unlike a gun. maybe that's why there are strickter rules for guns.