Rant Gun Control?

I'm sure I read somewhere the reason the English stopped using longbows and switched to muskets was that you could train the troops far quicker; a bow was a very difficult thing to use back then, but was superior in many ways (IIRC firing rate, power and accuracy).

I'm still of the opinion that guns don't make it significantly easier to kill someone, and when you add in the difficulty of getting hold of one, a knife will always be quite a strong option; In Britain by far but in the US too they've still popular in domestics / passion killings.

 

if you REALLY want to kill someone, you could just strangle them. you don't need any tools to do that. if you are the weak one, poison him/her. there are nice poisonous flowers out there in the gardens. available everywhere and no registration fee.

the gun, the knife, the baseballbat, those make killing easier. and while there are other uses for a knife (cooking for example) and a baseballbat (playing baseball), there are no other uses for a gun than killing(shooting = propelling a little piece of metal with the intention of hitting something HARD)

 

What i have noticed is that some people consider a gun more or less like a toaster and some people think of the gun as something that has a high chance of killing something or someone.

Interesting...

 

a registered 150$ toaster that is

 

i am talking about the psychological image:

Some people want guns as available and free to trade as if they were going to a shopping mall and get me a toaster. Other people want the complete opposite.

guns don't kill people, people kill people, so... lets prevent people from killing people with guns by not giving them guns.

 

I have heard this argument before. Britain's burglaries account for 12% of all recorded crimes. This is in a country where gun ownership is strictly prohibited. You imply that maybe if gun ownership was relaxed here, then it would be a deterrent to burglars.

Sounds feasible in principle, until you find that burglary accounts for 15% of all recorded crimes in the US, where gun ownership is allowed. Seems the deterrent doesn't work after all.

Full article here: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/burglary/evidencebase/burglary001c.htm

Then there's also the fact that most burglaries occur when the home is unoccupied, and then there is also the fact that a high percentage of illegally owned guns are ones which are stolen in burglaries.

 

People kill each other with knives over, here, what's your solution to that?

And for stuartpb:

You know, the British handgun Olympic team has to practice in France because of our gun laws

 

I'm not taking either side on the gun law debate. Been there, done that before and it's like many other topics, there are those who are anti, and those who are pro. The two will never give an inch and the debate will rage on for ever and a day. I did want to point out though the inaccuracy in some peoples perceptions that guns are a deterrent to burglars.

 

Yeah, all the anecdotal stuff I've seen says when it comes to deterring burglars dog > gun

 

I note that Nicb, for his avatar motto ("let's all discuss this amongst ourselves") has done a post-and-run. I guess he just wanted to have his cry because the government actually wants to have measures in place to ensure that guns are owned by responsible, mature adults. If he feels that somehow affects him that says more about him than the proposed gun law...

Do you trust the general public more? I don't. Fingerprinting seems like a fairly sound idea to me, given that they are a central piece of ID (and establishing previous involvement in crime --especially one not yet caught for). You don't like the breach of privacy? Don't own a gun. You have choices.

May throw off their aim though. And what about poor eyesight? We don't let partially sighted people drive; should they be allowed to shoot?

Nexxo was hoping to stay out of this, but a 90 minute assessment should do.

The first hour would include cognitive tests such as:

• logical reasoning (the ability to think through the consequences of one's actions, to understand the mechanics of a gun and its operation and basic ballistics)
• social reasoning (theory of mind, the ability to interpret other people's behaviour and motivations)
• emotional control/management, and delay of gratification (temper control, frustration tolerance, stress management)

Also check previous mental health history.

Then a half-hour session discussing with the psychologist why one wants to own a gun. The purpose of the session is not to convince the psychologist that one has good reasons; the purpose is to demonstrate the ability to self-reflect on and reason about one's desire to own a gun.

That's where I think the most effective intervention lies: make guns expensive. The real legitimate hunter, farmer and sports shooter will happily pay a premium for a good quality handgun. There is no legitimate market for cheap Saturday Night Specials.

 

What does the law say about knives?

 

Nexxo:

I'm still in favour of an actual practical test, like a driving test but for guns. And if you think that 2 hours with a psychologist would weed out the crazies, I'd accept your opinion on that and go along, as long as the state pays for it and not me (remember that gun ownership is a right in the US).

Although if it's that effective, it makes you wonder how it'd be to give every kid a quick chat on their 21st to see if they're a threat

DXR_13KE:

The law says a lot about knives, but it boils down to knives are bad. Except the ones that are good. Don't stab people.

My point was that there will always be a tool to kill people with, regardless of restrictions. And that guns and knives both have legitimate uses; some people find it hard to accept that it's occasional necessary to shoot someone.

 

Very true, not only shooting too.

People find it hard in general to accept that others are different to them, that's a huge problem at the moment.

 

So is education --and a basic level of health care. But you still pay taxes for it.

I think that it is not 100% effective (an intelligent psychopath will usually walk it) and although a psychologist may have hunches based on years of clinical experience that someone is unsafe, it is another matter to prove it beyond doubt. Nevertheless, I think most volatile crackpots could easily be filtered out.

There's the hunch-proof problem again. You cannot restrict someone's basic human rights just because you reasonably suspect that they may become a problem in the future. You cannot convict people for what you think they may do.

Whereas gun ownership is a right that must be earned, like driving a car.

 

The intelligent psychopath? I believe Dr. Lecter's weapon of choice was a knife

And I'd happily fund it through tax, just not a direct cost to the gun owner, such as the $25 transfer fee. Then again I'm happy with funding healthcare and most Americans aren't.

 

Nexxo is so awesome that he feels the urge to correct and help others

American talking: "since i don't pay for your health why should i pay for your gun transfer fee?"

 

That was pretty much my point

 

Either that or I'm a smart-ass who just can't stop himself.

But let's go with the awesome.

 

But you have a problem of accepting that people are different! And your views are wrong to other people etc.

Accept it! (But you won't)

 

then a normal American would say no to higher taxes and yes to paying the fee to sell a gun if that was the law.