OK, Let's do it again. Why do you Brits have such retarded, faggotty gun laws?

[odeon]

It's a lot harder to kill if you don't have access to weapons. This is a fact used by many governments to prevent gun-related violence.

Is it really a fact? If so, does harder prove less likely?

If it is a lot harder to kill without guns (which I'd think is pretty obvious), I'd say it's also less likely since killing without an obvious and easy way is messy and would require a lot more from the would-be murderer.

There is a degree of blind desperation that I find fascinating to watch when the pro-gun folks defend their views. It can't be the guns, it must be sociological, it must be because we're so different from everyone else. Anything but the guns

Do I really come across as blindly desperate in this conversation? Tend to find the most irritating comments about guns to be statements of fact which aren't actually facts. Am not denying facts, making up facts, or claiming things to be facts unsupported. Neither of the sociological suggestions made to explain US declining homicide are illogical, and don't believe that decline can be attributed to the 5% of the population roaming around with concealed guns. There is no middle road to take in a gun debate; am pro-gun simply due to not being anti-gun. Personally have no want for one. Crime studies are sociological studies and are they are still sociological studies when considering guns. See nothing desperate about discussing why people are killers; some people seem to believe weapons are why people are killers and it simply must be the guns; don't see them as desperate, but happen to disagree. One way the US does stand out above the world in homicide is serial killers, not only statistically but also documented cases greater than the rest of combined, and people don't mind viewing them as a sociological phenomenon of the US, maybe because serial killers don't predominantly use guns. Is it so far fetched to be called desperation, to consider it's more likely there's something cultural other than the presence of guns which makes US citizens more violent than other western nations, and what ever that might be it's changing dramatically? Even when the US is still more murderous and violent when omitting all instances of guns? Not saying I know the right answer, but other people can't seem to show me they know the right answer either, and it's not because am stubborn about it. Do believe guns are dangerous and gun safety is very important, but this discussion hasn't been about safety. If it were, some people might not appreciate my stance on personal safety laws either.

You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.

[Jack]

If it is a lot harder to kill without guns (which I'd think is pretty obvious), I'd say it's also less likely since killing without an obvious and easy way is messy and would require a lot more from the would-be murderer.

Then what do you think happened in the UK, something cultural not related to guns? Genuinely not saying that in a provoking or snarky way, but really curious what's the take on it for people there. Thirty years is long enough to shape a generation, and that's a long time on a backwards effect road to only end up in the same statistical position where things started.

You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.

Personally see it from both sides, but don't consider it desperation, rather nonsense at either end of the pole. People who claim guns prevent crime, are equally absurd as people who claim guns cause crime. They're both denying statistics, but that's not the reason they're claims seem absurd. The statistics can equally be used to support or discredit either side, because none of them offer reasonable answers. Anyway, going to step out of this one. Have already had years of opportunity to discuss guns with you and Pappy and somehow managed to miss that boat, and the new member was really my only inspiration to this topic. The quantity of language expressed has been outside of my comfort zone, and the minimal response makes that regrettable in an anxious way, so my appreciation to you and Pappy anyway. Though do answer the question above if you don't mind; not looking to argue or discuss it but am interested to know. Maybe the new member might answer it too.

[benjimanbreeg]

Really well said Jack. 

[odeon]

If it is a lot harder to kill without guns (which I'd think is pretty obvious), I'd say it's also less likely since killing without an obvious and easy way is messy and would require a lot more from the would-be murderer.

Then what do you think happened in the UK, something cultural not related to guns? Genuinely not saying that in a provoking or snarky way, but really curious what's the take on it for people there. Thirty years is long enough to shape a generation, and that's a long time on a backwards effect road to only end up in the same statistical position where things started.

I honestly don't know, and I don't claim to know.

You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.

Personally see it from both sides, but don't consider it desperation, rather nonsense at either end of the pole. People who claim guns prevent crime, are equally absurd as people who claim guns cause crime. They're both denying statistics, but that's not the reason they're claims seem absurd. The statistics can equally be used to support or discredit either side, because none of them offer reasonable answers. Anyway, going to step out of this one. Have already had years of opportunity to discuss guns with you and Pappy and somehow managed to miss that boat, and the new member was really my only inspiration to this topic. The quantity of language expressed has been outside of my comfort zone, and the minimal response makes that regrettable in an anxious way, so my appreciation to you and Pappy anyway. Though do answer the question above if you don't mind; not looking to argue or discuss it but am interested to know. Maybe the new member might answer it too.

I would if I could, but I don't have an answer.

What is it that they say about statistics and damned lies? I think you can prove just about anything with statistics.

[FourAceDeal]

Interesting since the mathematics of UK homicide rates, gun related homicides, and gun crime in general don't support your claims. You also seem to be suggesting a weapon can somehow change a person into a murderer.

In what way do the maths not support my claims?  (Whatever you perceived "my claims" to be). 

And yes a weapon does effect whether a person can be a murderer.  It is basic psychology.  A gun depersonalises the act of killing to the point where it is almost a button press.  A knife is far more up close and personal and requires the motivational bar to be somewhat higher.  I think the lack of Drive-by stranglings make this point fairly obvious.

[FourAceDeal]

There should be logical tests on people eligible to own guns, have pets and have children. 

We have people in the UK throwing thousands of knives away to stop knife crime, which is mentally retarded when they can go straight back and buy more from Waitrose.  People are the problem, it's time we realise that.

I think it's a conspiracy to force up sales by the big knife companies and the sheffield mafia.

[FourAceDeal]

You don't but quite a few people do come off as kind of desperate when trying to explain away the statistics. The discussion is polarised, yes, but I don't see the kind of desperation from those opposing guns.

Agree.  It's not desperation.  I laugh my guts up at gun lobbyists.  My kids are safe.  At the end of the day I don't give a flying f*ck if Americans have guns, grenades or any other armament.  The only thing that pisses me off is the way they pervert maths and statistics to prove that it makes them safer.  Murder each other, but leave logic alone.

[Jack]

In what way do the maths not support my claims?  (Whatever you perceived "my claims" to be). 

Have perceived your claims to be what's been claimed, lax gun laws equal more murder, the proof gun control works is any other western country with gun control, and weapons create murderers. The UK National Archives site data for homicide trends show thirty years of gun control hasn't proved effective for homicide rates. The National Archives site doesn't provide data trends specific to method, and it's difficult as an outsider to know what a UK citizen considers as a reliable data source from their own country, so will withdraw the statement that gun control also hasn't improved gun homicide or gun related crimes over the same thirty years. Though it's not really my responsibility do disprove your claims in this discussion; the onus is on you to show me they are true. Have only requested from you, the claim of any other western country with gun control. Even I was able to show gun control works, using the US as an example.

leave logic alone.

No. Jack's purpose is logic. Mentioned earlier, personally would prefer to be on your side of the discussion, but logic wont allow me to do it. The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.

[Queen Victoria]

Okay, this thread is too long and too complicated for me to do more than skim (and selectively ignore.) 

However, even if gun laws are strengthened, changes/improvements won't come overnight.  Simply tightening the gun purchase requirements won't get the guns out of the hands and homes of the owners who no longer qualify.  In any case it wouldn't stop anyone who is bound and determined to own a gun. 

That said, I support more restrictive gun ownership laws.  What they may be I leave to more organized minds that mine. 

[odeon]

The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.

Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree with this. The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.

The pro-gun stance, on the other hand, seems to be largely an emotional one, for the reasons you stated.

[Jack]

The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.

Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree with this. The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.

The pro-gun stance, on the other hand, seems to be largely an emotional one, for the reasons you stated.

No need for apology. Don't claim to know the right answer, and don't mind being wrong. This is two different statements. One stating it's logical; the other stating it's sensible. Even I can acknowledge guns are dangerous so it's not difficult to see how prudence can dictate an anti-gun stance, but no, logic is based in validity and it hasn't been quantified with logic. That's not to say it's impossible to, nor will never be, but rather it simply isn't.

[Jack]

The anti-gun stance is largely an emotional stance. Guns are dangerous, gun are scary, and a madman wielding a gun is probably the most dangerous and scary sort of madman there is except for one with a bomb, so anti-gun just feels like common sense. Many people are anti-gun for emotional reasoning and it's completely understandable. Personally am not anti-gun because of logic, but am pro-gun for emotional reasons. That emotion is based in nationalistic attitudes and personal appreciation for the founding principles of the United States.

Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree with this. The anti-gun stance, to me, is pure logic. Getting rid of a device that was largely designed to kill people with makes perfect sense to me in a society claiming itself to be civilised.

The pro-gun stance, on the other hand, seems to be largely an emotional one, for the reasons you stated.

No need for apology. Don't claim to know the right answer, and don't mind being wrong. This is two different statements. One stating it's logical; the other stating it's sensible. Even I can acknowledge guns are dangerous so it's not difficult to see how prudence can dictate an anti-gun stance, but no, logic is based in validity and it hasn't been quantified with logic. That's not to say it's impossible to, nor will never be, but rather it simply isn't.

Just to be clear, making the point about emotional stances on both sides of the issue was really more intended for FourAceDeal. He's presented three different types of approach to this discussion, and each of those approaches is conflicted by another. He's new, and there's no baseline for interacting, so testing boundaries more than anything and the multiple approaches have only made that confusing. This is why have addressed the points of trolling, logic, and emotion. Not intending to say you have presented an emotional argument.

[Jack]

Really well said Jack.

Missed this before. Thank you, Benjiman. Expressing language certainly isn't a strong suit, especially in this volume, so that's a compliment.

[benjimanbreeg]

There should be logical tests on people eligible to own guns, have pets and have children. 

We have people in the UK throwing thousands of knives away to stop knife crime, which is mentally retarded when they can go straight back and buy more from Waitrose.  People are the problem, it's time we realise that.

I think it's a conspiracy to force up sales by the big knife companies and the sheffield mafia.

 

[benjimanbreeg]

Really well said Jack.

Missed this before. Thank you, Benjiman. Expressing language certainly isn't a strong suit, especially in this volume, so that's a compliment.

You're being too hard on yourself.  Just being pretty neutral regarding this argument takes a lot of independent thought and you made very good points as well as expressing them brilliantly.