Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,234 Year: 5,491/9,624 Month: 516/323 Week: 13/143 Day: 3/10 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   gun control
Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 17 of 72 (33235)
02-26-2003 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by wj
02-25-2003 5:45 PM

Simple hypothesis: the greater availability of firearms in a community increases the rate of firearms homicides.
While I would agree with the above (bloody obvious covers it
for me) I don't think tighter gun control will have much impact.
In the UK gun crime is on the increase (and quite rapidly
so), and yet the controls in the UK are much stricter than
Australia (I think). The only waepons that can be legally owned
in the UK are smooth-bore firearms such as shot-guns, but most
gun crime is committed with unlicensed, side arms and sub-machine pistols.
Availability is clearly increasing, but not because of a relaxation
of gun controls ... quite the reverse, the UK tightened its gun
laws a few years ago in response to a shooting incident in a school
(which was perpetrated using unlicensed weapons anyhow).
I don't think there is any simple answer to the question, it's the
underlying social problems and criminal 'gangs' that need to
be addressed I feel.
That said, I am sure that if a hot-tempered individual had
a .38 in their bedside drawer they might grab it in a temper
and would be more likely to inflict a mortal wound with that than,
say, a punch or a thrown plate. Even in that situation, the
act of going for the gun, releasing the safety, etc. gives
a certain amount of cooling period for a lot of people ...
and by all accounts (I have friends in both the military and
armed response units) it's not that easy to pull the trigger
when you come right down to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by wj, posted 02-25-2003 5:45 PM wj has not replied

Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 27 of 72 (33525)
03-03-2003 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by derwood
02-28-2003 3:32 PM

Re: statistics, lies, and damn lies
Would population density make a like-for-like comparison
of murder rates invalid/skewed?
I've always wondered this ... if the population density is
high, then there is more opportunity for large numbers
of people to interact, and presents greater opportunity
for any kind of interaction (including murder).
Meaning that 1 in 1000 in a low population density is
(in some respects) more significant than the same rate
in a high population density.
I'm not suggesting that there is a significant difference
in pop. density between Australia and the US, you understand,
but just wondered if anyone had thoughts on the effect of
pop. density on bald rate data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by derwood, posted 02-28-2003 3:32 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by derwood, posted 03-03-2003 10:02 AM Peter has not replied

Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 52 of 72 (33688)
03-05-2003 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mark24
03-03-2003 8:32 PM

Re: I am not the one I am owrrying about...
f the right to bear arms was squashed 100 years ago, there would be a LOT more people alive in the US than there is today. Sometimes small freedoms must be given up so that lives can be saved.
Gun ownership started to be severly restricted in the UK aprrox.
100 years ago (I think ... maybe not quite that long), but gun-crime
is all too prevalent in our major cities.
I think restrictive gun-ownership laws will cut-down on 'spur of
the moment' shootings ... and as pointed out elsewhere one has
a bit more chance in a spur of the moment stabbing scenario.
Hardcore criminal activity involving guns has little to do with
gun-laws. And since gangs know that their rivals also have guns
widespread knowledge of ownership is clearly no deterrant ...
Not entirely sure, now, what the whole issue revolves around here.
It is reasonably obvious that if there is restricted availabilty
of firearms there will be less incidents of their use.
However, gun-control does not restrict availability.
Beyond shot-guns and some military supply I don't think many firearms
are actually manufactured in the UK ... but the availability is

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 03-03-2003 8:32 PM mark24 has not replied

Member (Idle past 1594 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002

Message 62 of 72 (34032)
03-10-2003 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Minnemooseus
03-05-2003 4:55 PM

define the line between weapons of self-defense, and
weapons of mass destruction.
The difference seems to be who owns them .... the US and UK
nuclear arsenals are 'defensive deterrants' while any enemy
nation's identicle weapons are 'weapons of mass destruction'.
Similarly with side-arms ... law abiding citizens may view them
as a means of defense, while criminals view them as offensive.
A line from 'Shane' springs to mind :
'A gun is just a tool, no better or worse than the man
using it.'
It doesn't stop them being the most accessible means of inficting
fatal injuries ... it just makes the whole issue much less
than straight forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-05-2003 4:55 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024