Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

That's not true. Maybe he means for just one year (2006/2007), but looking at the chart you'll see that the trend is going up. Which means that it's gone up! (although the chart says otherwise for that year, so that's probably a typo). I never claimed it was! I just said that it's been rising despite stringent gun control laws. Even if the rise in gun crime corresponded with a rise in population (which I doubt), the fact would still remain that gun laws haven't reduced, let alone stopped, proliferation of gun violence like you, RAZD and other seem to think.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Not true! In the UK it's legally impossible for ordinary citizens to own a gun, even for sporting purposes. Our Olympic Shooting Team have to train in France FFS!! Not true for the UK. Here, the only people with guns are the police and the criminals. Ordinary citizens are effectively disarmed. There's nothing hyperbolic about it! In Britain, only bad guys and the police have guns. And the police aren't always on the side of the good guys! Yet, you refuse or are unable to answer it! How can you limit guns without criminalising their possession/ownership? I'm claiming that gun laws, at least in the UK, haven't achieved their objective, which was to reduce gun crime. Even accounting for an increasing population, gun crime's still going up. Gun control laws have demonstrably failed. I'm attributing this to a number of other factors that affect burglary, like the drop in unemployment (last year excepted) and the rise in house alarms sales. The thing is you can't really make much of looking at any one's country's burglary rates, unless you take those other factors into consideration. I'm looking at two countries (Uk/Us) that have similar cultural values and socio-political structure and I see that in the US -where many people carry guns and have the right to use them in defense- there are proportionatelly much fewer burglaries than in the UK. I can't detect any other factors that are specific to the US and may affect this trend, other than gun legislation and attitudes towards guns, as I can in other countries such as Japan for instance. If you do feel that there are other factors that explain away this discrepancy feel free to bring them to the table.BTW, the reference link you provided fails to open. without seeing the full report is difficult to judge this comment. Are they talking about burglaries committed under the influence? If yes, it's natural that the perpetrators wouldn't consider risk to themselves, as they wouldn't in any other aspect of their life if they're drunk or drugged up.However, these kind of burglaries only account for some of the figures. Rationally thinking burglars would be deterred by the possibility of armed resistance and Wright and Decker (1994) support this view. And that makes perfect sense given that in the US is likely that the homeowner will be armed and prepared to shoot. Again, without knowing the context of this quote it's difficult to comment. I presume that they're talking about crime in general not burglary specifically. If they're talking about burglary specifically then I seriously dispute the last sentence. Police activity is already discouraged in Britain, so this is a moot point. I'm not cherry-picking data, I'm just trying to compare like for like. If I was really cherry-picking then I'd be also mentioning Switzerland which has one of the highest gun ownership rates and one of the lowest crime rates in the world! However, I accept that Swiss society and culture is very different than the Uk/Us which is why I haven't brought it up.I'm happy to include Australia as it's a similar culture and society to the US/UK. I'll have a look at this gun buyback program and will respond in due course. Gun crime in the UK has increased from approx 5.2 (thousands) in 1998 to approx 9.4 in 2006. That's a nearly 80% rise! Population in the same interval has risen from 58.5 milion to 60.5, a rise of 3.4%. So it's fair to say that the rise in gun crime is statistically significant. And that's despite continuous tightening of gun legislation to the point where ordinary citizens are prohibited from owning any type of firearm. That's why I'm saying that gun controls disarm the people who most need the guns for defense and have no effect on the people who use them offensively.Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Presumably you also see no reason for wearing a seatbelt, or a motorcycle helmet, or washing your hands before eating.I bet the Virginia Tech survivors can see many reasons why they should have been carrying a gun.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Although this is technically true the law requires that you're either a member of a rifle or muzzle-loading gun club to apply for one of these, or -for a shotgun- you have another 'valid reason' to need one, such as pest control for example. As I've found out, keeping one in the house for self-defense doesn't constitute a 'valid reason'.So, as there's no rifle club near where I live and I'm not a farmer, I'm not allowed to own a gun. This is why I'm saying that ordinary citizens are effectively disarmed in the UK.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yet, despite VA state prohibiting the carrying of guns in schools, the killer brought guns into campus and used them. What a suprise, a law being ignored by someone who intents harm!The people who obeyed the law were those who desperately needed a gun at that time. They paid the price with their lives. The attack in the school lasted 9 minutes during which Cho fired 174 rounds which means he must have reloaded his .22 revolver at least twice, taking between 10-15 seconds each time. *If* other students had been allowed to carry guns they would have ample opportunity to shoot him and end the carnage. Unfortunately, they weren't and they didn't.Does that make sense to you now? If you're caught up in a violent situation where you feel your life is in imminent danger and you have no escape route then you'll use whatever means at your disposal to enhance your survival chances. It's not whether you have the 'balls' or not it's just whether you have the means.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I haven't been in a car-crash recently either but I still wear a seat belt when I drive.You point...?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Oh yeah that would have been terrible. It's much better that they just lied helpless while Cho picked them off at his ease. That's right, just let the killer go on a killing spree undisturbed instead. what's that got to do with my right to defend myself in my own home with a gun?Do you know, off the top of your head, the stopping distance of your car at 70mph? No? Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

My point is: Theodoric is trying to imply that the fact that I may not be fully aware of what calibre or type of weapon I require somehow invalidates my right to own one for self-defense. I'm saying that this is equivalent to preventing someone from potentially owning a car if they don't know what type of car or engine size they need so that they can travel from A to B. Guns are designed to propel small chunks of metal around at high velocity.
Cars are designed to propel large chunks of metal around at high velocity.Both kill people just as effectively, in the wrong hands. Cars -like guns- are just tools an can be used for either good and evil depending on the people who use them. Unless in the hands of a maniac, police or the armed forces guns are not generally used to intentionally kill people either.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

In the hands of an ordinary citizen concerned with their and their family's safety it has the same purpose as an insurance policy, as Hieroglyphx stated elsewhere. It's something you wish you'll never use but if you do need to use it, you're grateful you have it. Who said I'm not worried about the ability to kill people? I was just pointing out to you that design doesn't always necessitate intent nor usage. Cars aren't designed to kill people yet more people die hit by cars than hit by bullets. Guns are designed to kill people yet in peacetime situations very few people die from gun usage, proportionately.I really fail to see where you're coming from. Britain has the worst violent crime rate in Western Europe. I've experienced violence first-hand on a number of occasions and so have many others in my family and social environment. If you're really not worried about it fair enough, it's your prerogative, but why would you want to minimize other people's chances of defending themselves should the worst happen?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I actually agree with you. However, those measures that you mention aren't (and some of them shouldn't be, as you rightly point out) applied. So as it stands ordinary citizens are disarmed and at the mercy of the occasional psychopath. I think it's only fair and just that the playing field is levelled a bit and people are allowed to defend themsleves in a more effective manner other than hide and wait for the police to arrive. Apart from your ever so slight exagerration, SHOW ME where I advocated allowing untrained students to conceal & bring in weapons. I didn't. RAZD asked for a reason why he should have a gun and I gave him a few including the possibility of attack by an armed psychopath, as in Virginia Tech.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Exactly. It's like preventing people from taking driving lessons if they don't know how to drive a car! Absolutely! I wonder if the people here who think that if you want a gun you're some kind of Rambo-like sociopath also believe that people who buy insurance are some kind of pessimistic doom-mongers or maybe fraudsters or have some other sinister purpose for wanting insurance?For the record, I'm against access to guns for ordinary citizens without appropriate checks and controls, just like I'm against access to cars for people without driving licenses or a history of dangerous driving.I fully support controlled ownership of guns, including handguns, that ordinary citizens (with no history of agressive violence or mental health problems) can keep in a safe place at home to use for their family's and property's protection should the need arise.Some people here seem to think that this would take us back to the Wild West or would bring the end of the world or something. I'm puzzled and worried about this attitude. I think it would make for a much safer and fairer society, both in the short and long term.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No I didn't. I just showed you yet another situation where carrying a gun would have been useful, lifesaving even. So the fact that a gun-totting psychopath walked into a public place and started firing for nine minutes, with long intervals of changing grounds in between, and noone could stop him because *noone had a bloody gun* indicates to you that there should be even more stringent gun controls for ordinary citizens?!Even though this isn't going to stop the next Cho, just as current gun controls don't stop determined psychopaths?!Even though it's just going to ensure that the next victims are even more defenceless?!sorry but I just fail to follow or understand your line of reasoning. Yes and this recurring need of children in your country to kill their classmates indicates something fundamentally wrong in your social fabric that has nothing to do with the means of carrying out those killings.If you seriously believe that removing all guns would stop those killings then you're deluded IMO. All that would change would be the method of the killings not their ocurrence. Teenagers wouldn't machine-gun their classmates they would just petrol-bomb them or gas them instead. I've stated before that unless we can compare the figures of lives saved or deaths prevented by gun usage then you're just presenting only one side of the coin. Yet in countries like Switzerland and Israel where most men over 21 have guns at home and many are allowed to carry in public, crime rates are among the lowest in the world. Which shows -if nothing else- that your blanket statement of "more gun control results in fewer deaths by guns" is incorrect.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

SHOW ME where I did that or forever hold your peace!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

The first quote is my position on gun ownership and usage. The second quote is my reply to RAZD who indirectly asked for reasons to have a gun. I hope the distinction is clear. I partly agree. Giving guns to anyone and their dog without checks is not a good idea, especially younger people. However, I also support the idea that people who meet certain criteria should be allowed to carry in public, but that's digressing from my main argument which is that ordinary citizens should be allowed to have guns at home and use them in self-defense.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Cars aren't designed to kill innocent people, yet they often do. Guns aren't designed to kill innocent people, yet they often do. When I buy a car I don't intend to go out and start killing people with it. Likewise, when I buy a gun I don't intend to go out and start killing people with it. The comparison is relevant because it highlights that guns, like cars, are just tools - there's nothing inherently evil about them, only with the people who use them Burglary and property crime is lower in the US, homicide rate is higher. What's your point? Then you'll no doubt be familiar with the Gurnos Estate. I've lived there for a few years as a teenager. Some of my extended family still live there. I know first-hand that the attitude of the main gangs at the time was that they would steal and rob safe in the knowledge that no-one could touch them, residents or police. The only houses they avoided were those of the local hard-men, because they knew that they risked some serious injury (at that time or later) if they did. The only deterrent they appreciated was violence. They wouldn't as a rule target houses or people that might potentially harm them. It's one of the reasons I now believe that gun ownership and self-defense laws for ordinary citizens would be a good thing. If by legalising guns you mean making them available to the average householder and allow them to use them at home if need be, then IMHO society would be a safer place.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"