Gun control in the USA

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Leaving a wallet in a an unlocked car makes it more likely to be stolen, as its visibly easy to take.
Not carrying a weapon, that wouldn't be visible anyway, doesn't make you any less likely to be accosted by a criminal.

Does it make you more or less likely to escape such an encounter if said criminal is intent on doing you harm?

I mentioned some later on in the post. Things like staying out of dangerous environments, not making yourself appear an easy target. DO you think a person of advanced age or limited mobility will be able to effectively use a knife against an assailant?

I think you are making some assumptions there.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/elderly_woman_disarms_knife-wielder/

But you would be nicked if you don't supply any reason at all. If you supply a reason from the start, you at least have the chance of meeting someone who you can convince. If you dont, but later supply one, it will look like you made it up.

Does that not sound like a bad law to you if you have to rely on the chance of convincing someone. What if speeding laws worked the same way and you had to convince a cop of a good reason for travelling forty, and the cop could arrest you if he felt you should not be doing that speed.

I already did: If you are innocent, then why would you remain silent? Saying its your right under the law is not a justification for the right to exist under the law, that is a circular argument.

Already did what? Start a thread? Campaign against it?
The right to silence is a key tenant of Human Rights. Let me ask you - do you support removing it; if so please explain what you hope to achieve by coerced statements in police custody.

I think you are have argued yourself into a very ugly corner.

And London has a murder rate of ~ 2 per 100,000, less than half of that of the US. Might those two facts be connected?

The proportion of mugging incidents in which a knife was used rose in 2010/11 to 19%, and the overall murder rate in the UK also rose by 5% in 2011.
Source, & source (where is your source btw)
What connection might these facts have?

Which is an argument against the MET, not the law itself.

No. It is an example of where the law is being abused. The Met are acting within the law - just in an overkill manner; Section 60 is widely abused by the UK police, not just in London.

Aside from being 20 years old, that source is also from a time when the US had nearly double the rate of deaths it had in 2010 (look the pdf I quouted earlier it goes back to 1995 where the rate was 8.1 per 100,000).

Even if that rate has more than halved since then - it represents a million crimes a year prevented by citizen gun possession.

I do not interpret "good reason" as "immediate need". Daily Mail scaremongering aside, the lack of an epidemic of people being arrested carrying blades for work and the like would indicate that neither do the vast majority of police or courts.

I linked to numerous cases, not just a single Daily Mail article.

What ever about pepper spray or personal alarm (which don't require much in the way of skill or accuracy, and have no recoil) an 83 year with walking difficulties is not going to be able to use a knife (or a gun) effectively.

You may be right - this guy missed. However, it is safe to say that this burglar probably did not stick around that long to test the theory.
http://www.wvec.com/my-city/hampton/83-year-old-shoots-at-burglar-130326228.html

The idea that an attacker can carry an illegal weapon will apply almost no matter what weapons you make illegal, so aiming to match the attackers hypothetical weapon will only lead to escalation.
The idea that meeting force with equal force will somehow work out good for you (and not just bad for both of you, all other things equal) is naive.

Except that I have posted data to show (even if twenty years ago) that most aggressors being shown even just the potential for deadly defensive force leave pretty fast. That data describes an estimated 2.5m incidents a year.
Now - care to post your data that shows the opposite result?

Don't get me wrong, I am a pacifist but I am also a realist. I avoid violent confrontation but if someone absolutely left me no other choice, I would kill them regardless of what weapons I had, my hands are enough. I just don't go out assuming I may need to do that.

So if you had a gun/knife you would use it. So your stance is that you should be prevented by law from having such a weapon in the first place because despite your principles, you would end up using it. Wow.

Depends on why the knife is being held in a public place.

Who should have to prove that reason and why?

I was a scout. Besides the motto, you are also thought about social responsibility and maturity. Knives were useful when camping, not so much on a city street, and certainly not as psychological crutch for insecurity.

Where did I say they should be used "as psychological crutch for insecurity" - that's a mighty big slice of assumption pie you are serving up there. Do you think Scouts should not be trusted to carry in a city if they are trusted in aforest?

I think you missed my point. Europe in the early 1900s was a far more violent place than the US (what with the two World Wars).

If you want to equate citizen on citizen violence with military wars...I'm sure you can work out the fallacy on your own.

The equivalent level of training as a policeman? It can take months to years to become a policeman in the the states, and they come with all kinds of physical and psychological tests. What training do you need to have a concealed carry license? Do all states require it?

My state certainly does - as do many states.
Only four states that issue have no training requirement.
Training is generally both classroom and practical draw and fire competency.

Yes, the 90% of Americans who are not trained military veterans.

I'm drawing your attention to the proportion of well trained veterans in the US citizenry - or is that lost on you?

Completely independent and optional classes that you don't have ot attend to get a gun.

Are they relevant for those who never take a gun on the streets? Only 1-2% of Americans conceal carry compared to 50% who keep a gun at home. Making them mandatory for every gun owner makes no logical sense.

Not that ironic seeing as its illegal to carry a gun.

But not illegal to own one. In Ireland it is illegal for a old man living in a remote farmhouse to be trained in the practical defensive use of his legally owned shotgun. That make any sense to you?

I take it from your non-answer that you saw where I was going. The US sees citizens permitted to carry guns as "enabling and equipping citizens to protect first themselves, then their families, then their neighbours, then the wider community" from other citizens. The government allows you to have guns to protect you from yourselves, because the government isn't up to the job. In doing so, you arm the people you are trying to defend yourselves against.

I'm not sure who you are critising here? The Government? The People? We most certainly do not "arm" those convicted of wrongdoing - in fact it is illegal for a convicted felon to have anything to do with a firearm. You accused me of being naive earlier - I think you are pretty naive if you think firearms and US soceity are going to part ways any time soon; and you have a bizarre separation of Government and People. The US makes a democratic decision to allow law abiding citizens to own and (in most states) carry firearms. This is no different to many European countries.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A handful of youtube based anecdotes don't somehow translate to a significant percentage of the public being reliably skilled with weapons.

And yet a handful of loonies on Youtube espousing nonsense represents the gun ownership population of the US according to one of the mods of this forum. :rolleyes:

So said innocent person will be so nervous when interrogated that they can't trust themselves to speak, but they will be calm enough in an armed confrontation to use their weapons effectively and safely?

I was in court recently, pleading guilty to speeding, hell - I was nervous...instinctive trained reactions and apprehension about an interrogation are two different events are they not. Care to explain how they are not?

And that subjectiveness disappears in members of the public when they are assessing safe ways to deal with perceived threats? I'm not saying that these laws shouldn't be accompanied by clear guidelines, with discretion being used to err on the side of innocent, but abandoning the discretionary aspect of the law will either result in no-one being allowed to handle weapons at all, or everyone being allowed to have any weapon they want (which will lead to a arms race between people and their imagine assailants).

You think the current legal US situation is creating an 'arms race'? Do explain.

Again, this is a call for guidelines and better trained police, not an abandoning of the law.

The law is unclear if it can be interpreted as meaning a man in his sixties with no prior convictions can be arrested and successfully prosecuted for having a folded-up penknife in the glove box of his car. In fact, sir, the law is an ass.

Most victims would not be able to take control of the situation if they are taken unawares, if the assailant is more able to use their own weapon, or has back up him/herself. This is demonstrated not by youtube clips but the UNODC statistics I quoted earlier. Despite having far more armed citizens, the US has five times the homocides of the UK.

As above, the statistics would seem to contradict you.

You think there is a direct causal link between homicides and levels of LEGAL gun ownership? Wow...do I have to point out how much of a howler you just made?

If Ben Franklin said that he is a dumbass. We give up liberties everyday to ensure safety, its just most people don't particularly want to avail of those liberties so they don't notice or care about losing them. Think of how many restrictions are on cars, on who can drive them, on how powerful they can be, on what accessories you add to them, on what side of the road you can drive on. By virtue of living in a society you give up the freedom to spend all your paycheck when the government takes its share .

One of those 'liberties' for which you are arguing should be taken way is the right to silence - tell me what are you like on free speech? I've always noticed that scratching a pacifist reveals a reactionary.

Never said they could. My point was that said stumbling is indication that they could be intoxicated and would be, in my view, warrant enough for a guard to stop them and at the very least ensure they don't drive.

The law states that they are in control of a motor vehicle, putting the keys in the lock is the action that gets them arrested. What you are arguing for is arresting people for having their car keys in a bar, regardless of their actions.

Maybe part of the problem is with the people who go out to get so drunk without appropriate means of transport or accommodation organised? Maybe the safety of other road users should be held above some peoples desire to get wasted.

Powers to stop and search people with car keys who are in a pub would solve that would it not? After all if they have no reasonable excuse about being in a pub with car keys they should be presumed to be about to commit a drunk driving offence, no? Best not take the chance that they may drink.

Not guilty, just suspicious. Why would you give back a weapon to someone who will not explain what they intend to use it for?

In the case of a knife it is the law that has defined it as a weapon, not the owner. A vase can be a murder weapon but only becomes a weapon when legally identified as such.

MadsL wrote: »

And yet a handful of loonies on Youtube espousing nonsense represents the gun ownership population of the US according to one of the mods of this forum. :rolleyes:

You mean the FPSRussia guy getting killed? I think that was more a point that having lots of guns wont protect you from someone with a gun.

MadsL wrote: »

I was in court recently, pleading guilty to speeding, hell - I was nervous...instinctive trained reactions and apprehension about an interrogation are two different events are they not. Care to explain how they are not?

The vast majority of people who have guns do not have instinctive level of training to use said guns on other people.

MadsL wrote: »

You think the current legal US situation is creating an 'arms race'? Do explain.

Pretty obvious really, people assume muggers are armed, so arm themselves. Muggers (who may not have been armed before) assume people will be armed, so arm themselves better. People then retaliate with better guns, and so do muggers and so on and so forth.

MadsL wrote: »

The law is unclear if it can be interpreted as meaning a man in his sixties with no prior convictions can be arrested and successfully prosecuted for having a folded-up penknife in the glove box of his car. In fact, sir, the law is an ass.

Again, the police is the ass, or the prosectures. All laws can interpreted badly by an ass.

MadsL wrote: »

You think there is a direct causal link between homicides and levels of LEGAL gun ownership? Wow...do I have to point out how much of a howler you just made?

Never said causal link, but correlation certainly. The US has far more guns in private hands the UK and it also has far more homicides.

MadsL wrote: »

One of those 'liberties' for which you are arguing should be taken way is the right to silence - tell me what are you like on free speech? I've always noticed that scratching a pacifist reveals a reactionary.

Free speech is a different right to the right to silence. They are also different to the (now gone) right to own slaves. Does it bother you that that right no longer exists?

MadsL wrote: »

The law states that they are in control of a motor vehicle, putting the keys in the lock is the action that gets them arrested. What you are arguing for is arresting people for having their car keys in a bar, regardless of their actions.

That's very disingenuous, that is quite clearly not what I am advocating at all. I talked about a guard intercepting someone stumbling to wards a car and ensuring they don't drive (even if that doesn't involve an arrest). Your awkward strawman about arresting people in a bar is just that, a strawman.

MadsL wrote: »

Powers to stop and search people with car keys who are in a pub would solve that would it not? After all if they have no reasonable excuse about being in a pub with car keys they should be presumed to be about to commit a drunk driving offence, no? Best not take the chance that they may drink.

Ah, turning your strawman into a slippery slope argument. Yawn.

MadsL wrote: »

In the case of a knife it is the law that has defined it as a weapon, not the owner. A vase can be a murder weapon but only becomes a weapon when legally identified as such.

Vases are very unusual murder weapons, usually only used in heat of the moment acts (as they are not very efficient killing devices) hence its unreasonable to assume a vase will be used as a weapon. Knives on the other hand are very efficient for causing injury (and quite good at causing death). I may carry a machete and call it a paper weight but that doesn't make it an appropriate device for weighing down paper, or an inappropriate device for causing injury and death.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mean the FPSRussia guy getting killed? I think that was more a point that having lots of guns wont protect you from someone with a gun.

And a fatuous point clearly.

The vast majority of people who have guns do not have instinctive level of training to use said guns on other people.

And the vast majority of incidents don't involve actually firing that gun - many defensive situations is is simply enough to show or draw the gun.

Pretty obvious really, people assume muggers are armed, so arm themselves. Muggers (who may not have been armed before) assume people will be armed, so arm themselves better. People then retaliate with better guns, and so do muggers and so on and so forth.

By that logic no muggers in Ireland are armed.

Again, the police is the ass, or the prosectures. All laws can interpreted badly by an ass.

Where you have widespread abuse it is clear that the law needs reform. Or has the ongoing debate about the level of police stop and search powers completely eluded you.

Never said causal link, but correlation certainly. The US has far more guns in private hands the UK and it also has far more homicides.

The US has more millionaires than the UK, do guns create millionaires?

Free speech is a different right to the right to silence.

How so? Are they not basic human rights, do explain I'm all ears on this one.

They are also different to the (now gone) right to own slaves.

Show me where slave ownership was ever enshrined as a right in a Constitution please...

Does it bother you that that right no longer exists?

It was never a right. What an absurd question.

That's very disingenuous, that is quite clearly not what I am advocating at all.

I think you have been arguing for the end justifying the means all through this knife topic.

I talked about a guard intercepting someone stumbling to wards a car and ensuring they don't drive (even if that doesn't involve an arrest). Your awkward strawman about arresting people in a bar is just that, a strawman.

It is not a strawman, but a logical extension. If stopping and searching people for knives to prevent stabbings is ok, surely searching drunk people in bars for car keys would be equally preventative? Do you disagree with such a proposal?

Ah, turning your strawman into a slippery slope argument. Yawn.

You are very fond ignoring slippery slopes, I note your refusal to acknowledge the dangers of removing the right to silence.

Vases are very unusual murder weapons, usually only used in heat of the moment acts (as they are not very efficient killing devices) hence its unreasonable to assume a vase will be used as a weapon. Knives on the other hand are very efficient for causing injury (and quite good at causing death). I may carry a machete and call it a paper weight but that doesn't make it an appropriate device for weighing down paper, or an inappropriate device for causing injury and death.

No - but if you have a machete on the street and cannot immediately prove that you are on your way to cut some vegetation (how do you prove you are on your way to do some gardening at your granny's house) you will be charged. The law is a bad one because it creates an offence by changing the definition of an item not by action.

The Black Oil wrote: »

http://info.themicroeffect.com/2013/01/09/did-obama-order-sandy-hook-shooting-to-get-your-guns-nevada/

Hmm, a whole bunch of fun here.

Whole better suited to CT over here >>>>>>>>

MadsL wrote: »

You have pointed me to some Countries homicide rates - where do those statistics analyse these type of encounters? I'm sorry, but what you have just done is tried to extrapolate deaths by choking from obesity rates.
...
You claimed that you were more likely to die in such an encounter based on the national homicide rate - what an utterly dishonest was to interpret data.

I had forgotten who I had been posting with earlier in this thread when I went through the number of gun related deaths vs the number of guns owned by different countries (US has 5 times as many gun deaths as the UK, the same as the overall homicide rate, FYI). So imagine my surprise when I go back to get the data for you and find out it was you in the first place. Here you are, a month later disputing the data still with no data of your own. Who is being more dishonest.

Oh, and I had explained the Czech Republic as well. Maybe you can read my posts this time?

MadsL wrote: »

A well-written law should prevent bad police abusing it wouldn't you say?

It should, but its not always possible. Bad police will abuse any law. Better to have the best laws you can and have the best police you can.

MadsL wrote: »

As to extenuating circumstances that can be applied all the way to murder, notably justified homicide.

And is extenuating circumstances not a version of, essentially, convincing someone? If you are legally carrying a gun and someone threatens you to the point that you use it, aren't you going to hope that you can convince the police or the judge that your use was justified?

MadsL wrote: »

Precisely, the only connection that can be drawn is a descriptive one, not a provable causal relationship about the carrying of knives and their involvement in murders. Took you a while, well done.

So we can say knives are dangerous because they are used in violent crimes, but we can't say knives are what make those crimes dangerous?

MadsL wrote: »

I don't know, how many prevented deaths? Klecks's victim interviews indicated 15% felt they saved theirs or other lives. Any statistics to support your side (other than the UNOCD ones you are so fond of - they have nothing to say on this issue)

How about we use Klecks own stats: "Results indicated that gun ownership had a weak (odds ratio = 1.36) and unstable relationship with homicidal behavior, which was at least partly spurious."
Did you buy the paper, because I only have the front page. How many people did Kleck interview. When it says that 15% felt they saved theirs or other lives, is that 15% of those who used a gun, or is that ~100% of those who used a gun (amounting to 15% of all victims).

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I say "work knives" and what would those be...

Any knives then. And a work knife is a knife for work.

MadsL wrote: »

Huh? You'll have to speak up, you stopped making sense there.

I can walk around my house naked, can't walk around naked in public, two different legal jurisdictions.

MadsL wrote: »

And again with the logical fallacy that more guns = more crimes. Do we really need to point out again that is an absurdly simplistic conclusion.

Its not a fallacy, its held up by the statistics. If having armed citizens did decrease the likelihood of a criminal succeeding ("most aggressors being shown even just the potential for deadly defensive force leave pretty fast" was the terminology you used) then you would expect the US to have a much closer crime rate to the UK.

MadsL wrote: »

And what statistical basis do you have for that, despite me presenting one for my position.

The UNODC, as well as the data referenced above.

MadsL wrote: »

And if they say nothing? Are they guilty in your eyes?

Must be guilty of something, if they wont admit why they have it.

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I say having a weapon being is a guarantee of security. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't say you said guarantee of security, but your argument is that a persons security is compromised if they don't have a weapon.

MadsL wrote: »

Of course they do, if they come across an animal entangled in something they can cut it with their knife. please think of the kittens. By preventing Scouts from being prepared at all times, you are complicit in the deaths of kittehs. Think of the kittehs. BP said a scout should even be prepared to prevent suicide.

First potatoes and know kittens. Are you a child?

MadsL wrote: »

It would also be easy to find those concealing knives by banning non-transparent clothing, would you also support such a thing?

Slippery slope argument.

MadsL wrote: »

I was giving an historical context for such laws, not quite the same thing.

Oh don't try to fool anyone, its not working. You were trying to give a historical justification for modern laws, but your argument got bitch slapped by two world wars.

MadsL wrote: »

As to those laws being reactionary, I think you will find it was Ireland that reacted to its inability to form a Nation without sectarian/political violence and civil war that lead to Ireland's restrictions on firearms.

And?

MadsL wrote: »

Funny how removing civil liberties appears to be your idea of 'improvement'.

Its called compromise. Don't like it?, then leave society, because you can't avoid it in any society.

MadsL wrote: »

What level of training do you propose would be appropriate - you being an expert and all?

Well if the argument is that citizens should be able to do a police mans job in terms of accosting armed criminals, then I imagine the same training as the policeman.

MadsL wrote: »

You claimed an incident (panic) would happen 100% of the time. I think my statistic disproved your claim.

I asked if a random gun carrying citizen would panic. Given that 9 times out of 10 that person is not a trained veteran, I would say that panic isn't unlikely.

MadsL wrote: »

Then I think I missed your point, or else you are confused about the way the US passes legislation and the nature of Federal democracy. Training is compulsory in all states that issue CCW except four. If something doesn't happen until it is identical in all states in your view then you are confused about how Federal democracy works.

But not training in using a gun in an armed conflict. Which was the point.

MadsL wrote: »

You are an expert on self-defence with firearms now, who knew...

No, old people :pac:. Old people are slow, less physically capable and generally have poorer eyesight ad hearing than younger people.

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, we can wonder. Doesn't help in a factual debate though does it.

Well I've been trying facts for a while know and you don't seem to be responsive to them.

MadsL wrote: »

Unlike you where you are now presuming guilty unless proved innocent -

Its more the suspicion of guilt because the person is acting guilty.

MadsL wrote: »

the US has a non-fascist approach to criminal law which requires proof of guilt before conviction.

And no I don't want to debate Gitmo, nor do you want me to start talking about Ireland's role in extradition flights. Let's not hash out military justice in this thread.

You mean lets not talk about the example which completely debunks your notion that the US is some kind of freedom loving safe haven?

jank wrote: »

Thankfully we dont live in Orwell's 1984...yet. Nor do we live in a society like that portrayed in minority report. You sure have strange views on living in a free and safe soceity.

You would prefer that if a guard saw someone aim a gun at someone that they wait for that person to pull the trigger before acting?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I had forgotten who I had been posting with earlier in this thread when I went through the number of gun related deaths vs the number of guns owned by different countries (US has 5 times as many gun deaths as the UK, the same as the overall homicide rate, FYI). So imagine my surprise when I go back to get the data for you and find out it was you in the first place. Here you are, a month later disputing the data still with no data of your own. Who is being more dishonest.

Well given that you persistently maintain that death by homicide is exactly the same as having an encounter with an armed assailant and the result of that encounter will exactly match the national statistics on homicide - I'd say it's you.

I would also point to the fact that you have also repeatedly mistated that the homicide rate in the US is 5 times the UK rate. According to the UNOCD figures you are now so reliant on, that rate is in fact only 4 times - 1.2 per 100,000 vs 4.8 per 100,000. Have you even read what you are posting as authoritative?

Oh, and I had explained the Czech Republic as well. Maybe you can read my posts this time?

The Czech Republic has a homicide by firearm rate of 0.2 per 100,000 compared with 0.1 per 100,000 for the UK - at 20 deaths per year this is a statistically negligible difference. UNOCD figures.

It should, but its not always possible. Bad police will abuse any law. Better to have the best laws you can and have the best police you can.

I see - you can't actually deny it, so here's a platitude for me to agree with.

And is extenuating circumstances not a version of, essentially, convincing someone? If you are legally carrying a gun and someone threatens you to the point that you use it, aren't you going to hope that you can convince the police or the judge that your use was justified?

Nope, not if there is an established defence because the law was written that way. In the case of US gun law the self-defence defence is well established. Your badly enacted UK knife law relies on some imaginary "good reason" that is impossible to prove/disprove, hence the innocent being convicted.

So we can say knives are dangerous because they are used in violent crimes, but we can't say knives are what make those crimes dangerous?

Wut? The violent actions of those that commit such crimes are what makes those crime dangerous. The knives are inanimate.

How about we use Klecks own stats: "Results indicated that gun ownership had a weak (odds ratio = 1.36) and unstable relationship with homicidal behavior, which was at least partly spurious."
Did you buy the paper, because I only have the front page. How many people did Kleck interview. When it says that 15% felt they saved theirs or other lives, is that 15% of those who used a gun, or is that ~100% of those who used a gun (amounting to 15% of all victims).

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/Gary-Kleck-Biography.htm
15% of those who used a gun (he interviewed 2000 households)

Any knives then. And a work knife is a knife for work.

So I didn't show a number of people being arrested for having knives that did not appear to have malicious intent in mind.
I beleive we got onto the topic with my assertion that it is illegal in the UK to cross the street to your neighbour's house with a kitchen knife. All your arguments so far have failed to show this is untrue - and in fact seem to support such a law.

I can walk around my house naked, can't walk around naked in public, two different legal jurisdictions.

You said "Retrieving a gun to defend your home is different to carrying a gun in public because of a constant fear of threat."
To use your analogy people wear clothes because of the constant threat of rape. Are you fcking kidding me?

Its not a fallacy, its held up by the statistics. If having armed citizens did decrease the likelihood of a criminal succeeding ("most aggressors being shown even just the potential for deadly defensive force leave pretty fast" was the terminology you used) then you would expect the US to have a much closer crime rate to the UK.

Jesus, do I have to explain your every statistical boo-boo. I thought you were good at this... assuming for a minute that:
1. Every criminal meets an armed defender in the US.
2. That the crime statistics for the UK and US gather the same data.
3. That an interrupted burglary is not reported just as a "burglary".

You still have societal factors, noteably the social welfare safety net that makes crime more likely in the US. Assuming that factors driving crime in the US are identical as the UK is a very silly assumption.

The UNODC, as well as the data referenced above.

The UNODC data does not test your hypothesis "that carrying a weapon doesn't change the likelihood of being a victim and that everyone carrying weapons just encourages criminals to become better armed themselves (ie escalation)." so how can you rely on that data to support your position.

Must be guilty of something, if they wont admit why they have it.

Fuck me. There really is no hope for you. What sentence should someone receive for being silent?

I didn't say you said guarantee of security, but your argument is that a persons security is compromised if they don't have a weapon.

And again you put words in my mouth. Where did I ever say that?

First potatoes and know kittens. Are you a child?

I'm just pointing out your position on knives prevents Scouts from rescuing kittens. Think of the kittens. Or is rescuing kittens in an urban environment not a good reason for a Scout to have a knife? I'll take your first answer.

Slippery slope argument.

You know, had I thought the UK police would have the powers they do today and mentioned them in 1984 you would have said the same thing.
Now to avoid another game of "If I call it a fallacy I don't have to respond" with you - how about you tell me what limits on police surveillance are appropriate. Or are there none in your view.

Oh don't try to fool anyone, its not working. You were trying to give a historical justification for modern laws, but your argument got bitch slapped by two world wars.

Bitch-slapped?? Lol. I'm not the one trying to equate world military conflict with civilian violence. You seriously think anyone here doesn't see that. Besides I'd say you Godwin-ed there, big time.

And?

Please continue...

Its called compromise. Don't like it?, then leave society, because you can't avoid it in any society.

Compromise? The UK police were given any power they asked for, as confirmed by accounts of the period by the then Home Secretary, that's not compromise that's a path to a police state.

I said "Funny how removing civil liberties appears to be your idea of 'improvement'."

And you decided not to respond. No answer to that?

Well if the argument is that citizens should be able to do a police mans job in terms of accosting armed criminals, then I imagine the same training as the policeman.

You mean how to take statements and the intricacies of traffic laws?
Are you familiar with the concept of "citizens arrest" - we already empower our citizens to do a police officers job (I believe they even have police-wimmins now!) without any training at all.

I asked if a random gun carrying citizen would panic. Given that 9 times out of 10 that person is not a trained veteran, I would say that panic isn't unlikely.

Despite the data being from '94, did 2.5 million people wind up dead when they used a gun to defend themselves? Must have been a hell of year for homicides/

But not training in using a gun in an armed conflict. Which was the point.

Armed conflict? This isn't some Somalian war zone, most of this is idiots looking for a quick hit.

No, old people :pac:. Old people are slow, less physically capable and generally have poorer eyesight ad hearing than younger people.

Wow - way to generalise. I know 70 year olds who could kick your ass.

Well I've been trying facts for a while know and you don't seem to be responsive to them.

You have been trotting out the (incorrect) rate of homicide and trying to make something stick to it.

Its more the suspicion of guilt because the person is acting guilty.

More fascist "let's prosecute thoughtcrime" nonsense.

You mean lets not talk about the example which completely debunks your notion that the US is some kind of freedom loving safe haven?

Because it will completely derail this thread and is not representative of the civilian legal system. Or would you like to debate how long the UK can hold people without charge within their civilian legal system?

Mr. Cuomo, saying that gun violence constituted an emergency requiring immediate action, waived a constitutionally required three-day waiting period between the introduction of legislation and a vote to allow speedy action on the gun-law package.

Expect a constitutional challenge therefore.
No public consultation and rushed legislation for political expediency do not make for good laws. Then again NY is known for draconian legislation.

robindch wrote: »

It's also known for having a crime rate which has been declining fairly steadily for most of the last 25 years:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

The crime rate in the US as a whole has been dropping steadily.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616

This may not be causal, but Chicago has the US's most strict controls on handguns and has seen its murder rate soar to 19.4 per 100,000.

Could we postulate a theory that in fact it is not guns/lack of guns that cause homicide rates to increase, but rather high concentrations of urban poverty, and poor on poor violence?

Anyone found the actual text of this law?