-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is owning Guns good or bad?
- Thread starter Comprehend
- Start date
Lindsey-Loo
Steel Magnolia
Oh, I most certainly intend to use it if a situation where I need to defend myself ever arises. I live in a neighborhood that can be rough-ish at some times, and you never know.
Besides, it is extremely handy for cutting through branches and thorny-vine-things I get stuck in, in the woods, and practical things like that.
Don't be an idiot, I would never carry a knife to school, I would so get arrested! And I never said that either. In fact, I specifically said I do NOT carry it to school. Get it right, please!
Are you insinuating that I'm a criminal? The number to report dangerous people like me is 9-1-1. Go right ahead.
Fluffy
A fool
Jmaster,
Actually the statistics you give for "the last two years" appear to have been taken from this document which details 2004-2005 however I see you are in N. Ireland and I think that document is specific for England and Wales so apologies if I am in error. I am unsure what the gun crime in N. Ireland is like nor what the laws regarding handguns are or whether the ban of 1998 applied there.
Unfortunately I was unable to find home office documents prior to 2001 so I took the relevant statistics from an independent study and related by the BBC in this article. From 2002 onwards, statistics are taken from the home office reports: 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006. The 2000/2001 statistic is derived from the percentage increase of the 2002 statistic (ie 5871 is a 46% increase on 4021). I could also find no data on 1998/1999.
Date, Crimes involving handguns, Percentage increase on previous year
1997/1998, 2648
1998/1999, No data
1999/2000, 3685, 39 (from 1997/1998)
2000/2001, 4021, 9
2001/2002, 5871, 46
2002/2003, 5549, -6
2003/2004, 5144, -7
2004/2005, 4326, -16
2005/2006, 4652, 7
Therefore, in the year prior to the ban there were 2648 handgun related crimes. Last year we had 4652 handgun related crimes which is a 76% increase in handgun related crimes. Over the intervening period, we have experienced some years in which there was a decrease in that statistic and some years in which there was an increase. You happened to quote a year in which there was a decrease but that does not take into account the full picture.
I do not know the full picture for total gun crime but I suspect that it is similar to handgun related crime (it does not seem likely that handgun related crime would rise in the face of overall less gun related crime). You should not take out imitation related crimes since these are subject to the same laws as real gun crimes. Additionally, one would expect imitation related crimes to drop along with gun crime in general in a country with a trained, armed citizen body.
I propose a form of the very successful system that is currently taken by Switzerland that has much lower gun crime than the UK but much greater weapon availability. In other words I propose a plan that enables a trained, armed citizen body so that criminals are less likely to commit violent crime (for fear of getting shot) whilst accepting that removing guns from criminals is unrealistic at best.
Poisoning the well is a form of logical fallacy in which information about a person is used to undermine their argument. For example, claiming that posters on this thread have displayed illegal behaviour (whether true or false) is irrelevant to what should be done about guns. The argument should be judged on its own merits and not because of the flaws (or indeed the merits) of the arguer. Thus bringing things like that up does not further the debate and, as I am sure you will agree when you are on the recieving end of it, isn't very nice.
Actually the statistics you give for "the last two years" appear to have been taken from this document which details 2004-2005 however I see you are in N. Ireland and I think that document is specific for England and Wales so apologies if I am in error. I am unsure what the gun crime in N. Ireland is like nor what the laws regarding handguns are or whether the ban of 1998 applied there.
Unfortunately I was unable to find home office documents prior to 2001 so I took the relevant statistics from an independent study and related by the BBC in this article. From 2002 onwards, statistics are taken from the home office reports: 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006. The 2000/2001 statistic is derived from the percentage increase of the 2002 statistic (ie 5871 is a 46% increase on 4021). I could also find no data on 1998/1999.
Date, Crimes involving handguns, Percentage increase on previous year
1997/1998, 2648
1998/1999, No data
1999/2000, 3685, 39 (from 1997/1998)
2000/2001, 4021, 9
2001/2002, 5871, 46
2002/2003, 5549, -6
2003/2004, 5144, -7
2004/2005, 4326, -16
2005/2006, 4652, 7
Therefore, in the year prior to the ban there were 2648 handgun related crimes. Last year we had 4652 handgun related crimes which is a 76% increase in handgun related crimes. Over the intervening period, we have experienced some years in which there was a decrease in that statistic and some years in which there was an increase. You happened to quote a year in which there was a decrease but that does not take into account the full picture.
I do not know the full picture for total gun crime but I suspect that it is similar to handgun related crime (it does not seem likely that handgun related crime would rise in the face of overall less gun related crime). You should not take out imitation related crimes since these are subject to the same laws as real gun crimes. Additionally, one would expect imitation related crimes to drop along with gun crime in general in a country with a trained, armed citizen body.
I propose a form of the very successful system that is currently taken by Switzerland that has much lower gun crime than the UK but much greater weapon availability. In other words I propose a plan that enables a trained, armed citizen body so that criminals are less likely to commit violent crime (for fear of getting shot) whilst accepting that removing guns from criminals is unrealistic at best.
Poisoning the well is a form of logical fallacy in which information about a person is used to undermine their argument. For example, claiming that posters on this thread have displayed illegal behaviour (whether true or false) is irrelevant to what should be done about guns. The argument should be judged on its own merits and not because of the flaws (or indeed the merits) of the arguer. Thus bringing things like that up does not further the debate and, as I am sure you will agree when you are on the recieving end of it, isn't very nice.
jmaster78
Member
Fluffy said:
Northern ireland isn't an easy place to get gun stats for but i will keep looking, it is true the Swiss have a system that seems to work better than most, but introducing compulsory militia training wouldn't sit well in britain i don't think, though i could be wrong. as for poisoning the well, i don't claim anything which wasn't posted. appart from the knife school thing which wasn't clearly explained, now whether because of state laws or not, when one member claims to be a responsible gun owner and argues on that basis, then another pro gun member states that something the first member does is illegal, that is a valid point, relevent as it shows supposedly responsible gun owners arn't as responsible as they think. Say you keep a perfectly legal gun in your car, someone steals your car, now you have a car thief with a gun!
Odds of Dying
Over the course of a lifetime, the chances of dying...
You are much more likely to die...
...in a transport accident, 1 in 78
...from accidental injuries, 1 in 61
Than from firearms...
...from the accidental discharge of a firearm, 1 in 5,134
...from self-harm with a firearm, 1 in 222
...from assault by firearm, 1 in 314
...death when the intent of firearm usage is unclear, 1 in 16,155
Accidental discharge could be greatly reduced by requiring proper training for all gun owners.
Suicide is a very big issue which doesn't limit itself to firearms (as can be seen by the Northern Ireland rate of 26 in 100,000 for 2001, which appears to be much higher than the US rate derived from these two sources, the CDC and Wiki on US Population) and would best be addressed by addressing the reasons why people are suicidal... unless you support the right for an individual to take their own life, in which case there would be little to rectify.
The violent crime rate decreased 26% from 1996 to 2005, so while it is certainly a good idea to further lower a subset of violent crime as a whole by addressing assault with firearms, it would be much more worthwhile to analyze the factors that lowered the rate so dramatically, as well as the characteristics of the remaining criminals. As far as murder goes, "from 1992 to 2000, the rate declined sharply. Since then, the rate has been stable." As a side note, non-fatal crimes involving firearms have also "plummeted since 1993."
Looking at these statistics, I can't see how hysteria over gun ownership is warranted. That said, I am definitely in favor of reasonable legislation that would encourage responsible gun ownership, like requiring training in proper handling and use of firearms, and screen the individuals to ascertain whether they are of sound mind and not criminal. I would much rather see effort to diminish the factors that breed violent crime here and a concerted effort to address the areas of the world where the suffering from violence is far greater.
Over the course of a lifetime, the chances of dying...
You are much more likely to die...
...in a transport accident, 1 in 78
...from accidental injuries, 1 in 61
Than from firearms...
...from the accidental discharge of a firearm, 1 in 5,134
...from self-harm with a firearm, 1 in 222
...from assault by firearm, 1 in 314
...death when the intent of firearm usage is unclear, 1 in 16,155
Accidental discharge could be greatly reduced by requiring proper training for all gun owners.
Suicide is a very big issue which doesn't limit itself to firearms (as can be seen by the Northern Ireland rate of 26 in 100,000 for 2001, which appears to be much higher than the US rate derived from these two sources, the CDC and Wiki on US Population) and would best be addressed by addressing the reasons why people are suicidal... unless you support the right for an individual to take their own life, in which case there would be little to rectify.
The violent crime rate decreased 26% from 1996 to 2005, so while it is certainly a good idea to further lower a subset of violent crime as a whole by addressing assault with firearms, it would be much more worthwhile to analyze the factors that lowered the rate so dramatically, as well as the characteristics of the remaining criminals. As far as murder goes, "from 1992 to 2000, the rate declined sharply. Since then, the rate has been stable." As a side note, non-fatal crimes involving firearms have also "plummeted since 1993."
Looking at these statistics, I can't see how hysteria over gun ownership is warranted. That said, I am definitely in favor of reasonable legislation that would encourage responsible gun ownership, like requiring training in proper handling and use of firearms, and screen the individuals to ascertain whether they are of sound mind and not criminal. I would much rather see effort to diminish the factors that breed violent crime here and a concerted effort to address the areas of the world where the suffering from violence is far greater.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
I own 3 very large swords, and I can assure you there's no chance I'm going to set foot outside the house with them, with anything other than training in mind. You'll be more likely to take someone's eye out with a fork before I attack someone with one of my nasty big blades. I never intend to use them on a person, and it will never happen. (Not to mention that the three section staff in the cupboard gives more reach.jmaster78 said:
)A lot of the examples you give are not what I'd call responsible gun ownership. Carrying a loaded gun in your glove box is not responsible. Keeping a loaded gun beside your bed is not responsible. Sorry if I offend anyone with this, but an assembled and loaded gun left laying around the house or in the car is a recipe for disaster as far as I'm concerned. Handguns are illegal here - to the best of my knowledge - unless you're a sporting shooter and a member of a gun club. Most people choose to leave their guns - unless they're incredibly expensive custom jobbies - in the safes at their gun club.
Perhaps the problem in the US is that because of the second amendment, some people will only look so far as the right to own a gun, and in an era where abdication of responsibility for ones actions is rampant - not just in the US - they fail to accept that with that right comes a lot of responsibility.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
The concept of paternalistic government doesn't go over well in the US...they're very defensive - from what I've seen - of what they perceive as having their civil liberties infringed upon. Threatening to take away a right granted by their constitution isn't something the government is likely to do, regardless of whether they see a huge problem or not.jmaster78 said:
There's also the way the government is constructed. I can't say I know exactly how things work where you are, but here - as well as the US from what I gather - we have areas of federal responsibility and state responsibility. The states tend to get a bit testy when the feds interfere in their areas of jurisdiction. There are a lot of laws that aren't blanket countrywide, although here the guns laws are federal so they are.
Before we got our current set of gun laws as a knee jerk reaction to shooting rampages by mentally unstable individuals with illegal and unregistered weapons, they may well have been different from state to state.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
No, I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. It's unfortunate that emotive issues like this tend to have people who can't or wont differentiate between those two groups.lilithu said:
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
Any idiot can shoot a gun, but he may not be able to hit anything with it without training. Do you honestly believe a well trained soldier of any description should be thinking on the battlefield?darkpenguin said:
I don't imagine that in the midst of a muddy paddock full of jostling horses and men with swords you're doing a lot of thinking. The purpose of training is for it to kick in and carry you in the single minded pursuit of survival.Do you know why Japanese swords have sharkskin on the hilts? So when they're soaked in blood they don't get slippery. You don't even need enough thought to clean the blood off until it's all done and dusted. You stop in the midst of battle to think about what you're doing, you're a dead man.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What about people who have extra things on thier key rings that are to be used soley as a weapon, should the need arise? They can still be misused, but some people do lack any power in thier punches should they need to defend themeselves.
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
darkpenguin said:
Using your logic, it is also true that: anyone who does not own a gun has the blood of helpless victims on their hands...
Please do not "loose" all of your respect at once, depending on how much respect you have, it could do a lot of damage, maybe a respect tsunami or something.
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
comprehend said:
As long as people are generally responsible gun-owners, it is good.
No, because I'm scared of them.
Good, and I do believe it helps protect against despotism. I support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
eudaimonia,
Mark
SoyLeche
meh...
This decrease in crime is what the author of Freakonomics was trying to explain. Gun laws had little to nothing to do with it.evearael said:
His theory is that it was caused by Roe v. Wade - with abortion the pool of potential violent criminals decreased substantially. I don't really like that explanation, but I have to admit that it makes sense. The question arises, though, do the number of lives saved from a violent deaths that were avoided have more "weight" than the number of babies that were aborted??? (We really don't need to get into this in this thread, so please don't respond to this post with anything not gun-related, thanks
)