So?
I’m not sure what point you’re advocating here. Guns have a utility at making the living things you point them at stop moving. Sometimes those things are animals, sometimes those things are people. Why is this relevant? Yes, some people use their guns to get food. But their guns are useful for hunting by virtue of their lethality, and (magical non-lethal steak knives aside), that lethality to animals is fundamentally inseparable from lethality to humans, another species of animal.
A couple of questions:[ol][li]What are typical penalties in the UK for being caught with an illegal gun, or caught committing a felony with a gun?[]Does the UK have plea bargaining like in the US, where the penalty is lessened in exchange for a guilty plea?[]How often does this happen in gun cases?[/ol][/li]
No one in the US argues that using a gun in the commission of a crime, or possessing a gun when you’re legally ineligible (convicted felons, etc.) shouldn’t be punished. I was wondering if the laws in the UK translate into heavier time actually served than in the US for gun crimes. If being a felon in the possession of a handgun in the US meant a nigh-inescapable 20 years, versus a plea deal and parole after three-to-five, that would lessen gun crime irregardless of the availability of firearms.
I don’t agree it’s fundamentally inseparable…because as you concede, some people use their guns to get food.
This is an entirely appropriate use of the lethality of a gun, carrying with it none of the opprobrium that might arises from ending a human life with a gun.
By lumping the killing of an animal together with the killing of a human, you seek to erase that distinction. (“…humans, another species of animal.”)
Yes, it’s true humans are a species of animal. But the moral framework for killing humans is drastically different than for killing deer, moose, or feral pigs.
I think you’ve lost the thread, Counselor. The question is about the inherent dangerousness/lethality of guns. A different moral framework surrounding hunting animals v. people, and the fact that shooting animals is an entirely appropriate use, doesn’t change the lethality factor one iota. A gun that can reliably kill a deer is going to be pretty effective against people as well.
Yes. I get that.
But the current back-and-forth was about how guns are inherently used for killing, as opposed to other tools like a pickaxe or a Mercedes. Right?
The thrust of that discussion is that we can safely analyze a pickaxe differently, because, even though it can kill, its only purpose is not killing. Right?
I say that lumping all killing together, making “killing” a distinct category from “helpful tool use” – is misguided. Killing is a fine thing under many circumstances. There is no per se anathema to killing.
Killing to eat is no different, in this analysis, from building a cabin in which to live, an endeavor in which the pickaxe might be helpful.
I get that, I do. But I’d say tool use that involves killing is still different that tool use that does not. The fact that it is still being used offensively puts it into another category.
Still, yes, I am more afraid of someone carrying a pickaxe than someone who is not. Less so if they seem to be using the pickaxe for a legitimate purpose, just as I am less afraid of hunters who are currently hunting and pointing the gun away from me. I’m still more scared of them than someone who isn’t carrying at all–whether you mean guns or pickaxes.
Getting where you aren’t afraid is when accidents happen.
A fundamental misunderstanding that gun control advocates have about their opposition is that they assume there is an element of fear involved. This may be true for some, but in my experience fear is not a motivating factor for the desire to own or carry weapons for defense. Similar to keeing a fire extinguisher in your home or vehicle. Most people wouldn’t characterize that as being afraid of a fire breaking out. There is a cost involved for extinguishers - convenience, monetary cost, storage space, etc. People who keep them have weighed the cost/benefits and for them decided that it’s worth while. The same calculus is done with carrying firearms.
Any line of thinking that assumes that this fear either exists or motivates behavior is off base.
Then let’s return to items that can be used for hunting and also for non-lethal practices, like archery with a bow and arrow. Where does that fit?
Same category.
Pickaxes are a good illustration of the point I’m making. Pickaxes are inherently dangerous–they are heavy, sharp pieces of metal. But pickaxes are designed to break rocks. A good pickaxe is dangerous only incidentally to its purpose, and a pick designed for killing looks substantially different from a pick designed for stone.
A bow, like a gun, is meant to kill things. A gun that is better at killing deer is better at killing or injuring people. A gun that is better at defending yourself is better at killing or injuring people. Yes, there are a few corner exceptions–less lethal birdshot is needed to avoid vaporizing pheasants, and sportshooting weapons may be underpowered and fragile (though as I mentioned, sportshooting started as military practice so isn’t necessarily a good example). But by and large, lethality is an essential feature of guns, bows, and swords. For that reason, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to govern such weaponry differently from other potentially dangerous tools.
Yeah, and the National Fire Extinguisher Association produces literature with cartoons of white suburban families being menaced by scary black fires too.
Look, there’s no two ways about it. A minority of people feel especially vulnerable and have to have personal protection, unlike normal people.
Except historically “governing” such weaponry usually meant banning. And pretty much up until the middle of the 19th century or so, banning weapons always ended up meaning telling the peasants to shut up and do what they were told; and that’s still the case in a lot of the world. During the brutality of the WW2 era, even as progressive a socialist as George Orwell praised private gun ownership as proof that the British populace was still free:
You mean like James Earl Jones?
Or the Dalai Lama?
Or Martin Luther King (who would have been assassinated twenty times over if armed volunteers hadn’t guarded his home)?
Your first point is non sequitor and not cited; your second is hopelessly out of date.
Well, if James Earl Jones feels that way, I guess I should reconsider my opinion? 
30% is a minority, dummy, no matter what James Earl Jones says. What, is it his deep voice that you find most convincing or attractive?
Those people (well, other than Jones) aren’t actually paranoid; people were out to get them.
Should I have put one of the other quotes first? My point was that you can’t dismiss gun rights as an aberrant view held by a dismissible fringe. BTW: when you have nothing but snark to debate with, you’ve lost.
And if you’re part of a minority, you’re not like normal people?
Well, the other quotes you provided don’t actually supports gun rights. Orwell’s quote indicates that citizens of democracy can be trusted with weapons because they have non-violent means of correcting injustice; it doesn’t mean they should or must be so trusted. The Dalai Lama’s quote indicates that it would be “reasonable” to defend yourself, but makes no mention of a fundamental right to be armed just in case someone is shooting at you. And MLK’s quote makes no mention of guns, and could apply just as surely to tazers, alarm systems, barbed-wired electric fences, or even automatic kill-drone sentries.
Wrong. It was about the fact that guns are inherently dangerous, and that you can’t really separate that from their intended uses.
If you can build a gun that can reliably kill wild game, but can’t do serious damage to people, then I would stand corrected on this point.
I could care less whether there’s an element of fear involved on the part of the person carrying a gun around in public.
Because if I see someone in a public place with a gun, there will damned sure be an element of fear on my part.
Someone in the blogosphere recently suggested that the proper response to someone carrying a gun into a place of business you’re patronizing is to simply leave. Hell, yeah. I’m out of there, as quietly and unobtrusively as possible. If I’m in the middle of a restaurant meal, I’m not finishing it, I’m not waiting for the check, I’m not passing Go, I’m not collecting $200. I’m just sliding towards the door, and hoping to get out before I’m noticed.
Because I certainly can’t distinguish at a glance between a Responsible Gun Owner[sup]TM[/sup] and someone who wants to go out in a blaze of glory, taking a bunch of people with him.
+1. And then I’m sending the business a note that I will not be back until they can reasonably guarantee I won’t be shot in their establishment.