But what about those “military style” knives, with the Rambo notches in the side and the thing that goes up? Why does anybody need a knife with a serrated edge? I don’t have a problem with “normal” butter knives and even the occasional steak knife, but the public is getting sick of all the crime perpetrated with giant, commercial-grade butcher knives! And don’t get me started on electric knives! They might as well advertise “Chop heads off without any effort at all!”. Knife nuts are sick, I tell you.
Have they reduced the number of firearms-related incidents any?
Google the phrase “knife culture” and you’ll find all manner of whining about the need to regulate knives in the UK.
The antis blew their wad back in '94. They now have no political traction to speak of. They can’t get bills out of committee, much less passed. They are largely irrelevant. We must, naturally, watch them and keep them marginalized, but we can enjoy the fact that threads like this are the limits of their capabilities.
Then you understand incorrectly. The OP was clearly talking about the US (e.g. the Second Amendment comments), and your statement is emphatically not the case in the US. Homicides by gun are more than twice all other types put together. Source: Bureau of Justice. In the most recent year for which they have statistics, homicides by gun = 11,346; all other homicides = 5,346.
In the UK there have been severe restrictions for a long time, so it is tough to say. The only signigificant change in recent years was the handgun ban, which was really designed to prevent events like the Dunblane massacre. There were so few handguns anyway that the ban has probably had little effect on gun crime in general. There were only 160,000 handguns out of a total of over 2 million guns in the UK.
If you ban something that doesn’t happen, it doesn’t have much effect.
Whether the ban had its desired effect on decreasing the likelihood of a masscare is difficult to say. It is true that there has not been a massacre since, but as there have only been two in modern history, the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.
Not according to the BBC.
Or according to the Daily Mail, or Guardian.
Er, that article says:
However, they only show data from 1998/9, whereas the ban occurred in 1997. You should really study for several years before and after. However, I still contend that the handgun ban was pretty much irrelevant as it affected so few guns/people.
You hear people in the US comment on how the people in the UK no longer had the means to defend themselves. Well, they didn’t before the ban either - “self defence” has not been a permissible reason to own a gun since 1946. Okay, you say, they lie about the reason, then buy a gun to protect themselves. Apart from the fact that, trust me, that didn’t happen - it is just not in our culture - I go back to the statistics that the ban removed just 160,000 out of over 2 million guns. Over 90% of the guns are still out there. Is a burglar going to be massively emboldened by the fact that his victim is 8% less likely to be armed?
That includes airgun crime.
That’s interesting but doesn’t invalidate my secondary point that other things are used to kill people besides firearms.
See, this is why compromise is not an option. We are telling you outright what you need to understand in order to make reasonable decisions on this subject. If you keep wallowing in your own wilful ignorance and insulting us for being informed, we are going to keep treating you as someone who cannot be trusted to make rational laws.
You are like the anti-vaxers. If they refuse to learn about why they should or should not oppose vaccinations, their opinions are worthless. Just because they are loud and stubborn as mules does not mean their position has merit.
No gun control advocate would ever deny that. I am utterly mystified why it is viewed to be a pertinent argument. Some of us want to control guns because they are such effective killing utensils that we believe they result in higher death rates. Pointing out that you can kill with a baseball bat is irrelevant. Sure, there is the occasional murder or even double-murder by baseball bat, but how many baseball bat massacres have there been? How many drive-by-battings?
If there were 11,000 basbeball bat murders per year in the US, I would think it perhaps worth looking into their control. But I bet the number is closer to 11.
There is nothing harder in sports than hitting a round head with a round bat.
So?
The article also does a lot of comparison against the previous year. The fact that gun crimes fell versus the previous year is not particularly relevant either.
If you want to get a picture of the effectiveness of strict gun control, take a look at the actual numbers, in a country of 60 million people.
-
59 homicides. If the US had the same rate, that would equate to 300, versus an actual 11,000.
-
18,489 total offences. Atlanta has more than that.
Overall, gun control has been very successful in the UK. You have to look at the long history to assess the effects and where it has left us - with very low gun crime. The 1997 handgun ban was an irrelevant distraction that just causes confusion to people not familiar with the UK.
You don’t think there is a demand for plutonium, really? Or child pornography? You don’t think the Al Qaeda cells lurking in the US want to get their hands on an anti-aircraft missile? The 2A arguments are lame; unfettered access to guns is either good or bad for society on it’s own merit. If the SC ever decides that no restrictions whatsoever can be placed on weapons, the country will rise up in horror and amend the Constitution.
The number of non-firearm killings in the US is over 5,000 apparently. Baseball bats make up a small part of that, sure. But the thing is, people keep dividing weapons into two types: “Guns” and “Everything Else”. People have gone on rampages with swords in the modern age, for example.
But to compare the 59 gun homicides to the total US homicides, you have to compare the total crime rate of the USA with the total crime crime rate of the UK.
The USA doesn’t just have more gun crime, it also has more foot, knife and fist crime.
Is that a product of there being more feet knives and fists in the USA?
Airguns are basically toys you have to be careful with, for the most part. Yes, there high powered ultra dangerous airguns, and yes, they can put your eye out, but really, a bog-standard .177 calibre air pistol is good for knocking over aluminium cans and punching small holes in bits of paper no more than 10m away and not much else.
I think the culture has a lot to do with it as well, to be fair. And even though guns were widely available in the UK until fairly recently, there’s still been a cultural idea of them as being for target shooting, hunting, or collecting, with the “shooting people” option reserved almost exclusively for Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and appropriately trained members of the constabulary.
About all the Supreme Court is likely to rule in the forseeable future (and even this isn’t a sure thing) is that states and municipalities cannot flatly ban possession of handguns by the general public. It would be a pro-2nd person’s dream come true if the SC ever went so far as to mandate a “shall issue” standard on public carry for all fifty states. In any event states would still retain the authority to proscribe gun possession by felons, persons adjudicated to be mentally ill, minors, etc. No one is claiming (except as a straw man) that the Second Amendment, any more than any of the other articles of the Bill of Rights, bestows a boundless libertarian immunity from government authority. Pro-gun people simply don’t want blanket bans on gun possession by law-abiding citizens, any more than we would want a crowd-control ordinance that predefined all unauthorized public gatherings as riots.
So does that mean that people can own nukes? I confess that I just don’t know where to logically draw a line. For all practical intents and purposes, it depends on the constitutionality of laws restricting access to explosives, since virtually all modern heavy military ordinance (including nukes) either use explosive warheads or charges of propellant large enough to be considered explosive devices in their own right. I will concede that it would be anomolous to say the least if it were held constitutional for a state to ban fireworks within its borders but had to allow its citizens to possess shoulder-launced rockets. I do think private citizens should be allowed to own anything a civil police department is allowed to own. But this is besides the point since the OP feels that semi-automatic handguns are already too lethal to be “legitimate” for private possession. Presumably we hoi polli should be limited to six-shot revolvers (or muzzle loaders) while “military” guns are reserved for soldiers and police- you know, those well-screened people we can trust to never abuse their privilege.
And finallly, anything supported by a large enough proportion of the American public to pass a constitutional amendment is perfectly legit, even banning guns. Go for it if you can.
Yes. Like - for the third damn time now - the paragons of responsible police gun use who murdered a bunch of civilians at the Haymarket Riot.
The poor guys. You could even say they were Haymarket martyrs.
OP - you should change your name. Because otherwise, you’re disgracing the memory of what happened at Haymarket. You’re advocating the disempowerment of the people, and consequently the further empowerment of the government. You’re saying that the average American has no place owning a gun “intended” for the police - and you call yourself “Haymarket martyr?” Change your damn name.
A) Ruger mini-14
B) AR-15 / M16
C) Bolt action rifle
The American M-16/ AR-15 is probably the most dangerous in the mall, as it is widely regarded as a temperamental and delicate weapon, prone to jamming due to dirt and dust. I’d consider a more robust AK in the event of a zombie outbreak, maybe coupled with the Ruger or the bolt action cause you want your accuracy for the head shot, and you don’t want to be just wasting ammunition.
However, here in Canada we’ve managed to control the zombie problem without having to resort to these measures, possibly due to our socialized health care.
What do I win?