# Spavined Gelding, come here please. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 23, 2002, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442 "2002-07-23T20:47:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/61 "2002-07-24T20:40:54Z")
> [@](#): > > So if social modeling is right out the window, what are we left with except experimentation? Experimentation **and** status quo. In your rush to “Do Something,” you’ve forgotten the option of doing nothing. Which, all the hysterics and hyperbole aside, the status quo ain’t that goddamned bad. You wanna change it, you gotta show a compelling need, or net benefit to society—which you haven’t, not by a long shot, not even to the pro-control faction’s complete satisfaction. Monkeying around with constitutional amendments should not occur simply because we see what may happen. Further, if social modeling is indeed mere quackery right now, there’s still no need to dismiss it out of hand. Further refinements and experience with it may indeed someday lead to something resembling Hari Seldon’s _Psychohistory_. Not that I’m even remotely sure that would be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/62 "2002-07-24T20:53:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\* > **Fenris** , what you said was “the anti-gun crowd,” and it struck me as dismissive and/or condescending. People who support gun control are not a bunch of group-thinking lemmings, okay? Hell, a lot of us aren’t even “anti-gun.” \*\* Keen. And I also say “pro-gun types”. Do you see a huge difference, or are you in search of something to be offended by? And while you, personally, may not be anti-gun, I’d say the vast majority of…people…in the major anti-gun lobbies (Handguns Control Intl, etc) ARE anti-gun, and rabidly so. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/63 "2002-07-24T22:18:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*First off, only a small number of states have “shall issue” laws, so your figure of 34 overstates the number of states where CCW permits are easily available. \*\* [Not by much](http://www.jrwhipple.com/guns/firearm_ccwmap.html). And that might be wrong, too, because I’ve seen numbers as high as 34 states. Simple research would bear out the true numbers, but this just substantiates **Fenris** ’ claim that it is, in fact, the majority of the United States that is covered by " shall issue" laws. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/64 "2002-07-24T23:54:19Z")
> [@](#): > > the vast majority of…people…in the major anti-gun lobbies Gee, **Fenris** , where would I ever get the impression that you were being dismissive and condescending? **Airman Doors** , you’re correct that I was seriously underestimating the number of states with shall-issue laws. My apologies. **Uncle Beer** , that’s pretty much what I figured. If social modeling doesn’t provide decent evidence, and you’re unwilling to experiment to see what works, your position is inherently an endorsement of the status quo, at least until we hit sci-fi fantasy land. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/65 "2002-07-25T00:19:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Gee, **Fenris** , where would I ever get the impression that you were being dismissive and condescending? \*\* Yeah, _that_ was dismissive and condescending. The original comment you objected to _wasn’t_. How 'bout dealing with your original assertion: do you still feel that “anti-gun crowd” is somehow vastly more insulting than “pro-gun types”? Fenris ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/66 "2002-07-25T00:50:08Z")
Vastly, no. Somewhat, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/67 "2002-07-25T02:57:35Z")
OK, sorry to have taken so long to get back. Life happens sometimes. Bear with me while I do this by the numbers… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding \* > **OK, I’ve read your stuff. Which one of you want’s to argue that these murderous Yahoos were advancing their sacred, God given, Second Amendment Rights when they sprayed a backyard barbeque with gunfire?** No one will claim that. Nice strawman. Does it keep the crows away? > [@](#): > > **If there is a right to go armed there is an equal right to go armed with intent to do mayhem.** This does not follow, and I’d like to understand by what twisted logic you claim this. I’ve read the Constitution front to back, and dozens and dozens of gun laws as well. Where did you find this ‘right’? I can’t find it anywhere. The simple fact is that ‘intending mayhem’ is a condition entirely _seperate_ from whatever rights you may or may not be otherwise exercising. The fact of owning a weapon, or holding one, in no way changes a person, their intent, or their legal rights. Period. > [@](#): > > **Somebody tell me that this would have happened if the Yahoos were reduced to drive-by rock throwing.** And how would you ensure this? There are tens of thousands of gun laws on the books, and _they haven’t made a difference_. The simple fact is that criminals will find weapons. For an admittedly extreme example, take a look at Northern Ireland. Despite sweeps, harshly restrictive laws, and years of interdiction, arms _still_ find their way in. Not just handguns either, but serious, large-caliber, military weapons. Passing another won’t-be-enforced law won’t make the criminals any less criminal, nor will it dry-up the supply of illegal weapons. It might, _perhaps_ drive the price up a bit, but not all that much. Instead of addressing the core issue of _why_ they were doing a ‘drive-by’ in the first place, you took a cheap shot at people like myself, demonizing legal ownership , playing the same old discredited song. Criminals ignore laws. Period. Try using a little _thought_, instead. _Why_ are there criminals that are so desperate as to feel the need for a ‘drive-by’? It’s not an easy answer, it’ll involve some work to find the answer and fix the problem. It’ll take _time, money, and commitment_ to solve. You, instead, just voiced the old cannard. That’s a pretty shitty, intellectually lazy, and morally bankrupt approach, if you ask me. > [@](#): > > **Somebody tell me that things would be better if the little girl’s family had returned fire.** Another nice Strawman. Does this one work any better than the first? > [@](#): > > **This sort of thing is going to go on as long as this country continues its love affair with guns.** No, it’ll go on until this country is willing to drop the non-functional ‘quick-fix’ approach, and buckle down to deal with the root problems: Lack of social equality, justice, opportunity. Or, more poetically, we need what my mother calls the ‘level glance’. It’s not going to be easy, it’s not going to be cheap, but as long as people keep haring off after the ‘quick-fix’, it’s not going to happen _at all_. > [@](#): > > \*\* How many kids have to be butchered before our friends understand that we do not now have the power to keep fire arms out of the hands of the irresponsible and the criminal while preserving firearms to the law abiding and respectable?\*\* Ah, the old ‘Think of the Children’ cry. As I pointed out above, removing firearms from the law-abiding does nothing for removing the criminal’s firearms. They _don’t care_ about the law. Disarming the populace ain’t the answer, reducing the crime rate _is_. > [@](#): > > \*\*Sooner or later we will have to make good drivers and bad drivers observe the same speed limit, and we will have to institute at least fire arms registration and licensing of handguns if we are going to prevent these horrors. \*\* Which America do _you_ live in? De-facto registration has been with us for years. Instant background checks, waiting periods, intrusive dealer inspections & burdensome documentation requirements, and all the rest, didn’t prevent this crime. More pieces of paper won’t prevent a repeat. Some things that _might_ help: - Enough with passing new laws. How about some enforcement of _existing law_? - Improved instant background checks. These are useful, but only mildly so. There’s room for improvement. - Smart guns: This is becoming technically feasable, and will reduce the attractiveness of stolen weapons. Of course, it’ll do _jack-shit_ for illegally transported, sold, and smuggled weapons, but then those are _already_ against the law. - Positive social engagement with the lowest 5% of our populace. We need to make that old political cry ‘no one gets left behind’ _real_. Oh, and since it seems you really _did_ mean to tar me and people like me with responsibility for the crime, albeit indirectly, you get to continue to wear the _ **Fuck You** _ I previously bestowed upon you. ---
**Author:** ![Racer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Racer1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Racer1)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/68 "2002-07-25T08:26:44Z")
Not that I want to get involved, and I ought to make it clear I don’t really have any views with regards to Americans owning guns (I’m not even American and haven’t studied the situation, I realise things are very different over there), but it has been suggested over here in the UK that many of today’s gun incidents are not “despite” the strict gun laws, but work around them so to speak. Therefore, it can’t necessarily be argued that the gun ban has not been working, or has not brought down the murder rate. [This](http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,661991,00.html) article, if you read down far enough, mentions the growing problem of legally bought pellet guns being converted to fire real ammunition. The article suggests these weapons account for over half the firearms recovered from crime scenes in London. I believe the authorities are now looking at banning these particular pellet guns. It seems almost a loophole to the ban, and we won’t see the real effect of the ban until these loopholes are closed. This point rather backs up **Tranquilis’** fair point that criminals will find a way, but IMHO those ways will become harder and harder as these loopholes are closed. Incidentally, I also think comparing the very organised and experienced “fighters” in Northern Ireland smuggling arms into the country with common criminal’s abilities is very slippery ground. For a start it is widely believed they have assistance from all kinds of large organisations with political aims. Sorry, carry on ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/69 "2002-07-25T10:50:23Z")
Current population figures for the UK: about 59.8 million. Back in 1900, it was about 41.2 million. The figure of 6-700 homicides in most years (apart from the 850 in the document Phil linked to) is highly unscientifically arrived at on the grounds that, when I’ve looked up Home Office figures for any given year, that’s the sort of range I’ve seen. Also, I rely on the late Professor Keith Simpson, whose entertaining memoir, _Forty Years of Murder_, tells the story of his life as England’s foremost forensic pathologist. Simpson gives the _murder_ rate (a subset of homicide) as “remarkably consistent” at between 110 and 150 per year. This despite chnages in legislation, wars, and all kinds of social upheaval. It does seem as though we’re doing something right… but _what?_ It would be nice to think that we upstanding subjects of 'Er Majesty just have more respect for human life than you barbaric ex-colonials… but I can’t, honestly, say I believe this (I’ve met too many Millwall fans). ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/70 "2002-07-25T11:34:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **I don’t have any data on that, but I suspect you’re correct. What you’re missing, though, is that gun ownership _does_ increase the damage a murderous yahoo is capable of committing.** So does a sharp pointed stick. Or if you want to cause even _more_ damage than a gun would, how about common chemicals in the proper proportions, or a vehicle? If someone decides to be a murderous yahoo, they’ll find a way to do it, and despite what you might think, there are cases where them using a gun is the _better_ option… ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/71 "2002-07-25T12:42:02Z")
Call me crazy, but I’m prepared to accept all those deaths that are attributable to pointed sticks. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/72 "2002-07-25T14:15:45Z")
What about a bunch of loganberries? Or a passion fruit? Or, heaven forbid, a banana? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/73 "2002-07-25T14:30:51Z")
Don’t be ridiculous, Phil. If somebody comes after you with a banana, just pull the lever and a 16-ton weight will fall on top of him. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/74 "2002-07-25T14:40:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Racer1 \* > **Incidentally, I also think comparing the very organised and experienced “fighters” in Northern Ireland smuggling arms into the country with common criminal’s abilities is very slippery ground. For a start it is widely believed they have assistance from all kinds of large organisations with political aims.** Fair enough, and it was for that reason that I _did_ point out that it was an extreme example. OTOH, here in the States, we have an _extremetly_ well organized and run ongoing smuggling operation(s) to bring _huge_ quantities of drugs into the country, which drugs are them supplied to a vast array of well-organized and fairly well-disciplined gangs. National authorities are finally begining to admit that they’re only intercepting a small fraction of these shipments. Firearms are already coming in by that route, albeit in fairly small quantities. It would be a small thing indeed to increase the quantities of arms, should they be ‘needed’ by the gangs. Once they reach the gangs, they diffuse outwards to smaller-time criminals. Banning would only cause the price to go up, but not remove the firearm from the equation. As we’ve already seen with the Gun Control Act of 1968, driving the price up doesn’t solve the crime issue. To solve the crime issue, you need to get involved at the lowest levels of society, make opportunity, self-respect, and justice part of _eveyone’s_ world. Doing so won’t remove _all_ crime, but _will_ reduce it dramatically, to the point where a drive-by will be national news, for being so completely rare. Now, I myself am already engaged on that front, tutoring and mentoring those at risk. I have helped kids on the edge of falling through the cracks stay the course, get their diplomas, get jobs, get _lives_. There is _ **nothing** _ in the word that can compare to the feeling you get when you help a kid save their future. It takes time out of your life, but it’s time well spent. Who will join me? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/75 "2002-07-25T14:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > \*\*So does a sharp pointed stick. Or if you want to cause even _more_ damage than a gun would, how about common chemicals in the proper proportions, or a vehicle? If someone decides to be a murderous yahoo, they’ll find a way to do it, and despite what you might think, there are cases where them using a gun is the _better_ option… \*\* In that case, it’s down to relative convenience. Hauling concrete blocks up onto freeway bridges, or buying large amounts of arsenic, is inconvenient for the murderous Yahoo. Whereas spraying people with an easy-to-buy, legally held semiautomatic is a cinch. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/76 "2002-07-25T14:51:04Z")
Save for the fact (as supported by FBI crime statistics) that it’s _not_ the leagally held weapons that are being used for these sort of crimes. The hugely overwhelming number of drive-bys and the like are done with _illegaly_-held arms. This tidbit keeps on getting missed. Lawfull owners, far-and-away, are _also_ law-abiding. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/77 "2002-07-25T15:07:14Z")
Where do the illegal weapons come from? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/78 "2002-07-25T15:19:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*Where do the illegal weapons come from? \*\* :: goes red, looks embarrassed :: Well… errr… when a daddy illegal weapon and a mummy illegal weapon love each other _very, very much…_ [sub]I’ll get me coat[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/79 "2002-07-25T15:30:56Z")
My recollection of the FBI statistics, **Tranquilis** , is that gun homicides were split roughly 1/3 each among legally held guns, illegally held guns, and unidentified. ---
**Author:** ![Racer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Racer1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Racer1)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2002, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442/80 "2002-07-25T15:46:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tranquilis \* > \*\*Fair enough, and it was for that reason that I _did_ point out that it was an extreme example. OTOH, here in the States, we have an _extremetly_ well organized and run ongoing smuggling operation(s) to bring _huge_ quantities of drugs into the country, which drugs are them supplied to a vast array of well-organized and fairly well-disciplined gangs. National authorities are finally begining to admit that they’re only intercepting a small fraction of these shipments. Firearms are already coming in by that route, albeit in fairly small quantities. It would be a small thing indeed to increase the quantities of arms, should they be ‘needed’ by the gangs. Once they reach the gangs, they diffuse outwards to smaller-time criminals. Banning would only cause the price to go up, but not remove the firearm from the equation. As we’ve already seen with the Gun Control Act of 1968, driving the price up doesn’t solve the crime issue. > \*\* That’s certainly true, some organised people would always find a way to smuggle the weapons in. I do think that the average “yahoo” or petty criminal/thug looking to up his stakes would have problems though. I guess it’s a balance really. It wouldn’t stop everyone, and may even hand some organised criminals more power, but it would surely stop a large amount. I imagine a good amount of the illegally held weapons used for crime were once legal, or were brought into America legally, so it could be argued a ban would have affected their numbers. Of course, this doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to getting rid of them now. It is stupid to think _everyone_ would hand in their weapons, illegal or legal, if a ban were passed tomorrow in America. Even with my very limited understanding of the situation it is still a very complicated issue. I doubt there is any one right answer, there are good and bad points to any (or no) action taken. Good luck to you all! P.S. Well done for taking positive action with the kids, **Tranquilis** , that earns my respect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spavined-gelding-come-here-please/120442.md?page=5)