Registration of firearms won’t do jackshit about murdered children. If someone is willing to ignore the laws prohibiting the shooting and/or murder of other people why would they be inclined to give a damn about laws requiring that they register their guns?
Even if they buy their guns legally (from a store which does background checks and all the folderol) and do register, why would that stop anyone who is inclined to use their gun for acts of mayhem from doing so? Are you truthfully holding out the theory that murderous urges are extinguished when a person fills out a government form?
I live in a city with extremely restrictive gun ownership laws. Most citizens in NYC cannot own a handgun, let alone carry one. Does that stop anyone here who has intent to use a gun to commit a crime from doing so? No! They get them illegally, and use them illegally, because they have no regard for their fellow, living, breathing human beings, let alone laws written on a piece of paper somewhere.
That can happen now. Unless we create the magical beam which instantly transforms all guns pointed unrighteously into harmless pieces of fluff, there’s not a lot that can be done to stop that kind of incident from happening.
And there, Spavined Gelding reveals his true agenda and crosses the line from legitimate debate to name calling. This isn’t about what’s rational, this isn’t about what will help, this is about the same old, same old “gun nuts” arguments that get us no where toward keeping little kids from getting mowed down by gangbangers on a rampage.
And to think that you had me going all along, thinking that you were actually going somewhere useful with your arguments.
[quote]
You have a few false assumptions:
[ul][li]That minimally restricted guns will always lead to innocents being killed. [/li][li]That having stringent gun regulation would prevent innocents from being killed, or at least reduce the instance of those crimes.[/ul][/li][/quote]
Gee, I guess that just about winds up the gun debate. Have you told Sarah Brady about your breakthrough?
Living in a country where firearms registration is mandatory and one requires a firearms license in order to simply purchase ammunition, I have given this matter some thought.
Requiring a firearms license to purchase ammunition is one step in keeping unlicensed firearms owners from getting ammo - but not a very effective one. It is only as effective as age limits in preventing underaged drinkers from getting alcohol - they will simply get someone else to purchase it for them.
I do not believe that mandatory handgun licensing will reduce violent crime, simple because, as previously stated above, the criminals won’t bother with the paperwork. All it will do is keep the govt abreast of the numbers of guns possessed by lawabiding citizens. Yes, your lawabiding citizens DO commit crimes at times, but I would venture to say they are not the primary factor in violent crimes. I do not have a cite for this.
One factor I believe does help prevent firearms related injuries is requiring registered guns to be locked in a gun cabinet, with ammunition seperately. In this manner accidental discharges injuring minors should be prevented as long as either ammunition or firearms are kept away from them. Education about firearms safety is very important in ANY household with guns.
The one thing I believe that might make a difference in gun related violent crime is mandatory firearms training. However, seeing as most schools can’t teach academic subjects to their students with reasonable thoroughness, who would we trust to teach this to the minors when they come of age, and make sure they understand the importance of such training? (see post in pit about lapses of birth control pills… sigh.)
Reducing the overall availability of firearms should, eventually, result in fewer guns in criminal hands - if nobody is allowed to own a gun, where are the criminals going to steal guns from?
This hasn’t (yet) worked in the UK, because we’ve got a fair backlog of previously legal weapons that have fallen into the wrong hands, plus (I suppose) at least some level of fresh supply (smuggling from abroad, or illegal reconversion of deactivated weapons). Even so, gun crime is much rarer here than in the US, and I for one prefer it that way. The current rise in firearms incidents is disturbing, but I’m not convinced that it represents a solid trend upwards, rather than a “fashion” amongst criminals.
Hmm. pldennison, do you think I should drive home from work tonight? After all, the fact that I don’t have a driving license, haven’t passed a driving test, and in fact have never had a driving lesson in my life, doesn’t make me guilty of careless driving, does it?
(You may argue, of course, that under your country’s laws, driving is a privilege, whereas bearing arms is a right.)
Personally, as an unabashed statist and ardent non-Libertarian, I find the proposition “Things which can easily do a great deal of damage in careless, unskilled or malicious hands should be subject to regulation, with the aim of keeping them out of careless, unskilled or malicious hands” to be eminently defensible - whether the “things” in question are cars, heavy machinery, volatile chemicals, or guns. My country, of course, goes further than this, declaring that the benefits of permitting (most) gun ownership are outweighed by the risks… a more debatable proposition, certainly, but it’s ours, and democratically arrived at, for the present.
minty, can you please, in a clear, concise manner, explain how mandatory gun registration and all kinds of additional legislation will stop gang bangers and the like from illegally obtaining and using guns?
(The discussion to your specific question starts halfway down page 2 and continues periodically for the rest of the thread. Ignore the hijacks into the definition of assault rifles and constitutional law.)
Well, OK, what is good enough? The way it’s written, it implies that what is good enough is to assume that every gun owner is a “murderous Yahoo” and treat them accordingly.
What, exactly, does that have to do with registration? Unless you think that under the “Reason for purchase” line on the registration form, someone is going to write, “Shoot nine-year-old girl in backyard.”
Steve:
People in England and Wales are second only to Australia in their likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime; the United States ranks below even countries such as France, Denmark and Sweden. Given that, the tool that is used to commit the crime is of little consequence to me. If the focus is on a particular tool rather than the overall crime rate, it seems IMO to be wrongly placed.
Reminds me of the time on All In The Family when Gloria complained of the number of people killed and injured by guns. Archie replied, “Would it make you feel better if they was pushed out of windows?”
Not quite. It implies that one should assume that every gun owner is capable of becoming a murderous yahoo, and that they should be treated accordingly.
I used to be one of the ones who screamed loudest about gun control.
But I’ve come to realize that millions and millions of people have ready access to guns and yet manage to live their entire lives without killing anyone, certainly not innocent little 9-yr old girls. Millions of rounds of ammunition, in fact, are fired each year without anyone being murdered, or even injured.
Guns are a part of the problem, sure, because they give some people an “easy” way to do someone grave bodily harm at a safe distance. But the real problem is that these people do not value human life. Take the gun away, you still have that problem. You may have made it a little harder for the person to act on it, but you don’t solve the problem.
Even if you like “Taking the gun away” as a part of the solution, I think that’s highly impractical. You aren’t going to be able to get a gun away from this type of person–unless you get rid of every gun in the United States (and I simply don’t think that’s a realistic goal). I think it’s time to work harder on gun safety, on respect for life, on the willingness of ordinary citizens to take responsibility for helping solve crimes and prevent crimes (including, syrupy as this might sound, intervening in the life of a young person who is heading for a life of crime).
I used to be one of the first people to squawk “See? This is why we need gun control” when a kid got shot. Believe me, just down the road in Detroit I have plenty of opportunities to say such things. But I just don’t believe, anymore, that more gun control is going to solve this problem.
“Solve the problem” is an impossible standard, Cranky. The question is whether gun control will improve the situation. A reasonable gun control policy need not be a panacea to be worth implementing–it just needs to be a net benefit to society.
Errrrmmm… “gun crime” is a subset of “violent crime”. And, even in the UK, violent crime is still rare.
Personally, I’m happy with a slightly increased risk of being punched in the face, balanced with a greatly decreased risk of being shot in the face. You may feel differently, that’s up to you. (Though if you’re seriously saying there’s no real difference between a punch and a gunshot, all I can say is… blimey, you must have really tough hands…)
Deadly weapons, Steve! Yes, gun crime is a subset of crime; still, some 32,000 people were murdered in England and Wales in the 12 months ending March 31, 2001, according to your Home Office. That’s in a population of 53 million people, yielding a right higher than that of the United States (15,517 homicides, 260 million people). Notably, that’s twice as many homicides as there were in the U.S. in the same period. But, hey, at least they weren’t shooting, right?
minty, well, I guess we just disagree that “every gun owner is capable of becoming a murderous Yahoo,” then. Owning a gun does not make one quantitavely more likely to become a “murderous Yahoo” than ownership of any other weapon does; and I think comparing the total rates of gun ownership to the rates of gun killings will bear me out on that.
Guns are not the Ring of the Dark Lord, corrupting the hand of whoever touches them.
Phil, you’re reading the chart wrong… it’s 31,666 (call it 32,0000 for homicide and other more serious offences of violence - that is, all offences where there’s been a death or a genuine danger of a death. A bit further down, we get the actual homicide rate (and, as in the US, not all homicide is murder). The figure for homicides is 850 (total for murder, manslaughter, and infanticide), or 0.1% of all violent crime. That’s a bit on the high side for the UK (6-700 is a more normal figure, at least in the 20th century) - if the murder rate rose as high as 32,000, there really would be panic on the streets - probably troops as well!
Yes, gun crime is a subset of crime; still, some 32,000 people were murdered in England and Wales in the 12 months ending March 31, 2001, according to your