Spavined Gelding, come here please.

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.

Oh, and your assertion re: English homicide rates is laughably incorrect, Phil. Your 32,000 figure apparently comes from the chart on page 10, which lists 31,666 “Homicides and other more serious offenses of violence.” The actual number of homicides appears on page 11, paragraph (d). If it makes you feel better, you were only off by 31,150.

ah but it could shoot back :wink:

Yeah, I fucked that reading up, but good. It’s OK, though–I shaved real closely today, so the egg should adhere well. :\

minty, but that isn’t what you said originally, darn it. You said “It implies that one should assume that every gun owner is capable of becoming a murderous yahoo.” Now you say that, well, owning a gun doesn’t necessarily imply that one is capable of becoming a murderous Yahoo, but that the ones who are capable can do more damage. Please pick one interpretation and stick with it.

:sigh:

All gun owners are capable of becoming a murderous yahoo, just as all people are capable of becoming murderous yahoos. The relative incidence of murderous yahooism is probably roughly equal for gun owners and non-gun owners. Nevertheless, gun ownership substantially increases the ability and likelihood of a murderous yahoo to commit substantial death, injury, and property damage to third parties. It is therefore prudent to regulate guns accordingly, though it is debatable precisely how the goal of harm reduction is best served.

Am I clear now?

Well, I’ll say this…

G.K. Chesterton’s Father Brown once said, “I am a man, and therefore have all devils within myself.” And I think that’s true.

I think I come across, on this board, as a reasonably civilised sort of bloke. For that matter, I come across that way in person, too, most of the time. I’m a mild-mannered, law-abiding sort, no criminal record, kind to cats, church-going Christian, all that sort of thing.

All of that can change, any time I choose. I don’t know what sort of circumstances it would take to let my devils out. Perhaps it would take some deadly combination of physical and mental abuse that left me crying out for bloody vengeance on its perpetrators… or perhaps just some sudden moment of perversity. (I could drop a concrete block off the bridge onto the motorway… I could push that kid under that bus… wonder what would happen if I did?)

In short: I am capable of becoming a murderous Yahoo. All it takes is a reason to do it that seems good enough, at the time. And I don’t think I’m unique, or even unusual, in this respect. Any of us can be a saint or a killer, whichever we choose… and we get to make that choice, again and again, throughout our whole lives.

I can be a monster, any time I choose. That’s why I’m glad my country doesn’t trust me to own a gun.

**

Steve
< Heinlein-esque comment >
And I am an adult and a free citizen. That’s why I’m glad my country is prohibited from forbidding me ownership of a gun.
</ Heinlein-esque comment >*
:wink:

Fenris

*Hey, if you can quote Chesterson, I can paraphrase Heinlein! :smiley:

One thing that is worth noting.

In the US, there is a continual debate about gun control. There is a substantial anti-gun lobby, and a substantial pro-gun lobby.

In the UK, there is almost no opposition to gun control. A few criminals and a few gun club owners object, but apart from them, there is well-nigh nobody who thinks deregulation is a good idea. In my entire life, I’ve never met a single UK resident in favour.

Draw your own conclusions.

A minor revision to this statement is in order, thusly:
A reasonable gun control policy need not be a panacea to be worth implementing–it just needs to be a demonstrable net benefit to society.

To date, that goal has not been met. There’s a lot of shoulda, coulda, woulda suppostion, but no hard evidence.

As rebuttal, allow me to offer: Handgun Registration, where we find that registration of guns can do nothing towards reducing gun crime.

Gee, I’d say a homicide rate 4 times higher in America than in England and Wales*, despite roughly comparable overall crime rates, is pretty decent evidence of a net benefit to society. But if you’re requiring any particular gun control measure to be proven effective in the jurisdiction where it is proposed before it can be implemented, that’s just silly. Can’t show whether or not something works if you aren’t allowed to try it out in the first place.
*Using Phil’s numbers there, for the sake of simplicity, only using the correct homicide figure.

Fenris, I’m sure you’re an adult. But I’ll see your Robert Heinlein and raise you Dave Barry: “My goal is continued immaturity followed by death” - so, still best to keep the sharp objects away from me, no?

*minty green, it would be nice if the comparison were that clear-cut… but, funnily enough, the figures for UK homicides stay reasonably steady across most of the twentieth century, and things like the abolition of the death penalty or the introduction of gun control seem to make little difference to them. We Brits may get drunk and thump each other, but we just don’t seem to kill each other, much. I don’t know why we should differ from the US so much in this respect, given that our societies are similar in many other respects…

Yeah, I’d agree if you could prove causation. But you cannot.

Bullshit. Accurate predictions of outcomes are made in all manner of experiments, social and otherwise, prior to actually running the experiment. And are you actually suggesting we implement legislation without first having a good idea of its effects? That’s absurd.

I’m not sure that Barry trumps Heinlein. Hmmm…

But again: if you don’t want sharp objects around you, that’s fine. I’m comfortable owning 'em. How 'bout we agree to live and let live and keep the gummint out of it?
**

Actually, this is proving to be the case in the U.S. : if the anti-gun crowd was right that more guns = more deaths, then the 34(?) states that have recently allowed concealed carry should’ve experienced a HUGE jump in gun-related deaths. Even if you accept the bullsh*t anti-gun statistics that include suicide and police shootings, that hasn’t borne out. (To be fair, there hasn’t been a huge drop in crime either like the pro-gun types predicted. I think it’s been pretty much a wash)

Fenris

Well…

I don’t mind responsible sane adults owning guns.
I don’t mind irresponsible yahoos not owning guns.
It’s the irresponsible yahoos who do own guns that worry me… given that it’s not so easy to tell who is and irresponsible yahoo until they start shooting.

I suspect the disparity between Britain and the US, and the apparent lack of effect of changes in the law, merely reflect the fact that the whole pattern of criminality is a very complex issue, and gun control, or lack thereof, is only one small part of it. To be fair, I don’t see minty green advocating gun control as any sort of panacea - and I do, frankly, see the potential benefits.

:: looks back on post :: “*minty green”??? Can’t blame that on the keyboard… time for me to have a quiet rest in calm country surroundings, I think…

Mind them shotguns out by Wheatley way. Arrrr.

Er . . . how to put this . . . if you’re going to jump on John Lott for “not knowing causation from a hole in the ground,” you should be very careful about making assertions like this one. Especially considering that, even prior to recent gun banning legislation, there simply was never widespread gun ownership in the UK in the first place. This is about as far from causation as you can get. In fact, if the murder rate in England and Wales has held fairly steady over time (as Steve states), while the murder rate in the U.S. has declined (until the most recent UCR reports from the FBI) for two decades, you’d be hard pressed to assert that the gun ban there caused anything.

Steve, are you saying that the number of homicides in Britain has remained roughly at 600-700 throughout the 20th century? If that’s true, then something you guys are doing appears to be working, since the population of the kingdom is probably, what, two or three times greater than it was at the start of the century?

Beer, the kind of social modeling you’re talking about is pure quackery, as I’m sure you’d acknowledge in practically any other setting. Any such model require hundreds or thousands of assumptions, all of which are subject to second-guessing by everyone else. Let’s face it, you ain’t accepting any model put forth by the Brady Center, and I ain’t accepting any model put forth by the NRA–nor should we, because any model simply reflects the assumptions and biases of its creators, and is basically nothing more than a semi-informed guess. So if social modeling is right out the window, what are we left with except experimentation? It ought to be well-informed experimentation, of course, and comparisons to other nations are a hell of a lot more helpful in gathering such information than any model pulled out of the ass of any social scientist.

Fenris, how 'bout you not refer to people in favor of gun control as “gun grabbers” or “the anti-gun crowd,” and I won’t refer to people in favor of gun rights as “gun nuts” or “the gun-loving crowd”? Also:

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.

Second, I don’t think your assumption that concealed carry = more guns is true–the data I’ve seen show that nearly all people who get CCW permits already owned guns.

Third, why should we expect to see a “HUGE” jump in gun-related deaths anyway? Hardly anybody has a CCW permit even in those states where they’re easily available, and next to nobody actually carries on anything resembling a consistent basis. If your assumption were correct, wouldn’t you also expect to see a “HUGE” jump in criminals shot and killed in self-defense? Where are the statistics that show such a jump? (Note: I’m looking for statistics, not anecdotes.) I haven’t seen anything that indicates that’s true either–I tend to agree with you that CCW is a wash.

pldennison, note that I didn’t say Britain was conclusive evidence. But it’s easy enough to compare homicide rates to gun ownership rates worldwide and see that there’s a significant correlation between fewer guns and less homicide. Not too many countries have gone from widespread gun ownership to anything resembling a ban, which means that causation is going to be terribly difficult to prove in any particular instance. Let’s wait a decade or so and see how Australia goes, eh?

Here’s a question, then… would you be in favor of inserting a “sunset clause” into any legislation that would cause it to be repealed if it were later found out that the legislation created no benefit? 'Cuz the last thing I - and I’m sure you - would like to see would be a crapload of throwaway laws on the books.

Further, “experimentation” can easily lead to what a lot of gun owners are concerned about… “Oops, that didn’t work, so let’s experiment with another, stricter law!” At what point, pray tell, does experimentation stop being useful?

Minty Nice use of selective quotes. I used the both terms “anti-gun” AND “pro-gun” as shorthand. Do you think the two terms are somehow disparate?

Besides, the preferred term for “gun control advocates” is “gun safety advocates” (Handgun Control, Inc is now “Handgun Safety, Inc.”) and I refuse to buy into that bullsh*t any more than I’d expect you to buy into the pro-gun groups that call themselves “Pro-Constitutionalists”.

Or we can just be accurate and say “pro” and “anti” gun and trust that most people can figure it out.

Fenris

Hey, Congress can always take back what it later decides was a bad idea. Sunset clauses usually function as cop-out compromises rather than opportunities to review the efficacy of legislation. But if they were coupled with requirements for nonpartisan review of the law’s effectiveness, I’d be happy enough adopting that approach. Sort of like, here’s what the measure has done, and here’s what it hasn’t done, so now do you want to renew it?

When it’s been shown the experiment didn’t produce the desired results, I would assume. “Experiment” is not code for “slippery slope.”

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.”