I thought that was what you meant, but the darn phrase ("the plural of . . . ") is so snippy and dismissive that it best be watertight, otherwise it detracts from what might otherwise be a valid arguement. No animosity meant (or taken, I hope) by my comment. I sincerely hate the phrase, becuase I feel it is technically very wrong.
in spite of the fear that I will earn myself the lamentable reputation of a multiple poster (and hijacker), allow this comment: that the conclusion drawn from datum is incorrect is in no way reflective of the status of the “information” as anything other than datum – data can be used to arrive at erroneous conlcusions.
/Homer Jay/ Statistics can be used to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that. /Homer Jay/*
*[SIZE=2]the second time I’ve posted that quotation today. For shame![/SIZE]
ExTank; I take all your points and you may even be correct in the general sense that the firearms ban in Britain did not achieve anything at all; what I am most concerned with here are the assertions made by the OP and some of his linked sources that:
1-Violent crime has increased in Britain as a direct result of the removal of handguns
2-The poor Britons now have no way to defend themselves against violent crime, because their guns have been taken away.
1 has yet to be demonstrated and 2 is simply dishonest, as guns were never really an option for personal defence in the UK to begin with, at least not recently.
Hear, hear! My first suggestion would be to make gun ownership more like cars: registered, insured, locked, require training and license, taken away if used while intoxicated, title tracked on sale, etc.
Second, if you use a gun in a crime you go away for life. This would include brandishing one (real or fake) during a robbery.
Leaving those other 60% which were committed in the US but not in the UK: The reason that the UK murder rate is at least 60% lower is because those firearm murders are (almost) absent.
Welcome to the boards from another carrying Virginian.
Mechanicsville to be precise.
Numbering emphasis mine. Unfortunately, reasonable needs a definition. To 95% of the gun community, your number one is a complete non-starter for reasons that will probably be covered later in the debate. Your (2) is also hard to swallow, as why is getting killed by a gun is more heinous than being knifed to death? The victim isn’t any more dead from either.
Not even remotely. The members of a population aren’t static after all. Individuals move in and out of a given population every day through births (or more accurately becoming socially/politically aware) and deaths. That number can be quite high in a nation of 290 million people.
And believe it or not, people can be persuaded by argument.
Finally, what’s wrong with presenting a few facts (something I’ve tried to limit my posts to here rather than opinionizing) and dispelling a few false notions held by others?
No need to do that here. We’ve been down that road in excruciating detail without finding a single plausible benefit of registration. See here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=54764
Well there’s a rational response. 
I agree with you on #1 (but to me, personally, the timing of the data is suspicious), but #2 has me baffled.
I mean if you have it, and if you need it, what’s to stop you from using it?
to me there are three kinds of gun owners:
- Hunters, target shooters, and collectors
- People who want guns for personal protection and to reduce crime
- People who want to have guns so that they can fight an evil govt and the black helicopters
I understand 1 & 2, but the people who believe in 3 seem to be real nutters. If I ever need to fight an evil govt or aliens the first thing I’d want is access to a pickup truck so I can move around. Somehow registering pickup trucks is OK, but if we register guns then the bad guys will come door to door to collect them. Not sure why they won’t take my pickup truck first.
Not that I necessarily subscribe to #3 either (although that is one of the reasons the authors used to support inclusion of the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights, so by extension you’re calling those gentlemen "nutters), who says they won’t? Armies have always been fond of destroying an enemy’s means of mobility.
If someone commits murder with a knife they should go away for life too. A large number of crimes commited with guns do not involve murder, or even injury, but are things like sticking up a 7-11.
If someone waves a gun in your face and demands money, then I think we should take that as evidence that they are willing to kill you for money. If you want to lock away people who do the same with knives I wouldn’t object.
Guns have a big difference from knives however; they are lethal at a distance and routinely kill people that they are not aimed at. Two recent murders in Portland were to innocent bystanders.
Does that mean you oppose car registration?
UncleBeer,
Sure there are a few new posters and lurkers who haven’t heard the arguments before, but so many of these end up with the same crowd posting the same things over and over again.
I just skimmed your registration thread. Don’t exactly see that as not providing any plausible benefit, but that’s our different takes.
To me, step one is to know where guns that criminal use in crimes come from, every step of the way, from legal production, to legal posession by a legit dealer, to getting into the hands of someone who has the intent to committ a violent crime. Registration and following the trail gives us that information. With that information we can proceed to the next step (no not banning and confiscation!) of intelligently analyzing where the weak links are and where in that trail guns get redirected. And then how to decrease that redirection. Of course, to some any process is an undue burden …
No. As I said, I don’t necessarily subscribe to #3 on your list. And registration of automobiles wasn’t introduced as a means of reducing crime anyway. It was introduced as a source of revenue.
Define “routinely.” And then explain that while we see an increase in: A) the number of guns, B) the total population, and C) the number of people routinely going about armed due to fewer restrictions on concealed carry, that overall we see a downward trend in gun deaths.
Interestingly enough, we also see a general downward trend in knife murders over the past 20+ years which corresponds with the downward trend in gun murders, particularly so beginning in 1991.
Kinda makes one think that perhaps violent crime isn’t necessarily tied to the preponderance of a specific type of weapon; that is is likely the causes of violent crime are things other than guns and knives. No?
Which means what, exactly? People previously undecided have weighed the evidence presented and made up their minds? I thought that was one of the intended goals of public debate. And what of the turnover in the socially aware population? Aren’t they influenced by the opinions of those who’ve studied the issue and presented their views?
But except for transfers of firearms between private individuals, we already know where the guns are going. Licensed dealers are required to keep permanent records of all transfers and make them available for inspection by the authorities upon demand. Additionally, legal owners are bound by law to refuse transfer of a firearm to a person known to them to be a convicted felon. And to rebut your final comment (more about which I will say below) and stave off the obvious argument, I could find myself supporting a law requiring **all[/b[ firearm transfers to be conducted through a licensed dealer with the same mandatory background check that is currently required. Even the NRA has said it would, in theory, support such a law.
If you wanna know how criminals are getting their guns, there are only a very few ways in which guns can move undergound. The obvious and most common being theft from a legal owner. The most perfect registration scheme imaginable can’t do anything about that. Also on point, very few guns are recovered at crime scenes. And the cops can’t trace a gun they haven’t recovered.
Other means are strawman purchases, illegal transfers from licensed dealers, errors in the NCIS background check, borrow a gun from a legal (and irresponsible) owner, self-manufacture, and cross-border smuggling. Registration doesn’t do anything to reduce, or help trace, guns possessed by any of these means either. All registration does, is create a database of law-abiding owners. And just like I noted to BobLibDem’s baseball park patrons, these folks with guns aren’t the ones you need to be concerned with.
Ad hominen attack? Allow me to respond in kind. I suppose if you don’t expect a reasonable debate to achieve anything, perhaps that’s the best tactic remaining to you.
You misunderstand me.
I obviously believe in debate or I wouldn’t so often post here. The same debate with the same points each time so that debate is more of an endurance event than anything else. That’s what I do not think accomplishes much. That’s people just hearing themselves go on.
The “some …” comment was not meant as an attack. It was meant as a reaction to much of what I read from a select few in these debates. Antything s an infringement to them, and with them there is no debate.
Now on to the meat of your comments. It is your belief that the most common means for guns to end up illegally in the hands of those with violent intents is by theft from a legal owner. Most gun deaths are associated with that illegal possession. Guns amplify the result of violent intent. Accepting your statement as fact, it seems to me that the next issue is to find out about how the stolen guns were stored. Are these guns that were stolen from locked and secure gun cabinents or from people who did not secure their weapons as well? Can this leakage be reduced? How? I have my ideas but I’d be curious about yours.
BTW, I too would support the idea that both you and you say the NRA support of “all firearm transfers to be conducted through a licensed dealer with the same mandatory background check that is currently required” Why doesn’t the NRA actually undercut other proposals and propose that?
The minutemen of April 19, 1775 were fighting an evil government. With guns, no less. So were they “real nutters” too?
This is what worries me, a bunch of people with guns who think they are the equivalent of the Minute Men. Kinda like a role playing fantasy game for the armed. Please stick with the 12 sided dice. I have much more fear of an uprising of right/left-wing lunatics than I do of the govt. If we made it through the 2000 elections we can make it through anything.
I don’t like guns, but I am close to being convinced that getting rid of legal ownership would be conterproductive. Then the black helicopter crowd chimes in and the moment passes.
I don’t know you.
However, my opinion of your good judgment, self-control, adherence to the law, and manual skill in handling a deadly weapon is, sadly, quite low.
I don’t know you.
But I’ve seen you drive.
Sailboat