Gun Control

And as of this point, you have to apply for a gun permit. The application process makes it a privilege.

But that's dodging the question, Sgt. It still doesn't answer the question of "If a majority of gun vcrimes are committed with illegal firearms, why should I, as a law-abiding citizen, be fored to give up my firearm when the uncontrolled firearms are the bigger problem?"
 
your definition of illegal is fundamentally flawed.

If daddy owns it legally - and his kid uses it to kill someone one, that gun is STILL a legally owned firearm being used.
 
No, it is not. As Wesson noted, as soon as that firearm leaves the possession of the legal owner, it becomes "illegal" under the law. Which crime would you like for me to charge whom with? Daddy, if he voluntarily gives up his firearm to his minor child, will be popped for Illegal Sale and Transfer of a Firearm here in PA. Assuming Daddy didn't give the gun away, the child will be charged with Possession of a Firearm by a Minor, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Persons not to Possess a Firearm, and if he gives the gun to one of his friends, his friend will be charged with Receiving Stolen Property.

If we take your logic to its conclusion, if I own a gun and someone takes it from me without permission, it is still a "legally owned firearm". No, it becomes a "stolen firearm" and possession of it would be a crime. There is no legal difference between a 15 year old child taking daddy's gun and some stranger breaking into daddy's home and taking his gun.

The law treats a firearm being used by anyone but the lawful owner in an illegal manner as an illegal firearm in some shape, way, or form.
 
It is the fact that the gun was legally owned in the first place that is the problem. If it is legal for some to obtain guns, it will not be that hard for others to obtain them illegally.
 
I can see both sides to this (although some of mr wessons arguments are bordering on stupidity) so how about this as an opening suggestion , that firearms should be kept in a locked cabinet much like over here when not in use , surely this would reduce the number of stolen weapons or kids using daddies gun without his permision?
 
It's a problem to YOU. I may not be a card caryring member of the NRA, but I fail to see why I, as a law-abiding citizen, should be penalized for the actions of a mentally unbalanced teenager or antisocial criminal. You still have not convinced me. You also haven't convinced me that every firearm being used out there to commit a crime was once legal
 
I will refrain from answering back in the same way bcullen but instead remind you that there is something called TOS on here.



bcullen, is this like a standardised answer any american gives either in press statements or to any person not from your country ? I may not live in your country but your country certaintly does enough to make itself draw attention in the world. And sorry to say this, I'm not the only one here thinking that the states is one paranoid country: "War on terrorism", guns sold openly and a near big brother mentality on personal information.

By the way, calling my argument "pathetic and laughable" doesn't make it wrong.
 
The father is responsible for not controlling his firearm correctly. Mind you if he didnt have it, little jimmy would find it harder to get hold of one.

This is of course only relevant in cases where its little jimmy that does the shooting, and not daddy himself.
 
It is not a matter of punishment, it is a matter of living in a safer country.Do you really believe that it is safer for everyone to have guns than nobody?

I didn't say that all guns used to commit crimes were once legal, but that it is far easier to obtain a gun in America than England, and that is at least partially due to the fact they you can legally buy them in America.
 
I can no longer source the link for this response as the website has changed and I don't have time to drag it out now. This was posted based on figures from 2005 I believe.

Again, let me stress, I'm not arguing for gun control in the US, and have quoted the original question from angacam just to stress what I'm answering.



Cultural differences make a dirct comparison irrelevant of course. I'm only posting to answer a specific question regarding the comparison of UK to US figures if you factor in population.

Mitch
 
What cultural differences? I think those figures are some nice proof that criminals will not just get guns if they are made ilegal.
 
It depends on states. Clinton's "assault weapons ban" of '94 limited magazine capacity of all new weapons/magazines to 10 rounds, but all the old standard capacity magazines were grandfathered in and still legal. They just tripled in price, but they were still easily obtainable. It was an executive order and not a law that went through Congress, so it had a 10 year lifespan. It sunset in '04 because it had no discernable effect on crime rates during that time. The guns it affected are used in less than 3% of all violent crime, and it didn't ban the pre-existing ones, only new ones. So, with that out of the way, there are no current federal magazine capacity limits, but several states and some individual cities have passed their own laws limiting magazine capacity. It is usually 10 rounds, but it is sometimes less and sometimes more.
 
I'd be interested in seeing overall murder rates for both Britain and the US and their changes since Britain's gun ban. There are many factors that can be attributed to rising or dropping crime rates, but it would be interesting nonetheless. I think I'll go see if I can find them.
 
If it is all about guns per capita, what about Switzerland that has the most guns per capita?

Not to mention it is easier to keep things out of a small country like the UK than a country with MASSIVE borders like the U.S
 
You still don't get the fundamental point, LJoll, and that is "what is the relation between prohibiting citizens from legally obtaining firearms and keeping criminals from getting them illegally?" If a majority of law-abiding citizens own firearms and do not use them to commit criminal acts, legal gun ownership is not an issue.
 
Dunblane 1996, these figure go to 2005 IIRC. I haven't got overall murder rates to hand, if you're that interested you can look . But I've already posted gun deaths and they've halved.

You may be right with your implication that gun control simply shifts the figures elsewhere, like I said I'm not necessarily arguing a particular viewpoint, just wanting to correct misapprehensions.

For the UK, in recent years:

Gun deaths have halved since the ban on firearms.

Mitch
 
Up till the point you started with your arrogant Eurotrash generalizations about Americans I've kept to the subject and provided data to back up my position. Here's a little stateside colloquialism: "Don't start nothin and there won't be nothin".

WTH are you talking about? Big brother attitude? War on terror?

Time for me to break out my gat.
 
Sorry for the quadruple tap. I found some charts on violent crime rates over time comparing the US to England, Canada, and Australia. The guy's page is biased, but he cites his sources (FBI statistics), and they're legit.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/001213.php

Page 119 of the following PDF gives Britain's violent crime rate in 05 as 23 per 1000, or 2300 per 100,000 of course.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap78.pdf

So Britain had a violent crime rate of 504.2 per 100,000 in '93 and 2300 per 100,000 in 05.

Here's the US numbers for the same time period.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

The US went from 747.1 per 100,000 in '93 to 469.2 per 100,000 in '05.

Someone help me out here. These numbers can't be right. There's no way Britain has had a 456% increase in violent crime in 12 years where the US had a 62.8% decrease. I know it's off; I just don't see where.
 
Back
Top