Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arrkhal]

Well, do those laws make sense from a standpoint of safety and preventing crimes of opportunity?

Other laws passed in '68 do; anyone convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence can never own a gun, for instance.

But how does a double standard that makes cheap guns more expensive help that?  Poor people aren't the only wifebeaters and idiots.

Racism has very deep roots in the American legal system and American culture, and it's really not something that an "outsider" can understand without experiencing.  It's also not exclusive to the conservatives.  I know several Chinese guys in New York who find it impossible to get gun permits, while white people around them have no problem.

[Neruz]

I don't believe i ever said anything about racism.

[Leafsnail]

What you should really do is look at England's crime rates, from multiple sources, and put in dates where gun control laws were passed, as well as dates where social things were passed, like better health care and education in poor urban areas.  See whether social stuff correlates to a slow drop in crime over a period of 13-16 years, followed by a relatively sudden sharp drop (assuming English gangsters join gangs young, too).  Gun control, if it works, should produce a permanent increase in the rate of crime reduction, and reasonably quickly.  And if it actually works, it should reduce all violent crime.  Reduction of "gun crime" is meaningless, if criminals switch to butcher knives and cricket bats.

To be honest, it's kindof difficult to compare Britain's crime rate now to Britain's crime rate pre-1903 (or even pre-1968).  It's almost as difficult as comparing us to another country - things were completely different back then.  I guess we could try with a more recent example.  The Violent Crime Reduction act was introduced in 2006, which introduced a variety of new gun related offences.  Here's what the homicide by firearms table looks like (figures for the whole country, by the way).

1999/00 - 62
2000/01 - 73
2001/02 - 97
2002/03 - 81
2003/04 - 68
2004/05 - 78
2005/06 - 50
2006/07 - 59
2007/08 - 53

(source - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf)

This is a reduction of 33% for a relatively minor piece of legislation.  The reduction appears to have been sustained over the past 3 years.  Can't find data for any of the older acts so easily, but this one seems to work pretty well.

Then again, this government has also made a lot of social laws, so it might be difficult to tell whether the act had a direct effect or not.

Now, Arrkhal, I have another question.  Do you feel there is any need for civilians to own, say, assault rifles?  It's not like an M16 is gonna be much use for self defence...

[Arrkhal]

You need to look at total homicides, not "gun homicides."  How does that prove a law "worked" if the same number of people died, but by different weapons?  How are people who are shot "more" dead?  If guns are actually more effective murder weapons, then fewer "gun deaths" should also translate to fewer murders, period.  Does that happen?

"There were 773 deaths initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales based on cases recorded by the police in 2007/08, an increase of two per cent (15 homicides) since 2006/07."

"There were 766 deaths initially recorded as homicides in England and Wales based on cases recorded by the police in 2005/06. This is a decrease of nine per cent since 2004/05."

04/05 - 839 homicides.
05/06 - 766
06/07 - 758
08/09 - 773

A much smaller change from 04/05 to 05/06 in terms of total homicides, and the change has not yet been shown to be permanent, either.

Now, Arrkhal, I have another question.  Do you feel there is any need for civilians to own, say, assault rifles?  It's not like an M16 is gonna be much use for self defence...

How about a different tack on that.  Do you need food other than bread, water, and vitamin supplements?  Do you need a house larger than a single bedroom and kitchenette?  Do you need more than about 10,000 pounds a year to just barely survive?  Do you need to have sex other than for the sole purpose of procreation?  Do you need a car that goes faster than about, say, 40 km/hour?  Do you need a car at all?  Walking and running have worked for millenia, and there's always public transportation.

Of what real utility is a car that's even capable of exceeding the speed limit?

"Need" is not a criteria to deprive someone of something, even if it's potentially dangerous.

Other than that, full auto fire is hugely overrated.  At long range, it's nearly worthless.  At close range, it requires very extensive training to score multiple hits on a single target.  "Spraying the room" is a completely useless tactic, which only works in the movies because actors use blank ammo, and only works in video games because hitboxes for bullets are about 5-10 cm wide, rather than <1cm.

If you know anyone who's fought in a war, ask them, if you like.

The consensus among most American veterans is that full auto fire is okay for keeping heads down (because of the noise), but semi-auto is what's actually accurate enough to inflict casualties.  "If the first shot misses, the rest of the burst will, too.  If the first shot hits, the rest of the burst will miss."  An actual squad automatic weapon or light machine gun is different, of course.

Even at close range, real world recoil means that after the first 3 or 4 shots, the rest of the magazine will fly over everyone's head, without extensive training.  And if a criminal has that kind of training, it doesn't really matter what they use, does it?

And finally, I'm relatively okay with the law on machine guns in the USA as it is now, I just wish they would re-open the registry (a real Colt M-16A1 costs about $16,000 USD for a good one; later models aren't legally available).  You need your county sheriff to sign a form stating that it's legal to own a machine gun in your jurisdiction, among other paperwork including submission of fingerprints and a photo.  Good luck getting your sheriff to sign a "I want to buy a machine gun" paper if you have any criminal record at all, or even look or smell funny.

[Leafsnail]

04/05 - 839 homicides.
05/06 - 766
06/07 - 758
08/09 - 773

Actually, that's a slightly bigger drop.  You can't expect gun control to be lowering homicides that weren't caused by guns.  I'd say these figures showed the measure was broadly effective - a fairly big dent in overall homicides with a bigger drop in homicides caused by guns.  I'm not sure how much better you can get than that, really.

As for the automatic weaponry... well, it just seems like deflection.  I still don't see any reason why someone would need an automatic rifle, or have any legitimate reason to own one (beyond military or law enforcement use).

[Cthulhu]

But man, assault rifles are cool.  Put one up above your mantle where rednecks would put their hunting rifles and shotguns, oh yeah.

For extra cool, right below it is a mini-shrine to Khorne.

EDIT:

Legitimate reason, we Americans are big on personal freedom.  Sure, we don't need a lot of stuff, but it doesn't sit well with a lot of people to have the government telling you you can't have something you can otherwise afford to have.

[Leafsnail]

But can't you express your desire to be superior to your neighbours with, I dunno, a bigger car or better front lawn?  Or something else that isn't designed to kill people?

[Arrkhal]

But can't you express your desire to be superior to your neighbours with, I dunno, a bigger car or better front lawn?  Or something else that isn't designed to kill people?

You're projecting your own feelings on others again.

If I loved stamp collecting, and wanted to buy some kind of stamp that some law made illegal to buy without tons of paperwork and paying $16,000, does that make me "want to be superior to my neighbors?"

Whether or not that would make me crazy in some other way is beside the point.

People like different things.  Some people like shooting machine guns for fun (because really, that's about the only utility they have).  And really, how much stricter does it get than needing approval from your county sheriff, without a complete ban?

Why does it matter if something was "only designed to kill?"  The intent of the maker somehow bleeds over into the end-user?

If someone collected swords instead (actually, I do), would you even have that objection?  Swords are pretty much equal to machine guns in terms of "intent;" there is absolutely no non-recreational use of swords outside of killing humans in hand-to-hand combat, unlike axes, spears (boar hunting!), knives, etc.

[Leafsnail]

unlike axes, spears (boar hunting!), knives, etc.

I've always been amazed by those who hunt boars with spears.  It's pretty impressive how they skewer themselves.

Swords are pretty much equal to machine guns in terms of "intent;" there is absolutely no non-recreational use of swords outside of killing humans in hand-to-hand combat

There are a variety of martial arts and dances with swords; killing is by no means the only intent of them.  Also... well, getting a working machine gun and ammunition shows different intent than just collection, to me.

[Duke 2.0]

 It is clear.

 We must make a martial art that has gun dancing.

[Neonivek]

If I loved stamp collecting, and wanted to buy some kind of stamp that some law made illegal to buy without tons of paperwork and paying $16,000, does that make me "want to be superior to my neighbors?"

I don't know, it is stamp collecting, that is some really messed up stuff.

[Vester]

...

Neonivek has a point.

[Arrkhal]

There are a variety of martial arts and dances with swords.

Martial arts are designed solely to kill people and/or injure them to the point where they aren't a threat anymore.  If you're using a sword in a martial art, it's definitely one of the ones for killing.  The dances with swords are typically war dances.  And how about the whatchamacallits with rifles and spinning 'em around and banging them on the ground and whatever (I can't remember what that's called, dammit)?  Considering what counts as a "dance" these days, that qualifies.

Even if you get a sword for "purely defensive" martial art, how's that different from getting a SIG 550 or Sturmgehwer 57?  The Swiss use machine guns purely for national defense.  They aren't going to invade someone.  Clearly, Swiss machine guns at least are not "solely for killing people," under the same logic that martial arts is a "not killing people" use of swords.

How about a gladius, the weapon that's killed more people in history than any other specific weapon, has no martial arts associated with it, and no real utility other than killing?

How about the people who only collect "real" swords, that are strong enough to hold up to "combat" conditions against an armored opponent?  That somehow indicates that they think they're going to actually fight an armored knight?  It couldn't be that they don't want lower quality facsimiles, just for the certain je ne sais quois of a modern reproduction that reproduces more than the appearance?

Geeze, how about those people that collect things, period?  Why aren't they happy with just photographs?  Actual objects are more dangerous, you could bash someone's head in with most things.

Machine guns can be used to punch paper like any other projectile weapon.  And like I said, the reason people get them is when they think it's more fun to shoot one, than a semi-auto.  And a lot of times the "fun" factor wears off when they realize that $10 worth of ammo takes 3 seconds to fire, and then they're resold.

And I forgot the most important thing.  Martial arts aren't a necessity (at least what they try to pass off as martial arts these days).  They're typically for fun, especially the sword ones.  Try explaining to a jury why you chopped a burglar in half with a sword.  Dances are definitely not something you need.  Those are for fun.

There still are no non-recreation uses of a sword that aren't either killing someone, or pretending to kill someone.

[Neruz]

As far as i'm aware, most people i know who own swords do so for the bragging rights, and usually mount them rather securely on a wall.

[Vester]

I think Rowanas owns one.