DC gun ban, your thoughts?

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian Nothing subjective about it TL -- knife wounds are worse.

well a cut on your arm may not be as bad as a shot to the torso, but I am digressing at that point.

[biovizier]

That's not digressing. THIS is digressing...

There is a saying among my people that "Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.".

It would have to be an extremely fit man, either that or it would have to be winter and in the upper latitudes, and by "my people" I mean Trek nerds, but the point stands.

You can kill say 6 people with a loaded revolver vs. as many as you can stab with but a single knife.

Clearly a knife is the more deadly weapon.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin well a cut on your arm may not be as bad as a shot to the torso, but I am digressing at that point.

No, TL; I'm here to testify that a cut on the arm is a more dangerous that a shot in the foot -- I've done the latter many times!

[aehurst]

I'd rather defend myself with a baseball bat than with a knife.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst I'd rather defend myself with a baseball bat than with a knife.

My preference is a 5-cell aluminum-barreled flashlight.

[aehurst]

A couple pit bulls can be very effective, too. We should ban those. Wait a minute, we did that already !

[aehurst]

Cars work, too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/...ss_hit_and_run

[johngpt]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Cars work, too. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/...ss_hit_and_run

My wife once drove her car onto a sidewalk to stop someone attacking another woman. He stopped after she hit him. She got the other woman into her car and drove off.

That's my little buttercup.

[tw]

well, I think I have the solution to this problem entirely. my old martial arts teacher used to say that the only real weapon is the human mind - every other weapon is only as effective as the mind allows it to be. therefore I suggest we pass legislation that outlaws thinking of any sort, at least without a permit.

[johngpt]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw well, I think I have the solution to this problem entirely. my old martial arts teacher used to say that the only real weapon is the human mind - every other weapon is only as effective as the mind allows it to be. therefore I suggest we pass legislation that outlaws thinking of any sort, at least without a permit.

An old saying comes to mind...

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw therefore I suggest we pass legislation that outlaws thinking of any sort, at least without a permit.

Didn't that pass about 8 years ago?

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by biovizier That's not digressing. THIS is digressing... There is a saying among my people that "Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.". It would have to be an extremely fit man, either that or it would have to be winter and in the upper latitudes, and by "my people" I mean Trek nerds, but the point stands. You can kill say 6 people with a loaded revolver vs. as many as you can stab with but a single knife. Clearly a knife is the more deadly weapon.

Well my old Russian rifle has a bayonet on it, and I could pistol whip someone with my handgun after it ran out of ammo.

I think the point is that I was trying to make is that a knife wound is never clean, where are gun shots typically are. Of course there are things like JHP ammo that when it exits the body it can take a huge chunk out.

[EatsWithFingers]

Quote: Originally Posted by biovizier That's not digressing. THIS is digressing... [..] Clearly a knife is the more deadly weapon.

Read this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...al/7504888.stm.

It has the following quotes:

Quote: Police revealed the victim, from Glasgow, had been stabbed eight times in the body and three in the head.

Quote: ... we were able to treat him very quickly and he's in a stable condition.

Now replace 'stabbed' with 'shot' and tell me that the victim would be 'in a stable condition'.


I agree that non-fatal gunshot woulds are probably less serious than non-fatal stab wounds, but it is a lot harder to inflict a fatal stab wound. Also, the hands-on nature of knife attacks makes it psychologically that little bit harder to carry out a fatal knife attack.


Anyway, this thread isn't about comapring knife attacks and gun attacks, so I'll stop now. The important point is that offensive weapons, of any type, should be prevented from falling into the hands of individuals who would seek to do harm to others. But since that is nigh on impossible to do in reality, the focus should be on preventing the spread of illegal weapons, otherwise all the legal restrictions in the world aren't going to help.

(I don't know whether that means I agree with gun ownership, or not ...)

[aehurst]

Quote: Now replace 'stabbed' with 'shot' and tell me that the victim would be 'in a stable condition'.

Okay. Will 19 gunshot wounds do?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ound-survivor/

And these shots were from police weapons, not a small .22 or .25 caliber weapon.

[tlarkin]

If you look at crime statistics in the UK versus the USA there are some differences as well. In the UK there are higher robbery and assault rates than in the USA. However, the USA has higher murder and rape rates than the UK. So, in America we prefer to rape and kill, where as in the UK they prefer to beat you really badly and rob you.

Socioeconomics play into this and which is why crime is so dynamic across the world. I am sure geography and culture play in as well.

The bottom line is, a responsible and legal gun owner should be allowed to own a gun. In fact, it was in the UK's bill of rights back in the 1600s, and it was put there after the king took away arms from the puritans (or whatever religious group the were, during the Glorious Revolution) and then persecuted them.

I honestly think everyone should own a gun, and should know how to use it. If the government has them, I think our citizens should. People who can't be responsible with their guns probably shouldn't own them, but then again people who can't drive responsibly shouldn't own cars either in my opinion. However, they still do.

[aehurst]

Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/...ington_gun_ban

DC ban on handguns lifted, registration starts with a 180 day amnesty on previously illegal handguns.

Anyone want to bet there will be more previously illegal handguns registered than there will be new purchases registered during the first year? It'll be interesting if the numbers ever become available.

DC just doesn't get it. What the heck is the purpose of registering firearms other than, of course, there will be a fee for registration? The only obvious answer to this is... so they can track someone down just in case they ever decide to commit a crime. So, obviously, criminals won't register. Duh.

[EatsWithFingers]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Okay. Will 19 gunshot wounds do? http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ound-survivor/ And these shots were from police weapons, not a small .22 or .25 caliber weapon.

Yes, but the only one to the face was a glancing blow. My previous point was that the guy at T in the Park was stabbed three times in the head. Had he been shot three times in the head, he would almost certainly be dead.


As for the lifting of DC's gun ban, I would be interested to see a comparison of crime statistics from the last year of the gun ban, and the following 12 months (when we get there). Will DC be safer as a result of lifting the ban?

[aehurst]

Quote: Had he been shot three times in the head, he would almost certainly be dead

.

Agreed. A single cut to the carotid artery in the neck would almost certainly have resulted in death, too, as would one piercing wound to the heart.

My point was it took 50 rounds from highly trained police officers to bring these two down. Firing a handgun is not automatic death any more than a stab wound is. Hitting a moving target with a pistol is a daunting task unless you're at point blank range or spend an inordinate amount time practicing this skill.

I will make a prediction for DC. The crime rate, specifically violent crime, will continue to be unacceptably high in 12 months. The tough gun laws did not make DC safe. Giving the guns back to citizens won't reduce the number of violent criminals in any huge way. There will be fewer illegal handguns, though.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst I will make a prediction for DC. The crime rate, specifically violent crime, will continue to be unacceptably high in 12 months. The tough gun laws did not make DC safe. Giving the guns back to citizens won't reduce the number of violent criminals in any huge way. There will be fewer illegal handguns, though.

The experience in Canada, where the gun registry was most certainly an extremely expensive failure, is exactly what you predict AEH -- all the good guys who own unregistered pistols will register them, and none of the bad guys will. In several large Canadian cities where there had been an inordinate rise in hand gun robberies, drive-by shootings, and gang wars (usually with innocent bystanders injured or killed), the registry had no effect whatever, except to give the police, whenever they caught a shooter, one more thing to charge him with. For the most part, the guns come across the border from the US where they weren't registered either.

Governments, made up of folks who know no history, rarely think back on the complete failure of prohibition which just made bootleggers rich. Supplying booze to the USA was a major (and illegal) industry here in Nova Scotia during prohibition. The rather draconian laws that make possession of a small amount of weed into a major crime hasn't stopped illicit drug use in the slightest -- in Canada, where there's a lot of wide-open, hard to police space, grow-ops abound, and in the US, there are lots of customers. Guns are no different -- bans just fuel underground markets.

[EatsWithFingers]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst A single cut to the carotid artery in the neck would almost certainly have resulted in death, too, as would one piercing wound to the heart.

Very true.


I've just realised something which may or may not be obvious to the Stateside folk on this forum:

The issue with overturning the handgun ban was never about reducing crime - it was purely to do with the constituational rights of American citizens.

The crime-reduction link only arises when it comes down to defending that constitutional right (i.e. guns allow ordinary people to protect themselves from others who would seek to do them harm, be that the Government or criminals).

The argument against the constitutional right is then built upon whether or not a gun is required in order to defend one's self, taking into account the implications of a country-wide ban.


NOTE: I'm even further out of my depth here, so do please correct any of this post which is wildly erroneous!


Guns (and weapons of any kind) do not cause crime. They are merely a tool for the criminals to use. The contention arises when a gun allows a criminal to do something which they would not have been able to do in a gun-free society (e.g. drive-by shootings).

Of course, there is no such thing as a gun-free society (even over here in quaint old Blighty). The problem is not down to guns and other weapons per se, but rather down to illegal weapons, criminals and idiots.

As I mentioned before (and I'm sure many others have too), no amount of legal controls on weapons will change the crime rate, so long as the unrestricted, black-market channels remain unchanged.

And on a side note, where does a society stop when placing legal restrictions on weapons? At hand guns? Or knifes? Or should we be made to register absolutely everything that isn't made of foam and could potentially be used as a weapon? After all, even a pillow can be used to kill...

EDIT: Of course, the flip-side of having no restrictions would just result in a lawless society, so the line has to be drawn somewhere. The question is where?