Guns in the USA (and the world?): Now Printable!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

So, as you're dieing, you should take comfort in the fact that you haven't contributed to violence in society?

[Penguin king]

PK,

And if the mugger then decides to shoot you or slit your throat to guarantee you can't testify against them if they are caught?

The chances of being mugged by a determined muderer seems incredibly low to me. I don't have any hard statistics on the risk of being killed for the contents of my wallet, but in the UK at least it seems far less than a micromort on any given day, I'm not sure that carrying a weapon at all times would reduce that risk by a significant percentage.

If anyone has the statistics to show that i'd be better off carrying a leathal weapon in my day to day life (excluding the obvious legal ramifications due to my country of residence) then i'll consider getting my hands on one.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I carry a pocket knife with a blade that is longer than three inches with a blade that locks in place. Shocking, I know.

[Seli]

Seli,

So, as you're dieing, you should take comfort in the fact that you haven't contributed to violence in society?

Of course not. I'd probably be cursing the cheap bastards who wouldn't pay for healthcare that could have helped the person who killed me to stay safe in society; I'd curse the selfish assholes who didn't think the impoverished could use support to make something of their life; I'd be angry at the inflexible morons who made sure punishment for robbery was so large that it made sense to kill me; I'd feel sad for the people on the street to scared to help; me, I am a victim, not to blame for my own unfortune.

And of course I'd curse the person who killed me. I am only human.

[Penguin king]

I carry a pocket knife with a blade that is longer than three inches with a blade that locks in place. Shocking, I know.

And if a man with a bulge in his jacket pocket asks for your wallet you'll try and slit his throat rather than hand it over? Do you feel that makes you more safe or less safe in a mugging situation?

[thecryptile]

I'm not impressed by bulges. Too many people try the old "finger gun." You want to intimidate me, you better have your gun out and pointed at me- plain as day, where I can see it. Even if that bulge is a pistol, I bet I'm quicker on the draw than any mugger.

Of course not. I'd probably be cursing the cheap bastards who wouldn't pay for healthcare that could have helped the person who killed me to stay safe in society; I'd curse the selfish assholes who didn't think the impoverished could use support to make something of their life; I'd be angry at the inflexible morons who made sure punishment for robbery was so large that it made sense to kill me; I'd feel sad for the people on the street to scared to help; me, I am a victim, not to blame for my own unfortune.

And of course I'd curse the person who killed me. I am only human.

You're neglecting all the impoverished, oppressed people who don't turn to crime, and all of the rich, entitled people who do. Criminality is not a consequence of poverty, criminality is a choice or a moral deficit. Healthcare reform isn't going to lower rates of robbery, unless they start giving away hard drugs.

If you don't stand up for yourself and instead embrace the victim mentality- you are to blame for your misfortunes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PK,

My pocket knife would be practically useless for self defense. I carry it as a convient tool. It's simply something else that would be illegal to carry in the UK.

[Penguin king]

PK,

My pocket knife would be practically useless for self defense. I carry it as a convient tool. It's simply something else that would be illegal to carry in the UK.

If you're carrying a knife as part of your job. that is legal in the UK. It is also legal to carry a knife if you are camping, or if you require the knife for religious reasons. In what other situation is it necessary to carry a blade of more than 3 inches in the United Kingdom?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PK,

Cause you want to.

[Penguin king]

PK,

Cause you want to.

And if you want to carry around a bag full of grenades, a vial of small pox, a basket full of cobras or box full of Polonium that should be allowed too?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PK,

Because a swiss army pocket knife with a four inch locking blade is just like a bag of grenades, a vial of small pox, a basket of cobras, or a box full of Polonium 238. I'm surprised Al Queda hasn't started buying them up instead of AK-47s.

:)

[Merentha]

You're neglecting all the impoverished, oppressed people who don't turn to crime, and all of the rich, entitled people who do. Criminality is not a consequence of poverty, criminality is a choice or a moral deficit. Healthcare reform isn't going to lower rates of robbery, unless they start giving away hard drugs.

You don't see wealthy people breaking and entering, or mugging, you see them committing fraud. The latter, while possibly more damaging to my wallet and certainly potentially more damaging to the global economy, is not particularly likely to end with violence. Criminality might be a choice, as you put it, but the venue and the attendant risks to me are very related to poverty.

(And since you mentioned it, it would be a good idea to open up heroin clinics modeled after those in Switzerland. We can even subsidize it and make it part of the subsidized healthcare system if asshats wouldn't scream about it.)

[Penguin king]

PK,

Because swiss army pocket knife with a four inch locking blade is just like a bag of grenades, a vial of small pox, a basket of cobras, or a box full of Polonium 238. I'm surprised Al Queda hasn't started buying them up instead of AK-47s.

:)

The point is, you have to draw the line somewhere. At some point a Goverment needs to step in and say "unless you have a very good reason, you probabaly shouldn't be carrying that in public. In the UK they decided that blades over 3 inches are that point. maybe they could have stretched to 4" or 5 ", but I don't feel that anyone's civil liberties are really infringed by the limit that was chosen.

Like I say, if you need to carry longer for your job, or your religion, or a legitimate hobby, then allowances are made, but if you want to lug around a big knife just for the sheer thrill of it then you're sadly out of luck. Other people's safety comes ahead of your desire to carry a larger than average knife for no real reason other than "because I want to".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PK,

A four inch locking blade is hardly "larger than usual" unless you arbitrarily make it so.

[Paladin of Ice]

People run over their kids with lawn mowers. Kids drown in swimming pools (which are 100 times more likely to kill than a gun). I notice some of your "irresponsible" gun owners are cops. All of the gun ban proposals in the US exempt cops from weapons bans and seizures. Some people are evil, and some people are negligent. You can not legislate evil and stupidity away.

No, you can't legislate away evil and stupidity, and shit will happen. But those things don't have have killing as their main function. A gun is designed to kill, and deserves to be treated differently than a swimming pool, let alone a car. Yet oddly enough, people think owning a car should have more requirements and paperwork associated with it than a weapon that can easily kill multiple people. And I happen to think there's something off about that.

Guns are used defensively over 2.5 million times a year.

Source?

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."- Benjamin Franklin

Great quote, but in practicality it's a somewhat worthless platitude. If we actually believed that, then we'd have no problem with, say, anyone being able to buy weapons grade plutonium or tanks or missiles whenever they wanted. I mean, we wouldn't want to interfere with people's freedom purely for the sake of security, would we?

There are constraints and limits. A big one anti-freedom folks like yourself miss- MURDER IS ILLEGAL. This comparison is jejune and disingenuous. MURDER IS ILLEGAL. If you try to "go murdering" in a non-gun free zone, your rampage will end with a responsible gun owner (the kind you deride) shooting you.

Strange, I often hear that any additional controls on weapons is pointless, because criminals don't obey the law and will just get ahold of weapons illegally. So making those laws is pointless. Yet now you seem to think that murder being illegal would be a constraint to someone intent on murder. Why the one and not the other?

Also, please cite cases where a private citizen with a gun stopped a public shooting rampage or whatnot. Because so far as I know, there have been dozens and dozens of public mass shootings in the last 50 years, and not a single one was stopped by some private hero with a gun.

So, you're opposed to the 4th amendment as well as the 1st and 2nd. Big surprise. Barring exigent circumstances, the cops do (and should) need a warrant to search your home. Police are able to search your body on the pre-text of looking for weapons in the US. I don't have a problem with this, just declare your legally carried weapons, like I do.

Actually, I don't have a problem with the 1st or 4th amendments, and in fact wish they were respected much more than they currently are. However, if I plot out the murder of someone with a third party and then have them commit the deed or turn over sensitive documents from the US military to the public, I don't get to say "Hey, 1st amendment, it's just me using free speech."

And we accept search and seizure every time we go on a plane. Just like if I'm walking away from a crime scene and a police dog goes nuts, most people aren't going to say that the police should get a warrant before talking to me.

So why is it exactly that guns have this special place where they're immune to all the limits we seems to accept for every other right? Do you think the way Americans treat guns now and the current culture around them in this country is healthy? Because I sure as shit don't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PoI,

So, it's cool to hold somone on the side of the road for a few hours to get a police dog out their if they decline a voluntary search?

[Penguin king]

PK,

A four inch locking blade is hardly "larger than usual" unless you arbitrarily make it so.

Any cut off point is going to be arbitrary. There's no scientifically agreed length of knife that falls exactly on the cusp of safe and dangerous. The British government wanted to minimalise the risk of knife crime while still allowing people to carry around pen knives and the like for general utility. 3" was the length of blade that was chosen as the cut off point. I fail to see how this has a detrimental effect on the life of any British citizen.

Unless someone has a serious psychological disorder the distress caused by not being allowed to own a 4" blade without a legitimate reason is minimal. In return for that minor inconvenicence, the Police have the ability to confiscate knives that would only have been used for violence, and prevent violent crimes before they happen. People who need knives can still carry them. The downsides to the policy are minimal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PK,

It's the presumption that people can't be trusted with a pocket knife like mine that bothers me. What comes next bat and large tree branch control? One of the things that I've carved with my terrifying weapon (on the scale of Polonium 238) is a staff. How does british law treat my large walking stick?

[thecryptile]

You don't see wealthy people breaking and entering, or mugging, you see them committing fraud. The latter, while possibly more damaging to my wallet and certainly potentially more damaging to the global economy, is not particularly likely to end with violence. Criminality might be a choice, as you put it, but the venue and the attendant risks to me are very related to poverty.

(And since you mentioned it, it would be a good idea to open up heroin clinics modeled after those in Switzerland. We can even subsidize it and make it part of the subsidized healthcare system if asshats wouldn't scream about it.)

Those kids in the bling ring were rich and they were fond of pulling B&Es. Many rich kids break into homes or sell drugs-- crimes that are usually falsely linked with "poverty".

No, you can't legislate away evil and stupidity, and shit will happen. But those things don't have have killing as their main function. A gun is designed to kill, and deserves to be treated differently than a swimming pool, let alone a car. Yet oddly enough, people think owning a car should have more requirements and paperwork associated with it than a weapon that can easily kill multiple people. And I happen to think there's something off about that.

A car can kill multiple people, psychos drive into crowds on a fairly regular basis. Owning a car is not a Constitutional right, though. Let's go with this car analogy. Maybe we should require ignition interlocks in all cars to combat drunk driving- maybe we should require governors to limit speed. Maybe to combat car theft, all cars should be required to be kept in locked garages. Maybe muscle cars should be banned. There is no legitimate reason that anyone needs a car that powerful- it's just dangerous street racers who want such things. Maybe all cars should be required by law to be the same color. Sure that will price many out of owning a car, and will destroy jobs.

All of these wacky schemes are paralleled by anti-gunners.

Source?

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Strange, I often hear that any additional controls on weapons is pointless, because criminals don't obey the law and will just get ahold of weapons illegally. So making those laws is pointless. Yet now you seem to think that murder being illegal would be a constraint to someone intent on murder. Why the one and not the other?

Now you're getting the picture. If the death penalty for murder doesn't discourage criminals, a five year sentence for gun possession certainly won't. Criminals don't think they will get caught.

Also, please cite cases where a private citizen with a gun stopped a public shooting rampage or whatnot. Because so far as I know, there have been dozens and dozens of public mass shootings in the last 50 years, and not a single one was stopped by some private hero with a gun.

I've already cited several such incidents in this thread, you don't hear about them because they don't play into the media's preferred anti-gun narrative.

http://rense.com/general95/sch-shootings-stopped.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

It's hard to know how many more shootings would have become mass murders had civilians not been on the scene to end them early.

And we accept search and seizure every time we go on a plane.

Planes are a very different case, you don't have a right to fly in a commercial aircraft. Nor are you forced to use a commercial aircraft. Apples and oranges, there.

So why is it exactly that guns have this special place where they're immune to all the limits we seems to accept for every other right? Do you think the way Americans treat guns now and the current culture around them in this country is healthy? Because I sure as shit don't.

Some aspects of American culture are unhealthy- like the glorification of criminals and violence in the media. Gun culture OTOH, is healthy. I started shooting in the Boy Scouts and it is a healthy and fun form of recreation.

[Penguin king]

PK,

It's the presumption that people can't be trusted with a pocket knife like mine that bothers me. What comes next bat and large tree branch control? One of the things that I've carved with my terrifying weapon (on the scale of Polonium 238) is a staff. How does british law treat my large walking stick?

As long as there's not a knife inside you're fine. Sword canes are a big no no unless it's a registered antique and you're a collector, and even then you don't want to carry it about. As for baseball Bats and large tree branches, If you walk around carrying one in an urban environement you may be qestioned. If you're not on your way to a game, or clearing out a garden then you migh find your large wooden object taken away from you. Intent is everything in these situations.

In terms of knives, there's not a presumption that you as an individual can't be trusted to carry it, merely a recognition that knives are used in violent crimes, and that it's probably safer for society as a whole that people don't carry around certain knives without good reason, as a significant percentage of people who would wish to do so have a nefarious intent in mind. If you need the knife allowances are made, and if you don't then what's the harm in just not carrying it?