I am glad...

I think that in an average day, the USA has about 30 gun homicides.

That's about 4 x 30 = 120 = twice as many people as in Las Vegas last Sunday.

And it will continue.

Is this what the majority of Americans are prepared to accept ?

Don Atkinson posted:

I think that in an average day, the USA has about 30 gun homicides.

That's about 4 x 30 = 120 = twice as many people as in Las Vegas last Sunday.

And it will continue.

Is this what the majority of Americans are prepared to accept ?

I seem to have missed something as I don't understand where the 4 comes from in the second line. But simply, the death toll in Las Vegas was about double the daily norm for the whole country, or tripled it for that one day. But is scarcely a blip on the total homicide count even for the month of September, let alone 2017. (Though of course that statistic in no way leasens the seriuousness or devastation of the event.) 

What is significant about the Las Vegas attack is that had non-automatic weapons been all that were used, the deaths and injuries would have been far fewer in number.

As an aside, interestedly it seems that despite the right to carry guns and defend themselves, there wasn't a mass firing back at the hotel, which rather debunks that as a reason to carry guns for proportion of the population represented by the crowd at the festival. Of course, for the sake of innocent people in the hotel or in its direction such a response would have been undesirable. And perhaps the self-defence argument is taken by the majority as the right to defend their homes, which is somewhat easier to comprehend.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I think that in an average day, the USA has about 30 gun homicides.

That's about 4 x 30 = 120 = twice as many people as in Las Vegas last Sunday.

And it will continue.

Is this what the majority of Americans are prepared to accept ?

I seem to have missed something as I don't understand where the 4 comes from in the second line. But simply, the death toll in Las Vegas was about double the daily norm for the whole country, or tripled it for that one day. But is scarcely a blip on the total homicide count even for the month of September, let alone 2017. (Though of course that statistic in no way leasens the seriuousness or devastation of the event.) 

What is significant about the Las Vegas attack is that had non-automatic weapons been all that were used, the deaths and injuries would have been far fewer in number.

As an aside, interestedly it seems that despite the right to carry guns and defend themselves, there wasn't a mass firing back at the hotel, which rather debunks that as a reason to carry guns for proportion of the population represented by the crowd at the festival. Of course, for the sake of innocent people in the hotel or in its direction such a response would have been undesirable. And perhaps the self-defence argument is taken by the majority as the right to defend their homes, which is somewhat easier to comprehend.

When I wrote this, it was 4 days since the event. Hence 4 days at 30 per day = 120 etc etc

 ie the same point that you were making - it is scarcley a blip on the total count. Are the majority of Americans willing to accept 30 gun related homicides per day ?

Not sure that the view of the majority have any say in this matter (nor do I know what their views are) - the NRA dictates what laws are passed with regard to gun law.  They don't, I imagine, represent the majority.  

It was a good thing XM556 was not readily available to civilians. ( yet )

Ironically this video was from Las Vegas gun show this year.

The most armed man in America.

A nice hobby he's got.

I read there are now some morons saying that the whole sad episode is fake!  

What sort of mentality could even conceive such an idea? What would be the purpose of faking such an event? Unless this an attempt by the NRA maintain their death grip on the administration and the sad frightened portion of society who buy guns for their own 'safety'.

steve

I see it's now 21 years since the last mass shooting in Australia, & 7 years in the UK. 

It's almost like there's some kind of connection between strict gun laws and not having mass shootings.....

If only we could work out what that link was.

A general response to most of the opinions here and some more observations.

Not taking sides in this debate, I simply cannot overlook all the hypocrisy in the world.  An incident happens and certain groups (politically, it seems) focus on guns and ultimately gun control.  I counter reasonably with a defence that strongly concludes that guns (or the weapon) is not solely the issue.  It is more complex than this and has to deal with the nature of evil in the world and in man.

Don reasons that due to guns the homicide rate in the US is abysmal.  Yet, one has to ask if his conclusion is that only with gun control will crime and homicides be eliminated therefore all countries should strongly enforce gun control?  I only counter with the fact that criminals will always find a weapon (including guns) or a new way to inflict carnage.   So why pretend that it is awful how many people are killed by guns but not really connect the problem of crime, period (criminals will either find a gun or use another method or tool).  I will concede that guns usually inflict more certain odds of killing someone and it is just easier to use a gun than construct a bomb, for instance.  This is true and would explain why people can look at stats and satisfy their conclusions.  It is a feel good target to simply say guns are the problem so let's eliminate them.

The problem with this argument is it isn't used in other crimes (tool used vs. the person responsible).  For instance, it didn't take one hour after Las Vegas for the left to blame white men, guns, the NRA, Republicans or country music fans for what happened.  But when there is a terrorist attack due to Islamic ideology, for example, the response is reversed.  The left does not blame the bomb or the gun/machine gun or the truck or the knife etc.  They say things like, you are a white supremacist and anti-Muslim if you point to the source of the problem.  They have a right to practice their religion and have free speech rights too.  They say these people do this because no one welcomed them and made them feel accepted in (name the new host country).  We need to protect these people from discrimination because society (conservative views) is trying to take their right away....

You should note that the Las Vegas shooter also had explosive material in his car and in his homes.  The gun violence may have only been step one in his plan.

Same hypocrisy coming from the media, hollywood, late night 'comics'....Many talk about gun control and that guns are bad going as far as blaming conservatives / NRA for this tragedy yet how many people do these elite rich people each employ in their security entourage (who are packing a pistol)?  Then ask yourself how many books and movies create a world which puts guns (weapons) in the forefront and make it to be the bigger the better.  The hero is always the one with the biggest and best weapons?  By the way, I do not go to action type movies where it is 90 minutes of machine gun fire and constant explosions.

I don't think anyone cared to answer my simple question from previous posts.  Why has gun and knife crime been on the increase in the UK?  Easy to say gun control has fixed a problem when all along you are just looking at the shiny object (gun control) and feel content like you checked something off your to-do list.  You obviously still have crime and homicides.  Not dying due to gun crime or criminals with guns does not mean there is no cost to innocent people in your country.

Please read an article in regards to a certain 'gun free' country and two notable quotes below.  Look at all the guns weapons that should be banned....

There has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. 

The 26% rise in the homicide rate to 723, an increase of 149, cover the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989, which were included in the annual figure as the inquests were finally concluded. Without the Hillsborough deaths, the number of homicides rose by 9%.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...se-crime-in-a-decade

The last point I should say is that number of homicides due to guns should not simple be assessed in simplistic terms.  Without spending a lot of time to prove this I would just ask, how many of these homicides are due to inner city gangs, drugs and criminal organizations?  How many people in Chicago and other notorious cities will die this weekend due to this and simply black on black crime?

I would conclude that not be soft on crime and criminals is the place to start.  Round up these people in gangs and the drug world and take away the guns from them.  Here is where the problem is.  

The rest of the normal, law abiding citizens are not the ones killing innocent people.  Gun control just ties the hands of innocent people who want to protect themselves and their loved ones while criminals will get guns despite gun laws.

I am not rich or famous yet all the rich and famous (left leaning) figures in society are clearly saying that I am not as important as they are which is not something I cannot accept.  They speak of gun control while be protected by large security teams who have guns.  They speak glowingly of illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities/states that protect criminals while they live in walled estates with an army of warriors that are paid to protect them.  Do I (or any law abiding citizen not have any rights?)  Money and status should not give that person more rights for freedom and protection.  This is hypocrisy at its best.

Ordinary people are just as important and if they can't afford to pay others to protect them and the government / police can't fully protect in the moment then if one chooses to they should have the right to have the means to protect themselves.

I have seen enough stats to show that homicides have for a time increased in most, if not all, countries that focused on gun control (UK, France).  I will also say that in countries where a government took all the weapons out of the hands of its citizens it did not end well for the people.  (ie. Hitler, Mao)

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

Hage, don't be mad.  I am not aware of the exact details in the past.  If this is outstanding I will not waste time before making this right.  I am sorry for any misunderstanding or comments I made previously that were inappropriate (x 2).   

As to your statistic I will not contest it.  My view on them though made me think it is irrelevant to a degree as I still believe that given my past illustrations that crime is crime.  Just choose your weapon.  For instance, homicides are low compared to all other crimes including rape.  Saying crime committed with a gun is high when comparing a country with legal guns and one with gun control only shows one side.  Is it not reasonable to conclude that if we could snap our fingers and remove all guns from the US tomorrow that crime rates will still exist in the US just as they do in the UK?

So instead of more homicides by gun you will have an increase in homicides by knife, hammer, hands, feet, baseball bat etc.?

Why is crime on the increase in the UK (even with gun control)?

Your statistics want me to believe that the gun and its prevalence or availability is the cause of crime.  I just believe that while having lots of weapons is never a good thing, crime existed before guns and will exist even if gun control advocates remove every gun from the world.

Hi Florestan,

No need for apology for things past.

I'm not trying to persuade you that guns are the cause of crime - you really are clearly FAR too intelligent to ever believe that.
I also have no wish to insult you by leaving anyone with the impression that I thought I could lead to believe that.

I was merely putting a counter argument to your previous post that seemed to attempt to draw parallels between gun crime in the USA and terrorism in the UK.

As you rightly surmise crime is caused by criminal people not by any type of equipment (a gun, a tool or any other weapon) - it's an increase in the number of criminally inclined people that leads to more crime.  However the consequences of crime can be correlated to the types of weapon people carry.  This is why in the UK, if you carry a weapon, then in law, it is assumed that your purpose for carrying it is your intent to use it.

So gun control and the overall crime rate have no connection.  Gun control however does affect the death rate from violent crime - it does so by reducing the availability of guns, but to reduce the availability of guns, first you need gun control!

 

As an aside, here's an observation on which I would actually value a reasoned opinion, from anyone who defends the second amendment, (including yourself as you are clearly capable of very rational thought, and I would find an explanation interesting as I genuinely don't understand the current position in the light of the wording of the second amendment).

Given the wording of the second amendment, why are military type weapons, such as fully automatic weapons, restricted?  To do so contradicts the clearly stated purpose of the amendment, which applies to the keeping and bearing of arms due to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,".  So this amendment applies to a militia for the security of the State, and therefore applies to the defence of the people in times of military conflict.  So, all personal military weapons should be allowed, including automatic weapons and shoulder fired anti-tank weapons as these are the types of weapons that will be required for a civil militia to be an effective combat force in the modern world.  Clearly the second amendment is already being infringed by control of automatic and other military grade weapons.
So it seems to me that really only two positions truly correspond with the purpose and letter of the second amendment...
1  All personal weapons of military use should be permitted to all citizens, completely unrestricted.
2  All personal weapons of military use should be permitted to be owned, but kept in a local barracks armoury and available as required for militia duties as defined by a consensus of the local people.

Huge, I do not think most people would believe that your first point is reasonable.  Point two is more reasonable and points to responsibility shared by sane, law-abiding citizens.

The problems with freedom and giving freedoms for all in a country is that it never will be perfect but the alternative is clearly the worse outcome.  Do you want to live in a country where you have freedom of choice yet a small percent will abuse this freedom and cause bad things to happen or do you want to live in a police state where everything is controlled and it comes to a place where you cannot even voice an opinion on something as innocuous as the Naim forum?

We supposedly have free speech but we all know that there should be a 'reasonable' limits to this.  We should have the freedom to keep and bear arms but there should be a 'reasonable' limit to this as well.  

It is easy to say that in either case we should try to stop the bad apples in society from crossing a line with these rights but then we clearly intrude on the rights of the majority.  It is the knee-jerk reactions that usually should be avoided because then we go on that slippery slope.  

For example, should we ban automobiles because a guy in London rams into a crowd?  Or ban liquor because a drunk driver kills a pedestrian or a family in a car crash?  Should we ban all guns because of some radicals or madman does something horrible with guns?  Should we castrate all men because a large group of men seem to need to rape women?  Should we ban baseball bats, hammers and sledge hammers, kitchen knives, plastic bags, rope and cinder blocks because these items are commonly used items in many homicides. 

Guns are frequently used in suicides so then remove all bridges and tall buildings as well as trees so you can't tie a rope to a branch to conclude your act.  Add all razor blades and sharp objects.  Don't forget all medications and drugs.

You may say the above is a non-sensical bunch of nothing but in my analysis it is no different than saying banning guns will solve any problem.  It is the shiny object to divert everyones attention but it does precious little to solve the bigger problem.

As for my view, I am all for 'reasonable' restrictions on Automatic / Semi-automatic weapons and anything greater.  I am also for restricting what some people say BUT the reason I have to back off and say it is probably good that more things are not restricted (despite the few bad things that happen) because at some point it will come back to me and infringe on my rights to live a free, peaceful, law-abiding and respectful life.  I think most people fall in to this category.  As you know, my blood curtals when we speak of the state / government who was created to control me and my family and my choices (recall other discussions we have had).  Not perfect because some will still make bad choices but still preferable to a big brother government controlling my every move and sticking its nose into the decisions I need to make for my family and children.  Governments role should only worry about creating a good economy to benefit all and protecting us all (health care, police, army, borders and international threats etc).

I already referred to Hitler and Mao taking away the weapons from the people before taking over in a totalitarian effort.  One good reason why the second amendment (while not perfect) has some justification.

My argument in all this is a narrow and simple one: regardless of criminal/lunatic motives and actions of a tiny number of people, the impact of their actions could usefully be reduced by making it very much harder for them to obtain semi and fully automatic firearms. There's a great deal of noise surrounding the issue, perhaps created by those who don't want to confront that simple and in my view compelling argument, but there it is. Ignore it and these events will continue to result in a high number of fatalities and injuries when they do occur.    

Let's just cut to the chase here. Pontificate all you like about why people kill other people with guns, but how to stop the mass slaughter of the type we've seen in Las Vegas and Sandy Hook? Unless you do something positive then it'll happen again, so do you think the hideous murder of innocents is an acceptable price to pay for the “Freedom” to have guns? Cutting through all the meaningless rhetoric spouted by the pro-gun faction, it seems to me that's exactly their position.

How about going down the Australia route? It's worked there. It works here in the UK.

You just know, somewhere in the USA, there's another maniac who has seen the results of the dreadful Las Vegas mass murder and is contemplating something similar; it's only a matter of time. They're off to a flying start, no worries about obtaining hordes of guns and ammo, nice to have the “Freedom” to be able to get this deadly stuff.

snip

"Should we ban all guns because of some radicals or madman does something horrible with guns? "

Yes.

steve

I wonder what are the statistics for guns used in road rage in the US.  It may be high or it may be low.  For me driving in the US takes on a whole different meaning then driving in UK or Europe

Florestan you really are exceptional!

You argue against gun control, and yet when it's suggested that there should be NO gun control, you argue for gun control.  (i.e. Position 1 - and yes I agree it's ridiculous, but, if you're going to allow people to keep guns at home, then that's what the second amendment actually says they can do!).

Then, when I find a reasonable way to support the whole of the second amendment (i.e. position 2), you assert that that I'm suggesting Congress should violate the second amendment and "take away all guns" (not what I said at all).  You seem to be arguing for arguments sake (yes, I know there's a less polite way of saying that, but I'm still not going to be brought down to a level of just being rude or insulting).

You are still doing little more than twist my words into what ever you want them to mean, just so you can argue against them!  Most odd!
I asked for an opinion, and instead what I got was a diatribe against something I hadn't said!

Florestan  posted:

"Not dying due to gun crime or criminals with guns does not mean there is no cost to innocent people in your country".

and

"I already referred to Hitler and Mao taking away the weapons from the people before taking over in a totalitarian effort.  One good reason why the second amendment (while not perfect) has some justification".

Florestan,

You have really excelled yourself with your last few posts. I really had to read them several times before I could believe that you had really written the above couple of statements

But, of the two statements the last just about takes the biscuit. So now we know that the reason why Hitler and Chairman Mao came to power was that the civilian population of their countries were not heavily armed enough, and that this in itself is good reason why the second amendment has some justification. To quote a pretty good tennis player from your part of the world - "You cannot be serious"!  

You really have lost the thread completely, or just perhaps, you are just having a bit of a laugh by winding up these naïve limeys from across the pond with some ludicrous arguments and statements that are bound to cause a reaction. 

If it's the latter, then good for you. You have had your fun, and it was very effective, but it really is time to call it a day.  If the former, then I suggest you pour yourself a decaffeinated coffee, play some nice soothing music on your hifi system to lower your blood pressure and just chill out for a while.  

Everyone has a smart reply and yet not one of you will answer why according to the article I presented, there has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime in the UK.  If it is working, as you say, then this shouldn't be occurring after you created all your extra controls?

For Paper Plane, should we not ban or control anything else from the list of things I gave in how people kill or abuse others?  Maybe you are right.  Had there been gun control from the beginning maybe Cain wouldn't have murdered Abel?  Oh, that right, he didn't actually need a gun?

Florestan posted:

For Paper Plane, should we not ban or control anything else from the list of things I gave in how people kill or abuse others?  Maybe you are right.  Had there been gun control from the beginning maybe Cain wouldn't have murdered Abel?  Oh, that right, he didn't actually need a gun?

Here in the U.K. we do ban or control a whole raft of things which are used to kill or abuse others.  We control drugs because they cause (mostly self inflicted) “illness” and death.  We control access to chemicals such as acids which have legitimate uses but are also used to maim.  We control access to what knifes are legally available and where you can carry a knife and for what purpose.

We ban (I know it varies by state in the US) the carrying of lock picking tools.  But it’s not the tools which steal things it’s people that steal.  But guns have (in the US) a special almost sacrosanct position as untouchable.

You're right that you have to tackle the causes of crime (though tackling it usually means ignoring the actual causes and just increasing sentences), but that doesn’t mean you should ALSO tackle the methods of crime.

You point to the article siting a 20% increase in knife and gun crime.  There are many reasons (social and political) for an increase in crime but they are not relevant ... no one has suggested that gun control is completely effective in removing guns from criminals, what it does do is remove casual access to guns.  It stops the man who snaps and shoots his wife ... yes he will maybe stab her or beat her instead but shooting has a much higher likelihood of causing death - that’s the primary reason the gun was invented remember.  It stops the man who snaps and decides to take a gun into a school and shoot their classmates for bullying.  It stops the man who is burdened with debts following out of control gambling and walks into the betting shop and holds up the cashier.

Yes these crimes can be committed in other ways... but the gun is there for one purpose - to kill!  It has no other purpose (excepting sporting uses such as target shooting).

Florestan posted:

Everyone has a smart reply and yet not one of you will answer why according to the article I presented, there has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime in the UK.  If it is working, as you say, then this shouldn't be occurring after you created all your extra controls?

For Paper Plane, should we not ban or control anything else from the list of things I gave in how people kill or abuse others?  Maybe you are right.  Had there been gun control from the beginning maybe Cain wouldn't have murdered Abel?  Oh, that right, he didn't actually need a gun?

You seem to see the world in black and white, good and evil, cause and effect. Your oversimplification of complex issues adds little to any reasonable discussion. You often simplify others' arguments to strawmen, then burn them. It's just ridiculous and not worth my time to read nor discuss anymore. 

Florestan posted:

Everyone has a smart reply and yet not one of you will answer why according to the article I presented, there has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime in the UK.  If it is working, as you say, then this shouldn't be occurring after you created all your extra controls?

For Paper Plane, should we not ban or control anything else from the list of things I gave in how people kill or abuse others?  Maybe you are right.  Had there been gun control from the beginning maybe Cain wouldn't have murdered Abel?  Oh, that right, he didn't actually need a gun?

Homicide using guns in the USA is about 29 per million population per year.
Homicide using guns in the UK is about 1 per million population per year.

So a 20% rise to Homicide using guns in the UK is about 1.2 per million population per year.
Fortunately we've still got a LONG way to go before we even start catch you up in that statistic.

Yup, I'm glad we have gun control in the UK.

Florestan, your repeated aberrant of statistics is disingenuous (and you know it).

Florestan,

No-one is suggesting that banning guns (or knives or any weapon) will prevent crimes.  The point of banning guns is that it will reduce (considerably) deaths as a result of crimes.  If someone breaks into my house to steal something I would prefer that they were not armed.  I also would prefer that I was no armed, so I would avoid shooting a family member or friend or police officer by mistake, thinking that my son or daughter creeping home at night was a burglar or some other misapprehension.  There really is no need nor excuse for people to be armed.  You worry that the government might have malign intensions.  Do you seriously think that the only thing that has stopped this from happening in America is the number of guns owned by the citizens?  How come it hasn't happened in other countries where the citizens are not armed?  Why do you think that most criminals in the UK and other countries are not armed, if not because they know that their victims are not armed? What is unique about the USA that its citizens need to be heavily armed, whereas citizens in other countries, who are not armed, seem to suffer far fewer deaths by guns than the USA?  Is it really reasonable that so many should die simply to protect a rather nebulous and useless right?  And wasn't the 2nd amendment entirely about maintaining a militia, not about individuals shooting criminals or anyone else they think should be killed?  The original intention was to make it possible to maintain state militia, and to prevent the formation of a federal militia or standing army.  Well, I'm not sure whether you've noticed this or not, but there is now a federal army, and no state militia.  The 2nd amendment is irrelevant, outdated and of no further purpose.  And no, the 'state militia' are not the national guard (or vice versa) - the national guard, the arming of which is dealt with elsewhere in the constitution.  

To many people outside the USA the situation seems crazy - that anyone can buy and carry a gun, with no checks on their suitability, sanity, cognitive ability, responsibility; all they need is the money to buy a gun and as much ammunition as they want.  

I'm not sure whether this is relevant, but I have a firearms licence.  I am checked periodically to ensure that I keep the gun in a locked cabinet, with a separate locked ammunition container.  I am limited to 500 rounds of ammunition (pretty generous).  If you have a legitimate requirement for a gun then you can get one - but there are limits on what type of gun, how many you can have, how much ammunition you can buy at any one time, and how much ammunition you can hold.  Seems a reasonable compromise.  

Steve

Interesting debate. I think there is some level of correlation between gun related crimes and the access to guns as such. In a modern society with adequate police it should not be required that anybody has a gun. And even for hunting purposes - one could argue that the guns should be stored at a central place where they are handed out, and not being in the home where people still have access (like some incidents here in Germany).

I suspect the reason folks here jump in reaction to events in USA, and I am in no doubt this thread is a response to the terrible events in Las Vegas,  is more because of an affinity we have to our allies the American people and the many links we have with friends and family over there.

I was brought up during the so called 'troubles' in N Ireland and I have spent a number of years living in Kingston Jamaica (referred to earlier in this thread) and I have spent the remainder of my time living in London.  It is ever so clear to me, from my experiences, that there is a vivid correlation between ease of access to firearms and violence.  The troubles officially ended several years ago and the armaments were meant to have been either handed in or put beyond use.  I was home last week for a family bereavement during which time the local news reported on two or three incidents of families having gunshots fired at their homes and another of a paramilitary 'style' punishment shooting ie some poor sod dragged out and shot in both legs.  I suspect the statistics of gun related crime in NI remains very low in a global context.  Gun ownership is very limited and heavily controlled by the authorities.  The incidents I referred to are no doubt a legacy of paramilitaries turned criminals trying to impose themselves on communities.  They won't succeed and will hopefully fizzle out completely.  But clearly it takes time for guns to be completely removed from the hands of criminals. 

In Jamaica, I was there during early to mid 1990's, access to guns was prolific and the implications for petty criminals being caught was fatal.  Apart from the politics and gang related murders which I suspect dominated the official murder count, people were being killed whilst undertaking the most petty of crimes - either the victim or the assailant being killed.  Jamaicans are a feisty lot and having such easy access to arms was a terrible mistake.  I think it is equally mistaken of Americans to think there is a place in such a huge population for so many people to have ownership of weapons.  I've seen no progress on this whatsoever in recent years and it is terrible to hear and see the reports of events such as Las Vegas appear on our screens.  Legislation must change and it will take a massive leadership initiative to drive it through.

Trying to compare these events with those in England is interesting and misguided.  Crime levels are on the increase but the nature of the crimes are changing in response to the heavy pressure being brought to bear on communities to drive our guns and remove knives from the streets.  The latest response to this has appeared as youths carry drink bottles around containing acid solutions which they seem willing to throw over unsuspecting victims.  Completely cowardly and I am sure evidence that it is too difficult for them to access guns and knives without high risk of arrest.  I can only but imagine how events would be different in England if easy access were available to high powered weapons for the extremist 'religious' nutters who would wish to bring down our society.  But they cannot do so.  Access is denied them.  And that is what I would dearly love to see paralleled in USA for the good of Americans.

Peter

Eloise posted:

Florestan posted:

For Paper Plane, should we not ban or control anything else from the list of things I gave in how people kill or abuse others?  Maybe you are right.  Had there been gun control from the beginning maybe Cain wouldn't have murdered Abel?  Oh, that right, he didn't actually need a gun?

Here in the U.K. we do ban or control a whole raft of things which are used to kill or abuse others.  We control drugs because they cause (mostly self inflicted) “illness” and death.  We control access to chemicals such as acids which have legitimate uses but are also used to maim.  We control access to what knifes are legally available and where you can carry a knife and for what purpose.

We ban (I know it varies by state in the US) the carrying of lock picking tools.  But it’s not the tools which steal things it’s people that steal.  But guns have (in the US) a special almost sacrosanct position as untouchable.

You're right that you have to tackle the causes of crime (though tackling it usually means ignoring the actual causes and just increasing sentences), but that doesn’t mean you should ALSO tackle the methods of crime.

You point to the article siting a 20% increase in knife and gun crime.  There are many reasons (social and political) for an increase in crime but they are not relevant ... no one has suggested that gun control is completely effective in removing guns from criminals, what it does do is remove casual access to guns.  It stops the man who snaps and shoots his wife ... yes he will maybe stab her or beat her instead but shooting has a much higher likelihood of causing death - that’s the primary reason the gun was invented remember.  It stops the man who snaps and decides to take a gun into a school and shoot their classmates for bullying.  It stops the man who is burdened with debts following out of control gambling and walks into the betting shop and holds up the cashier.

Yes these crimes can be committed in other ways... but the gun is there for one purpose - to kill!  It has no other purpose (excepting sporting uses such as target shooting).

Eloise, this is a very reasonable response which I can agree with mostly!  I was beginning to think that no one was able to argue their point without resorting to insults and other demeaning comments to me or a broad swath of society?  What I take issue with is on one or two points.  (on the first, I do agree with you in theory but just think the reality tells us a different outcome than intended - this is simply why I try to bring in the other side of the debate)

With the first paragraph in bold I would ask honestly, how this is working for you all?  I used to agree with this as well in thinking that big government is the answer to all of our problems.  I do understand the intent is to help generally but in retrospect I do wonder if the net benefit outweighs the cost?  In some things maybe but in an out of control world now where there is no end to banning or controlling anything and everything I am tired of working from morning till night to pay for this through taxes.

The main reason is that it is the good people (the majority, I hope?) who have to pay for the bad peoples problems and shortcomings.  Gun control is a good thing in theory but again, the bad apples will always find a way around any roadblocks.  I disagree with your last sentence.  You are completely forgetting about farmers and ranchers (maybe it is different in the UK?).  What are they supposed to do out in the country 50 miles from the nearest police station?  I do know that people in the country are prime targets by criminals since there are no police around and it is very easy pickings for them.  There is also the issue of wild animals and the like they need to protect either themselves or their herds from.

I have seen it in Canada in the past where the Liberals decided gun control was the answer.  Well it was a make work project, profiting bureaucrats and greedy consulting and IT company's only who raked in 100's of millions and we get nothing out of it.  Do we really need to spend 100's of millions to round up farmers, ranchers and hunters?  Yet, nothing changed for the criminals as they are not affected by laws.  The result is a complete and utter failure.  Compare the outcome of doing nothing to spending 100's of millions of dollars?  Hard to argue that we benefitted in any meaningful way.

Am I the only one here who has to speak up for freedom for the common, law-abiding people who should have some rights too, such as just leave us alone?  I think this is the crux of the issue that most miss here.  Do we want free speech?  Yes, yet I do not like it when some abuse this freedom yet I think it is far better to have this problem with some abusers than have complete controlled speech.  Same with the 2nd amendment debate.  Not that I like it but I think it is better to deal with a small number of problems than to take the view that complete control by the government is the answer.  It seems clear to me that gun control typically only is directed at the very people who do not need it to begin with.  Thus, why I suggest other methods for dealing with it (and the evil nature of man).

Stated another way, if anyone has kids they will understand this that it is a much preferred outcome to have your kids do something voluntarily (because it makes the most sense and is the right thing to do) than it is in trying to force them to do something.  Does it matter if you say you will be punished if you don't eat your broccoli?  Most will take the punishment before being forced to do something.  With time, education/growth and effort through good parenting (not government) though it is better when a child chooses to do the right thing because they want to and decided to.  I don't want to suggest that eating broccoli is a hill to die on for the cause but most kids will come around with the right environment and support.  

So why do we have to have a government tax sugary drinks to try to reduce the number of people from buying this?  Or to put on a seatbelt?  Or to not text while driving?  Or not to drink and drive?  etc.  

I realize that no one here would share my views or even maybe understand what I am getting at before the insults come in but just think about where most problems start?  With the rise of broken homes and absent parents comes the idea that the government knows best and can solve all of our problems.  Wrong!

The reason I find it so incredible that no one else understands why I am confident in myself to say that guns do not kill people, people kill people is that I stand on a firm foundation in how I was raised.  I would never think of getting a gun and abusing it because I was taught that it isn't acceptable to do so.  Same with sugary drinks.  My parents taught me how to eat healthy.  

Today we hear about 8 or 10 year old football players who are taking the knee and not standing for the national anthem.  This is a parenting issue.  If I would have done this or behaved badly at school etc. I knew what was coming when I got home so this was a deterrent.  Today, as I have been told, the child has more rights and the government even more - so how is that working out for us all?

If you want to know why gangs of youths in Chicago are killing each other every day in high numbers, look at the parents who were probably also addicted to drugs and ran with a gang and from a broken home.  Having gun control will not really fix this, will it?

Just my two cents worth of a view.  I do not disagree with most here in theory.  From what I see in society though causes me to question everyone's solution in thinking government can fix this.  I think we are fooling ourselves to think that it will solve all of these problems as it is more complex than this.  I do not mean to imply that anything I have said is the total answer to solve this either.  I don't know the answer either but I simply do not think a closed loop answer of take guns away or impose gun controls would have changed any of the events we see like Las Vegas from time to time.  You say the type of gun allowed him to kill more but I say this madman had a plan and intend to kill many people (with or without a semi-automatic with a bump stock).  He had explosives as well.  Quite easy to go to plan B or C for people who have this mentality, is it not?  So what would gun control do when a gun is not used for a mass attack? 

Last point Eloise is just a gentle nudge that I hope you didn't mean that only women have to be afraid of men?  Of course, we all should be able to agree that the opposite can certainly be true as well?  Many wives/women kill their husbands/men too.

Few points:

* No civilian has any business owning powerful offensive military weapons. Aside of the possibility of conversion to bursts shooting, the velocity of this ammunition enables the bullets to penetrate bullet-proof vests and can hit targets hundreds yards away which have nothing to do with self-defense.

*The fact that 99.9% of military rifles owners are law abiding citizens does not matter since the only solution is to completely remove these deadly weapons from the marketplace by declaring them illegal.

* It is ironic that most gun owners who wave the flag of 'law & order' look the other way when all law enforcement agencies around the country are calling for banning assault weapons.

*There should be a limit to the number guns and amount of ammunition one can own. Perhaps a high annual taxation on ownership, just like we are paying for our car license plates, might help curb the urge of weapon hoarding .

* In our household it is all a matter of context. The same missus who was completely comfortable with a military automatic rifle brought home during reserve duty done in another country will not allow any firearm into our home in the US.