NationStates

New Aerios wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
Or takes effect with a combination of factors. Either way in the absence of clear understanding of the causes, there isn't exactly a compelling case for altering the status quo.

Therefore there was no good reason to ban handguns. And as the decision to limit freedom for no benefit is clearly a bad thing unless you're Kim Jong-Un, the handgun ban should be repealed.

There was a good reason to ban handguns. to reduce the number of homicides. The number of homicides has reduced. To what extent the ban on owning hand guns played a part is an open question.

Gun control doesn't stop criminals from killing but it stops innocent people from defending themselves! Who is it who shoots children in school shootings in the US? criminals and mentally insane! not law abiding citizens! just look at Switzerland! 1 in 2 people in Switzerland are armed and it has one of the lowest homicide rates ever!

We don't need 'em (less fear of judicial retribution for self-defence would be nice however).

A non-archaic Bill of Rights would be a much more welcome change for me. Preferably with a written constitution.

Baiynistan wrote:We don't need 'em (less fear of judicial retribution for self-defence would be nice however).

A non-archaic Bill of Rights would be a much more welcome change for me. Preferably with a written constitution.

You've got one, its called the Human Rights Act.

The United Kingdoms of Austinarya wrote:Gun control doesn't stop criminals from killing but it stops innocent people from defending themselves! Who is it who shoots children in school shootings in the US? criminals and mentally insane! not law abiding citizens! just look at Switzerland! 1 in 2 people in Switzerland are armed and it has one of the lowest homicide rates ever!

Switzerland is the worst example you could bring up.

Baiynistan wrote:We don't need 'em (less fear of judicial retribution for self-defence would be nice however).

A non-archaic Bill of Rights would be a much more welcome change for me. Preferably with a written constitution.

Technically, the UK does have a written constitution, but it isn't all one document written at once.

Horizont wrote:

Baiynistan wrote:We don't need 'em (less fear of judicial retribution for self-defence would be nice however).

A non-archaic Bill of Rights would be a much more welcome change for me. Preferably with a written constitution.

Technically, the UK does have a written constitution, but it isn't all one document written at once.

Written is often used as a synonym for codified

Frazers wrote:

Horizont wrote:
Technically, the UK does have a written constitution, but it isn't all one document written at once.

Written is often used as a synonym for codified

Alright. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes. I live in the UK and would like to own a firearm. Governments in this neck of the woods are too fond of banning shit.

Frazers wrote:

greed and death wrote:
The gini coefficient relation to violent crimes can not be ignored.

Non related esoteric phrases to attempt to confuse the issue. Classic.

That inequality likely has more to do with violent crimes than tight or loose gun laws ?

Densaner wrote:Yes. I live in the UK and would like to own a firearm. Governments in this neck of the woods are too fond of banning shit.

that is also how it is with some usa citizens, a couple of states even have unrestricted concealed carry

Chernoslavia wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The ban (given all above assumptions) results in lower rates of murders. That is a clear, definite, and significant benefit.

BULLSHIT.

You honestly think that before the Dunblane massacre and handgun prohibition that people were running around shooting each other on a high scale? Get the hell out of here with that!

Are you completely and utterly incapable of following a train of thought over more than one post?


To spell it out for you: the effective removal of most handguns from circulations reduces the percentage of violent crimes that result in deaths, thus reducing the murder rate.

Horizont wrote:

New Aerios wrote:
Therefore there was no good reason to ban handguns. And as the decision to limit freedom for no benefit is clearly a bad thing unless you're Kim Jong-Un, the handgun ban should be repealed.

No, because the situation has stabilized as it is so the argument does in fact work for maintaining the status quo.

How do you know that this was all the work of the ban on handguns?

Chernoslavia wrote:

Horizont wrote:
No, because the situation has stabilized as it is so the argument does in fact work for maintaining the status quo.

How do you know that this was all the work of the ban on handguns?

I don't, just as you don't know that it wasn't. It's not broken right now, don't try to fix it.

Horizont wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
How do you know that this was all the work of the ban on handguns?

I don't, just as you don't know that it wasn't. It's not broken right now, don't try to fix it.

Exactly. Why change? I am in no rush to give out guns to everybody.

Nimzonia wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Yes, I'm sure the IRA has stopped buying illegal guns for their attacks on military forces because of this law.

What attacks on military forces?

....

I'm not even gonna answer that.

Kainesia wrote:

Horizont wrote:
I don't, just as you don't know that it wasn't. It's not broken right now, don't try to fix it.

Exactly. Why change? I am in no rush to give out guns to everybody.

Nobody is advocating that we give guns to everybody.

Horizont wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
How do you know that this was all the work of the ban on handguns?

I don't, just as you don't know that it wasn't. It's not broken right now, don't try to fix it.

There's only one way to find out and that's to legalize handguns. While also creating a licensing and a background check system that prevents people with mental illness and a violent criminal record from getting them. And to give back all the guns that were once in the possession of innocent people back to their rightful owners. The government had absolutely no right to forcefully seize their guns which were all private property.

The IRA don't seem to have a problem getting them by illegal means, I thought that was obvious to everyone here.

Salandriagado wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
BULLSHIT.

You honestly think that before the Dunblane massacre and handgun prohibition that people were running around shooting each other on a high scale? Get the hell out of here with that!

Are you completely and utterly incapable of following a train of thought over more than one post?


To spell it out for you: the effective removal of most handguns from circulations reduces the percentage of violent crimes that result in deaths, thus reducing the murder rate.

Yes, you however seem to be incapable of making a better constructed argument against my other posts.

As for your theory on the handgun ban: No it doesn't reduce murder and it did not have any effect in this case either. I've stated the reasons why on my previous posts so I'm not repeating myself to you.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Baiynistan wrote:We don't need 'em (less fear of judicial retribution for self-defence would be nice however).

A non-archaic Bill of Rights would be a much more welcome change for me. Preferably with a written constitution.

You've got one, its called the Human Rights Act.

Yeah, about that... doesn't that have an article somewhere stating that the British people have the right to have weapons? Which was infringed years ago now due to massive draconian and ineffective gun laws?

Chernoslavia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
You've got one, its called the Human Rights Act.

Yeah, about that... doesn't that have an article somewhere stating that the British people have the right to have weapons? Which was infringed years ago now due to massive draconian and ineffective gun laws?

I realize 'draconian' is a nice poweful buzzword to throw around, but they're really not.

Horizont wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Yeah, about that... doesn't that have an article somewhere stating that the British people have the right to have weapons? Which was infringed years ago now due to massive draconian and ineffective gun laws?

I realize 'draconian' is a nice poweful buzzword to throw around, but they're really not.

Doesn't change the fact that they are draconian.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Horizont wrote:
I realize 'draconian' is a nice poweful buzzword to throw around, but they're really not.

Doesn't change the fact that they are draconian.

No they're not. Draco had men executed for stealing apples and in all honesty, to compare that to this is a bit unwarranted, don't you think?

Horizont wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
Doesn't change the fact that they are draconian.

No they're not. Draco had men executed for stealing apples and in all honesty, to compare that to this is a bit unwarranted, don't you think?

I understand where this is coming from, but generally when someone says that a law or ruling is draconian, they mean that it's harsh. Not that it's as abusive as Draco's constitution.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Horizont wrote:
No they're not. Draco had men executed for stealing apples and in all honesty, to compare that to this is a bit unwarranted, don't you think?

I understand where this is coming from, but generally when someone says that a law or ruling is draconian, they mean that it's harsh. Not that it's as abusive as Draco's constitution.

Even so, I wouldn't call a blanket ban on firearms 'draconian' by any means. There really isn't much need for the populace to be armed, given that the amount of gun crime in Britain is very low.