Ad campaign to combat gun crime in London, UK.

OK, not directly relevant to the US but still interesting and informative for those interested in the gun debate:

"Police in London have unveiled a new campaign to cut gun crime among the city's black communities. Posters and press advertisements for Operation Trident will encourage people to phone in anonymously with information on gun crimes...

Officers hope the campaign will help maintain a downward trend in shootings and murders investigated by Operation Trident.

At the official launch of the campaign at Scotland Yard on Tuesday, Commander Dick said over the past two years Operation Trident had achieved a 23% reduction in shooting murders within London's black communities.



...the continuing concentration on the black community was defended by Detective Chief superintendent John Coles, Trident's operational head (who) is also responsible for Operation Trafalgar which focuses on gun crime in other communities.

He said the figures spoke for themselves. "For every 80 Trident shootings there are only 30 Trafalgar shootings. That is in all other communities in London," he said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3752910.stm

And before anyone starts - NO, the banning of handguns wasn't supposed to stop all gun crime in the UK, it was supposed to prevent the misuse of firearms by their legal owners.

Necessarily, addressing the misuse of illegal firearms by criminals was always going to be an entirely different problem with different motives, mindsets, environments, weapons etc.

;)

Oh, excuse me, I must have picked up a disingenuousness virus someplace.

It would be if cars were banned.

It is illegal to possess "X".

It is illegal to drive at speed "X".

It is illegal to beat your "X".

It is illegal to grow "X".

It is illegal to sell "X".

It is illegal to emit "X" into the atmosphere.

It is illegal to build a house out of "X".

...
...
...

And yet people do all those things anyhow.


I dunno. Do you folks think that making it illegal to possess "X" makes all "X"s disappear off the face of the earth?

Do you believe in Santy Claus too?

Many legally owned firearms being used to cause death and injury in the UK these days?

Making it illegal to possess "X" just doesn't make all the "X"s disappear, amazingly enough.

Just like making a law saying "no speeding" doesn't make all speeding cease.

Some people care about what the law says when it comes to speeding, and obey it just because that's the kinda folks they are. Others don't. But amazingly enough, installing bumps and other obstacles and diversions in the road in addition to making it illegal to speed does tend to reduce the incidence of speeding by people who don't give a shit about the law.

Kinda like how some people obey laws about firearms, but other measures in addition to making it illegal to possess firearms are usually needed in order to actually reduce the incidence of firearms possession by people who don't give a shit about the law.

It's a strange world we live in, when making a law doesn't actually make something go away, isn't it? Maybe you can get Santa to fix that for you for xmas.

cuz the one you have now is piss poor.

See if you can grasp this Einstein.

Speeding is a behavior. Beating your wife is a behavior. Making it illegal to speed or beat your wife does not punish people who do not beat their wives, and do not speed.

It would be like outlawing cars because some people drive like assholes.

Your analogy is a fallacy.

Kinda like how some people obey laws about firearms, but other measures in addition to making it illegal to possess firearms are usually needed in order to actually reduce the incidence of firearms possession by people who don't give a shit about the law.

Is that supposed to make sense? A law is supposed to effect "people who don't give a shit about the law."?

I'm such a dunce.

Speeding is a behavior. Beating your wife is a behavior.

Possessing firearms is a behaviour. Who's the dunce now?

"Making it illegal to speed or beat your wife does not punish people who do not beat their wives, and do not speed."

Making it illegal to possess firearms does not punish people who do not possess firearms.

Making it illegal for ME to speed, though, apparently punishes ME for harm that I have never caused, by your "logic".

I have a prize on offer for the first RKBA-head who grasps that one.

"It would be like outlawing cars because some people drive like assholes."

Nope, it's exactly like outlawing speeding because some people speed like assholes.

Outlawing speeding "punishes" ME because some people who speed cause harm. (By that borrowed logic.)

"Your analogy is a fallacy."

Your mother wears army boots.

"A law is supposed to effect 'people who don't give a shit about the law.'?"

Hmm. A law is supposed to bring about or accomplish people who don't give a shit about the law? I don't thiiink so.

A law can certain AFFECT people who don't give a shit about the law, though, cain't it? Yup. Think on't a bit, and it may come clear.

I may not give a shit about the law that says I may not purchase non-pasteurized milk ... but I'm gonna have a demmed hard time purchasing non-pasteurized milk if all the people who might sell it to me do give a shit about the law.

Of course, that wasn't what I said anyhow. What I said (and you did copy and paste it; didya read it??) was this (with emphasis added to assist you this time 'round):

Kinda like how some people obey laws about firearms, but other measures in addition to making it illegal to possess firearms are usually needed in order to actually reduce the incidence of firearms possession by people who don't give a shit about the law.

Those measures can actually AFFECT people who don't give a shit about the law even without making it illegal to possess firearms; Canada is a case in point. If you have further questions on that point, feel free to ask.

Actually no. Banning firearms is controling a object, or substance if you will, not behavior. A law banning the carrying of a firearm would be a law controling behavior.

"Making it illegal to possess firearms does not punish people who do not possess firearms.

Making it illegal for ME to speed, though, apparently punishes ME for harm that I have never caused, by your "logic".

Again, your analogy sucks. If your "logic" applied then to prevent speeding you would ban automobiles, as it is the object that is controled not the behavior.

A law can certain AFFECT people who don't give a shit about the law, though, cain't it? Yup. Think on't a bit, and it may come clear. Obviously if they are caught breaking it. :eyes: But that doesn't prevent the crime.

other measures in addition to making it illegal to possess firearms

OK so fire away.

... or maybe just to take a basic course in thinking straight.

"Possessing firearms is a behaviour."
Actually no. Banning firearms is controling a object, or substance if you will, not behavior.

What you'll be needing to do is find a criminal/penal law that does something other than prohibit behaviour (whether by a physical person or by a corporate/"legal" person).

How the hell does the law "control an object"??

Object, thou shalt not be in the house of Joe. Yeah.

If the law tells bread not to fall butter-side-down, and the bread falleth butter-side-down, what would be fit punishment for the bread?

Looky here! (And if you prefer UK law to Cdn law, feel free to dig some up) --
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec91.html

Criminal Code
PART III FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS
Possession Offences

(See there?? "POSSESSION offences". Amazing, isn't it?)

Unauthorized possession of firearm

91. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and section 98, every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm, unless the person is the holder of

(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and

(b) a registration certificate for the firearm.

Who'd 'a thunk it?? "Every person commits an offence WHO POSSESSES ... ." It is a criminal offence for a PERSON to POSSESS a firearm in certain circumstances. Amazing.


"If your 'logic' applied then to prevent speeding you would ban automobiles, as it is the object that is controled not the behavior."

Why the hell would, or should, anyone want to "prevent speeding"??

To prevent the harm that speeding drivers tend to cause in greater proportions than non-speeding drivers, speeding is prohibited.

To prevent the harm that people who possess firearms tend to cause in greater proportions than people who do not possess firearms, possessing firearms is prohibited.

C'mon, admit that you get it. Claiming not to get it doesn't exactly cast one in the most sincere/smart light.

In the case of potentially fatal car use, imposing rules governing the use of cars works (i.e. imposing speed limits) adequately well to keep the harm caused by people driving cars to a level that society regards as tolerable, after weighing all the available options for minimizing that harm.

In the case of potentially fatal firearms use, merely imposing rules governing the possession of firearms was not regarded by UK society as working adequately well to keep the harm caused by people in possession of firearms to a tolerable level.


"A law can certain AFFECT people who don't give a shit about the law, though, cain't it? Yup. Think on't a bit, and it may come clear."
"Obviously if they are caught breaking it. :eyes: But that doesn't prevent the crime."
" ... other measures in addition to making it illegal to possess firearms"
"OK so fire away."

I really can't figure out what you're missing here.

Consider a law that made it illegal for "law-abiding firearms owners" to sell or otherwise transfer their firearms to anyone else without ascertaining that the transferee was qualified to possess firearms (in the case of the US at present: not disqualified from possessing firearms, as evidenced by one of those background check thingies).

Some "law-abiding firearms owners" would indeed probably be willing to break that law. But many would not. Especially if there were a registry in which their possession of the firearm in question were recorded, so that if it were found to have been used in the commission of a crime, they might be having to answer some pointed questions.

Consider a law that required that "law-abiding firearms owners" store their firearms securely, to minimize the risk of theft. I'll bet you can think of more laws like this if you put your thinking cap on.

Don't like the idea of a firearms registry, or storage laws, or limits on private transfers? Ask me whether I care.

Just don't tell me that laws like those, laws that apply to the law-abiding, won't have an effect on people who don't give a shit about the law.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Lawyers make the world to boring and to expensive. Then again since I have a bad case of melanoma maybe you could sue the sun for me.

it was supposed to prevent the misuse of firearms by their legal owners.

¿But what kind of laws are they using against the illegal owners? Wouldn't you want to target these people first rather than someone that has jumped through multiple hoops of the English bureaucracy?

This is starting to sound like a bad Monty Python skit.


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

registered their guns, since you know where they are.
RKBAis not a left/right issue, it's a freedom/authoritarian issue.

ever since the gun ban came into force the entire Police force has spent their time chasing after former gun-owners and ignoring armed drug gangs.

I'm afraid that gun ownership has never been a "rights" issue in the UK - it was a privilege that was revoked (with public approval) when the government/people/police decided that private gun ownership represented too high a risk to the public in general.

Like it or not, some things that were legal (opium, bear baiting, ill-maintained cars) are sometimes made illegal on the basis of new evidence or changes in society and society's attitudes. When guns were made illegal gun owners turned them in for compensation. Those that didn't were tracked down and their guns taken away. A mercifully simple procedure.

I'm not saying that this is how it should/could/would work in the US, but in the UK that's how it happened and I'm very glad it did.

In the UK, guns are not about "freedom/authoritarianism" - there's an entirely different attitude towards guns in the UK over here - for example, no "carrying" (concealed or otherwise) has been permitted for decades, and not even our police want to carry guns (and that's not because they're scared).

"¿But what kind of laws are they using against the illegal owners? "

Shitloads of laws, actually, including mandatory lengthy jail terms for illegally possessing a firearm or for using a replica in a crime.

I'm not entirely sure why you'd choose to focus on this particular comment, which I had included purely so that I didn't get loads of people whining on about how the gunban had failed because criminals still have guns, as per every other post about the UK's battle against criminals using guns.

"Wouldn't you want to target these people first rather than someone that has jumped through multiple hoops of the English bureaucracy?"

Yes. Criminals have, oddly enough, always been the first people targeted by the Police in the UK. Over many, many years the Police have made the pursuit of armed criminals one of their very highest priorities. They still do. Why on earth would you assume otherwise?

I've posted a link about dropping gun crime in the UK and how the Police are chasing armed criminals, and you've jumped in to ask me why the Police aren't chasing armed criminals rather than hassling legal gun owners.......Curious, Captain......

It just so happens that a few years ago the government and public decided that they didn't want pistols or semi-auto rifles to be legally ownable objects in the UK - people who choose to ignore this law are, of course, pursued.....but why would you conclude that they're more of a priority for the Police than armed career criminals?

"This is starting to sound like a bad Monty Python skit"

There ARE no bad Monty Python skits - what are you, some sort of Communist?

Upscale-looking ballpoint pens of distinction, to be given free to anyone who renounces a life of crime.

P.

fireams by illegal owners as well.

Which US city with a population in excess of 8 million has a handgun murder rate of less than 20 a year and less than 200 shootings per year?

in the UK is zero you should have a corresponding handgun murder rate to justify taking handguns from law abiding citizens.

Handguns have never in recent history been legally available as tools of self defense in the UK. Therefore, there is no "self defense" argument for their continuing legal status.

There were, however, many misuses of legal firearms which killed innocent people. Since the banning of handguns, nobody has been killed by a misused legal handgun because their aren't any.

Gun crime by armed criminals continues and increases completely separately to these facts.

Why, for the love of all things holy, does gun use by criminals in the UK have ANY IMPACT AT ALL on the legal status of handguns?

"since private handgun ownership in the UK is zero you should have a corresponding handgun murder rate to justify taking handguns from law abiding citizens"

Since we don't have any guns we should have a corresponding handgun murder rate to justify taking the guns away that we don't have....

That doesn't make sense at all.

Let's assume that what you MEANT to say was, "Taking guns from law abiding citizens would only have been justified if the outcome was a zero handgun murder rate."

Now....interestingly enough, that's still not true, because:

a) removing handguns from law abiding citizens was only intended to stop the misuse of those weapons by those citizens, a la Dunblane where a number of children were massacred.

b) the VAST majority of handgun murders in the UK pre-ban were (I suspect) committed by criminals with illegally held weapons. Why on earth would taking guns away from law abiding citizens reduce that to zero? It can't, but as it was never intended to it's not really a problem for me, is it.....

c) since the handgun ban, nobody has been murdered by a legally held handgun. Prior to the ban, quite a few people were murdered by legally held handguns (hence the ban). Therefore, the ban has been successful (unless you're going to suggest that every murder that WOULD have been done with a gun pre-ban, was done in another way post-ban.....you're not going to suggest that are you?

The happy thing is that this works even though the overall handgun murder rate has gone up in the UK, because removing guns from the equation can only really remove murders from the total.

No?

Didn't think so....

P.

gun bans only keep guns out of the hands of non-criminals.

Got any stats about how many crimes were committed using firearms stolen from non-criminals in the UK lately?

I can show you some for crimes committed using firearms stolen from non-criminals in Canada, where there is no gun ban, if you'd like.

I venture to guess that a whole lot fewer crimes were committed in the UK (or Australia) using firearms stolen from non-criminals than in Canada, let alone the US.

So it would look like a gun ban just might keep some guns out of the hands of criminals, I'd have to say.

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/woolrich.shtml

"There is a move from the pistol and shotgun to automatic weapons," says Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson of the National Crime Squad. "We are recovering weapons that are relatively new - and sometimes still in their boxes - from eastern European countries."

"Factories" up and down the country are churning out decommissioned guns, often stolen from private collectors and sold at trade fairs and through the classified ads of specialist magazines, that have been reactivated by re-boring the barrels and replacing the firing pin.

Last year, ex-Special Constable Tony Mitchell was jailed for eight years for supplying criminals with hundreds of guns - he specialised in Mac 10s at £1,100 apiece. He used his engineering skills to convert the guns from deactivated products bought via mail order catalogues.

"Clearly, these handguns could not be lawfully possessed and, therefore, must have been illegally imported into the country or already be in the unlawful possession of someone.
Du...ah!

As far as I can tell, this article indicates that criminals are using illegal guns illegally imported from illegal sources, i.e. it's impossible for them to source guns directly in the UK and they're having to go abroad for them.

The only "legal guns" mentioned are de-activated ones which have been illegally re-activated, which is hardly the same as being able to steal legal firearms.

You'll also be happy to know, I'm sure, that replica and de-activated firearms are being made illegal in the UK in order to combat this problem.

Essentially, what this shows is that there is no simple way to source existing firearms in the UK and that criminals have to go to some lengths in order to obtain them.

It makes my point that criminals will obtain guns in a criminal manner, to conduct crimes, regardless of denying them to citizens who have no other intention than sport/hunting/self-defense.

That fact is irrefutable. The question is how MUCH crime does banning guns actually prevent. Sure it may reduce the instance of stolen guns, but the debate involves benifits vs penalties of that policy.

"It makes my point that criminals will obtain guns in a criminal manner, to conduct crimes, ..."

And if they can't steal them from law-abiding owners' homes, or buy decommissioned ones to reactivate, why ... they'll gather them up as they fall, like lawn darts, from the sky.

And indeed, they will continue to source them from places where they can be obtained more easily ... as long as such places exist.

Of course, as long as the world's biggest and baddest rogue nation does nothing to stop such places from existing, it being among the worst of them itself, well, people will just keep getting robbed, and injured, and killed, by criminals who were not prevented from obtaining firearms.

Well let me see......

"The following data were prepared in the wake of the shooting in Erfurt, Germany, 26 April 2002.

In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during the past 35 years:

79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 victims)

86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun owners

Many killers, like the 19-year-old who shot 16 people dead at his school in Germany, were previously law-abiding sporting shooters or pistol club members - men whose legal ownership of guns was not questioned by authorities until after the tragedy."

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF02.htm

And no, of course you won't like the source (I don't like using biased sources myself, but this is where I found the info) but I'm afraid you'll need to convince me that the facts here are wrong before I really buy into your irrefutable comments.

I have no doubt that 99.999999% of guns bought legally are purchased by "citizens who have no other intention than sport/hunting/self-defense." The problem is that intentions sometimes get brushed aside in moments of madness, passion or intoxication.

I have no doubt that 99.999999% of guns bought legally are purchased by "citizens who have no other intention than sport/hunting/self-defense." The problem is that intentions sometimes get brushed aside in moments of madness, passion or intoxication.

I certainly think firearms need to be highly regulated. In America automobiles are more highly controled in some areas then are firearms.

Heres some stats for you from the CDC. 2001

#1 leading cause of death in America, all races, both sexes, ages 15-34: "Accidents" - 26,250

Causes:
Motor vehicle accidents: 17,272
Poisioning: 3,869
Drowining: 970
Other transport: 681
Fall: 596
Fire/burn: 464
Firearm: 328
Suffocation: 301


#2 Homicide - 10,501

Causes:
Firearm: 7,508

Can't tell from these stats if firearms used were legal/illegal, but I would bet most used in homicide are illegal.

the murders I cited all took place in countries with extremely well-regulated gun ownership, and it still happened....

Just playing devil's advocate here - certainly, better enforcement of existing laws (and some additional ones) wouldn't have an adverse effect on deaths from lawfully held weapons.

in a nation where criminals have a well developed firearms blackmarket, taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is not really going to put much of a dent in guncrime.

I guess its just a difference of culture, and legal philosophy.

"I certainly think firearms need to be highly regulated. In America automobiles are more highly controled in some areas then are firearms."

Firearms are actually the most highly regulated consumer item made/imported into the US. The moment the receiver is made it is issued a serial number and the paper trail thus begins. The transfer/sale of firearms is highly regulated. Books have to be kept up to date to when the firearm ends up in the hands of the consumer.

"The moment the receiver is made it is issued a serial number and the paper trail thus begins. The transfer/sale of firearms is highly regulated. Books have to be kept up to date to when the firearm ends up in the hands of the consumer."

And motor vehicles may not be privately transferred once they reach the hands of that consumer (including at "car shows") without the transfer being registered with the authorities.

And motor vehicles may not be registered with the authorities, or driven in public, without proof of insurance being shown.

(At least the above two statements are true in my home jurisdiction, and in any other civilized locale.)

And motor vehicles may not be driven in public by anyone who does not have a licence to do so.

And motor vehicles have to be maintained to comply with various safety and other standards in order to be registered and driven in public.

So in response to your assertion:

"Firearms are actually the most highly regulated consumer item made/imported into the US."

... perhaps you would permit me to quote you:

"Really?"


(oops; edited to correct subject-verb disagreement created during pre-posting editing ...)

can buy a car. Not everybody can buy a gun.

"Not everybody can buy a gun."

I'm pretty sure that I (were I in the US) CAN buy a gun very easily, no matter who or what I am.

You have those classified ad thingies down there, right? And no requirement that anybody selling/giving/lending a firearm to me know anything about me, or ensure that the transfer of ownership is registered anywhere?

Thought so.

"Not everybody can buy a gun" ... unless s/he can find someone willing to sell him/her one. And it's just do damned hard to find that ...

:)

:D

Soon her finger fell on an authoritarian glass magazine that was lying under the gun: she opened it and found in it a very innocent firearm, on which the words `Aim Me' were beautifully marked in pistols. `Well, I'll eat it,' said Alice, `and if it makes me grow larger, I can shoot the second amendment; and if it makes me grow smaller, I can plink under the assault weapon; so either way I'll get into the range, and I don't care which happens!'

She ate a little bit, and said liberally to herself, `Which cannon? Which cannon?', holding her shoulder on the top of her foot to feel which way it was reloading, and she was quite righteous to find that she remained the same size: to be sure, this generally happens when one eats cake, but Alice had got so much into the way of expecting nothing but out-of-the-way things to happen, that it seemed quite dull and reloaded for life to go on in the free way.

So she set to work, and very soon finished off the firearm.


http://rinkworks.com/crazylibs/c/c3.shtml

:beer:

I am not sure why you only focused on the 15-34 age range. The total numbers for 2001 according to the CDC -

for homicide firearm - 11,348
for suicide firearm - 16,869

I would bet that the majority of those firearm related deaths were from legal owners.

would you bet that?

Suicide by firearm takes up the majority percentage of deaths caused by firearms in a typical year, correct? I would estimate that the overwhelming majority of these folks are using a gun bought by legal means (hence the aformentioned statement). If you have evidence that states that the majority of people killing themselves with guns are criminals (other than considering that act of suicide a crime) or typically get their guns by illegal means, I would be interested in reading it. Otherwise, I think that it is a logical assumption to make, you disagree?

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/woolrich.shtml
- the source of the opinion piece quoted


http://www.thevanguard.org/

SPECIAL: Get Rod
Martin's Thank You
President Bush

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/about/about_vanguardpac.shtml

VanguardPAC is a conservative political action committee disseminating the intellectual capital necessary to create a better, freer world, both by training candidates in the nuts and bolts of how to win, and by promoting policy ideas calculated to reshape America and the globe.

Mmmmm, yummy. Don't miss it! I mean, I'm sure I would have managed to miss it altogether, if our friend here hadn't been so apparently and inexplicably familiar with it ...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Despite the fact that I actually made exactly the same point myself, and then told people not to bother pointing it out.

Even today, after all this time, people never fail to amaze me with their willingness to make complete idiots of themselves.

"The trouble with gun bans is that they only achieve what they set out to achieve with a 100% success rate."

By all means criticise gun bans if you want to, but not for actually doing what they're supposed to do, and not for failing to do something that they were never supposed to do.

from law abiding citizen because of the act of crims. the guy that commited the dunblane massacres was a crim. he became a crim as soon as he fired the first shot. taking handguns from law abiding citizens to stop them commiting crimes is pre-emption. chimpy's iraq war is pre-emption, does that mean the iraq war is justified?

I mean it would be beyond belief, if one hadn't seen it with one's own eyes.

"the guy that commited the dunblane massacres was a crim.
he became a crim as soon as he fired the first shot."

It's just really too bad that "crims" can't fire that first shot BEFORE they become firearm owners, isn't it??

If they'll just hurry up and invent time travel, we just won't have these problems any more.

"taking handguns from law abiding citizens to stop them
commiting crimes is pre-emption."

Taking away my right to speed to stop me from killing somebody is pre-emption.

Absent that speed limit, I'm a law-abiding driver right up until the minute I hit somebody. I become a crim as soon as I hit that pedestrian, and not before.

Speed limits just make criminals out of law-abiding car drivers.

"chimpy's iraq war is pre-emption, does that mean the iraq war is justified?"

I dunno. This virus I have is a bitch; does that mean I have to buy a dog licence for it?

E-qui-vo-ca-tion is making me tired.

:nopity:

and I think it's essentially, "It's unfair to punish everyone for the misdeeds of the few."

Now I can see that this is a reasonable objection - thousands of gunowners being denied access to their sport after a handful of them misused the privilege of gun ownership.

That's an argument that we could well have.

My counters would be:

- there comes a point when risk outweighs public freedom. For example, I would consider it insanely risky to allow the general public to own SAMs, because with one incident of misuse or accidental discharge, the consequences could be catastrophic. Similarly for anthrax spores, explosives, etc. Somewhere along the line from "cotton wool" through to "unstable nuclear weapon" the government has to decide whether the object is something safe for a member of the public to own, or whether it represents to high a risk to society at large. In the UK, guns were deemed to high a risk.

- was Chimpy's pre-emptive Iraq was justified? In this instance (IMHO) no, because Saddam posed little risk to the US or the world and in fact the war made the world more dangerous.....Does that mean that pre-emption is never justified? Nope, 'fraid not. Policemen and woman quite regularly have to make pre-emptive strikes against people who've actually not committed serious crimes - can it be right to shoot the guy dead if he's only waving the gun around in the crowded shopping mall, and hasn't pulled the trigger yet? You betya.

Effectively, in the UK the government considered that the freedom for a few thousand people to continue their sport was outweighed by the likelihood of further unnecessary deaths by the misuse of handguns. I happen to agree, especially as those handguns were never available for self-defense anyway.

Are you making your case based on utilitarianism, whilst the RKBAers are attempting to make one on a deontological basis?

Is this the reason that gungeon debates usually degenerate?

I'm a scientist not a philosopher/ethicist so if I've misinterpreted or misunderstood something, forgive me.

My "case" isn't really much of a case - I'm not actually in favour of a handgun ban in the US because I don't think it would work, although I do think that it was correct in the UK - IMHO, the government got it in just in time, because once shooting had mushroomed into a more widespread sport (as it was threatening to do) it would have been much harder to enforce the ban.

Having said all that, what I'm trying to do is introduce into the argument the idea that there is more to the gun debate than "individual rights". RKBAers do indeed seem to feel that they have a right to keep and bear arms, and that's the end of it. Some of them even seem to feel a moral obligation to keep and bear arms, and thus their arguments could be seen as deontological.

My counter points are:

1 - it makes very little sense to talk about ownership of any particular object as either a right or a duty. Self defense or defense of the state against tyranny could be argued as rights, but ownership of guns can only be a means to an end, rather than the end in itself.

2 - forgetting about 1, I suggest that one should consider the impact on the wider society as a whole of the RKBA. In this sense, my arguments are utilitarian. However, it doesn't end there, as utilitarianism doesn't really work and can indeed infringe the genuine rights of minorities.

Of course I want to protect the genuine individual rights of minorities in society and allow them to "trump" the utilitarian acts that would increase overall benefit. For example, if 10% of Brits slaved for 90% of Brits, the majority would be far better off. However, it would infringe the rights of the 10% and therefore be unacceptable.

Now, if I conceded that gun ownership was indeed a human right, then it would probably trump the overall benefits of a society completely without legal guns, and I'd have to give up my case. My point, however, is that owning a gun isn't a genuine human right. Once you get over that point, you should consider whether the presence of guns in society is, overall, good or bad for that society. Many of the RKBAers refuse to even debate this point because they're so convinced that it is a right. Many also seem to display an attitude of, "I want a gun and don't give a damn about the views of my fellow citizens or any laws the government brings in."

The problem for me is that many RKBAers don't think outside their own personal circumstances - they're generally responsible gunowners who want to defend themselves and their families and who cause no problems to anyone, and they extrapolate from there. They are failing to accept that not all gun owners are as responsible or as "harmless" as they are to society overall.

"1 - it makes very little sense to talk about ownership of any particular object as either a right or a duty. Self defense or defense of the state against tyranny could be argued as rights, but ownership of guns can only be a means to an end, rather than the end in itself."

Without adequate means of self defense, the debate becomes strictly acedemic. Even if we all agree that a person has the right to defend him/herself, our agreement is meaningless if we, as free people, are unable to do so? Is a 65-year old woman's life or liberty any less valuable than mine because I am younger, stronger and more able to defend myself? If we can be said to have the right of self-defense, then we must also have the right to acquire the tools appropriate for that defense. With a firearm, the aforementioned woman is capable of defending herself against a much larger, stronger, faster attacker. Even if the attacker is also armed, the playing field is arguably much more level. A firearm is certainly not the appropriate tool for every occasion but on occasion it is the only appropriate tool.

2 - forgetting about 1, I suggest that one should consider the impact on the wider society as a whole of the RKBA. In this sense, my arguments are utilitarian. However, it doesn't end there, as utilitarianism doesn't really work and can indeed infringe the genuine rights of minorities.

<snip>

Now, if I conceded that gun ownership was indeed a human right, then it would probably trump the overall benefits of a society completely without legal guns, and I'd have to give up my case. My point, however, is that owning a gun isn't a genuine human right.

If you cannot accept as I do that the right to the tool exists because the reason for its use exists, then we'll probably never see eye to eye.

"Are you making your case based on utilitarianism, whilst the RKBAers are attempting to make one on a deontological basis?

Is this the reason that gungeon debates usually degenerate?"


... except that the RKBA-heads actually accept what you could call the utilitarian basis (it's actually the constitutional law basis, and there isn't a real need to look behind that basis) in respect of all sorts of things other than firearms possession.

Whether a single one of them will acknowledge it or not, anti-speeding laws are precisely the same as anti-firearms possession laws. "Pre-emptive", as they call it.

The vast huge enormous majority of drivers who exceed legal speed limits never do a whit of harm to anyone in the course of their speeding. Nonetheless, they are all prohibited from driving in excess of certain speeds, essentially because of the harm that a very few drivers have done in the course of speeding, and the harm that it is reasonably expected will result if large numbers of drivers speed.

There is an elevated risk that a driver who drives at excessive speeds will cause harm -- even at no fault of his/her own, i.e. simply because if someone else does something dangerous in his/her vicinity, the speeding driver will be unable to avoid harm occurring (by colliding with the other person, or in the course of avoidance manoevres that would have been safe at lower speeds). The speeding driver is "safe" right up until something happens that results in his/her car causing harm.

Ditto people who possess firearms. Some of them are "law-abiding" right up to the point where they murder a room full of schoolchildren. And some of their firearms will be used to cause death or injury, or to facilitate a crime, through no fault of their own, e.g. if a criminal steals their firearm.

The elevated risk to public safety that is associated with firearms possession (arguably) justifies regulating the conduct. It may justify regulation to the point of prohibition. All sorts of factors are put in the balance when making these decisions. The nature of the public interest and the nature of the private interest in issue are important.

And a mere claim as to what those interests are will not suffice. The state cannot simply claim that it is acting to protect a particular interest: it must demonstrate that its interest is legitimate and even compelling -- *and* that what it proposes to do can reasonably be expected to advance that interest, and is necessary for that purpose. But the individual also cannot simply claim that his/her interest is in the nature of a fundamental (constitutional, human ...) right; s/he must demonstrate that interest as well -- *and* that it outweighs the public interest, and that what the state proposes to do is an unjustified interference in it.

The RKBA-heads never address the fact that the exercise of the fundamental (constitutional, human ...) right of free speech, number one on the US Constitutional Bill of Rights hit parade, for example, is regulated and restricted -- and speech is criminalized -- in all sorts of ways in liberal democracies.

Of course there are the loonytarians, the example at the far deontological end of your dichotomy, who simply exclude themselves from the discourse. They would not agree that perjury, for example, or advertising snake oil to cure cancer, should be criminalized; they essentially would not agree that the public interest prevails over private interests in any instance, or perhaps that there is a public interest independent of private interests.

But yer average RKBA-head doesn't take that position. Speed limits are dandy. Rules against shouting "fire" in crowded theatres are dandy. In neither case is the behaviour harmful in itself, but they agree to outlaw it anyhow, even though outlawing it is a violation of a fundamental (constitutional, human ...) right, of liberty or free speech or whatever.

So they simply make no sense when they rise up against prohibitions on firearms possession, or any lesser interference in the exercise of the right of firearms possession, on that deontological basis.

That's not to say that they might not be able to make sense if they tried -- that they might not be able to make a case that any interference, or some particular interference, in the exercise of the right of firearms possession is unjustified according to the applicable rules for determining whether/when a society may interfere in an individual interest in order to protect a public interest.

It's just that as long as they pretend that this is not the issue, or that there is no public interest at stake, or that there is no connection between the state's action and the public interest, they're not even in the race.

I appreciate the comprehensive answer....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.