Gun Control politics on both sides of the pond

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Trinity
What we have to remember is at the end of the day gun laws are ther to protect us.

I feel for you guys, I really do. Not to be *******, but your current laws (among the strictest in the world when it comes to firearms) did nothing to protect those two Birmingham girls, and they won't do much for the next tragedy either. So then your government further regulates an item that had nothing to do with the incident, i.e. air-guns and replicas? Just seems like it'll only be a matter of time until they come knocking on paintballs' door doesn't it?

Originally posted by manike
A shot gun blast in a thin ally breach Darwin award winner right there! You'd have more success giving it to your 'target' and asking them to shoot you
We need to be classified seperately and have that within the recognised guidelines.

Not to mention that nearly every paintguns' upper receiver is completely hollowed out. That's another problem we face over here. The gun-grabbers go on and on about this gun and that gun, and how a particular one is "easily converted into full auto" and yet the person telling you this has no idea how it's done.
A friend of mine owned a replica handgun, and in studying it, I was amazed at how much engineering went into it to keep it from being converted into a firearm. There has to be a million other common everyday items that would make for a better weapon.

Originally posted by Paul_collier
If it came down to it I'd prefer registration to ban! Thats all I'm saying!

But registration just makes it easier when the inevitable confiscation takes place. Now they know who to pay a visit to when the time comes. If none of you make a habit of walking down the street with your markers (notice how that word is finally en vogue now) in plain view, and their is a law forbidding this practice, what need is there for a registration?

I guess suggesting political and social change would be beyond UK paintballs' means, huh? Then again New Jersey, New York and Baltimore, MD are in desperate need of that as well. Good luck amigo's!

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

Cheers Mark for the sympathy -

Although the illegal market for guns will always exist, it's still considerably smaller in the UK than if guns were legally available (and available to be stolen from legal users), so horrible as these things are, they are still unusual which is why they generate so much press attention.

Any country in the world could virtually ensure total safety for its citizens, but then you'd have to live in a police state! We compromise legislation and enforcement with personal freedom to the scale which we tacitly accept.

Given the Uk Government's (be it Labour or Conservative) tendancy to jump on any voter bandwagon, whether it's in full possession of the facts or not, I think it is necessary that we seem to be willing to make a case for self-regulation. Take it for granted that most of us don't walk around town pointing markers at passers-by - neither did the target pistol users who practiced at regsitered gun clubs, and look what happened to them. If we just sit back and assume the govt will see sense, we'll not be playing in two years time at all - we have to be pro-active and make a case (and a loud one at that) or else no-one will stand up in parliament to suggest paintball gets exempted from legislation.

Baca - alcohol is dangerous. So is tobacco. And petrol driven cars. Can you guess what it is that connects these items to the fact the Government doesn't mind us abusing all three?

I've walked around with sports gear that although is less dangerous than a pool cue, still got me spot-interrogated by the police until I produced a licence to show I was part of an organization that was entitled and insured to use them. Unlikely that DIY tools and kitchen implements get covered by a ban, but then it's a tad more likely people will go after paintball "guns", isn't it?

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
Cheers Mark for the sympathy -
Although the illegal market for guns will always exist, it's still considerably smaller in the UK than if guns were legally available (and available to be stolen from legal users), so horrible as these things are, they are still unusual which is why they generate so much press attention.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on that point.

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
We compromise legislation and enforcement with personal freedom to the scale which we tacitly accept.

I think you got that backwards. You compromised personal freedom with legistlation. Isn't that what you meant?

Originally posted by Jones the Paint Magnet
I think it is necessary that we seem to be willing to make a case for self-regulation. Take it for granted that most of us don't walk around town pointing markers at passers-by - neither did the target pistol users who practiced at regsitered gun clubs, and look what happened to them. If we just sit back and assume the govt will see sense, we'll not be playing in two years time at all - we have to be pro-active and make a case (and a loud one at that) or else no-one will stand up in parliament to suggest paintball gets exempted from legislation.

For right or for wrong I see a progression that, by your own admission, stems from an unreasonable fear. The logic seems to follow this train of thought, "since banning a few guns hasn't helped, we should ban more." Now they're working up to the potentially lethal. It seems only fitting that this thought process continues, and ends with the unthinkable. I hope you all prevail though. Good luck!

 

[JoseDominguez]

Banning guns has worked in England, we have a fraction of the gun-crime we'd have if they were legally available, this is a fact, all guns entering our shores do so illegaly and can be taken out of circulation at any point, with legal guns available they can be legitimately imported, then stolen or illegal guns can be smuggled alongside legal shipments. It has worked, a gun-crime in the UK makes national news.
Open question to anyone in the US: how many gun-crimes in your local newspaper today?

And as for civil liberties, lets discuss that over a drink, oh, you are over 21 aren't you?

 

[Baca Loco]

You know, they say excesses of alcohol impair mental function. Guess so.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
Banning guns has worked in England, we have a fraction of the gun-crime we'd have if they were legally available, this is a fact, all guns entering our shores do so illegaly and can be taken out of circulation at any point, with legal guns available they can be legitimately imported, then stolen or illegal guns can be smuggled alongside legal shipments. It has worked, a gun-crime in the UK makes national news.
Open question to anyone in the US: how many gun-crimes in your local newspaper today?

And as for civil liberties, lets discuss that over a drink, oh, you are over 21 aren't you?

London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

---The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

--the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Preliminary figures for the U.S. this year show an increase, although of less than 1 percent, in the overall number of violent crimes, with homicide increases in certain cities, which criminologists attribute to gang violence, the poor economy, and the release from prison of many offenders. Yet Americans still enjoy a substantially lower rate of violent crime than England, without the "restraint on personal liberty" English governments have seen as necessary. Rather than permit individuals more scope to defend themselves, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government plans to combat crime by extending those "restraints on personal liberty": removing the prohibition against double jeopardy so people can be tried twice for the same crime, making hearsay evidence admissible in court, and letting jurors know of a suspect’s previous crimes.

 

[JoseDominguez]

All irrelevant, there are less fire-arms in this country due to the illegality of owning one. Our fire-arm death rate would be higher if you could own one legally. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. How can you argue?
we do not get
1) opportunistic gun-crime e.g. someone grabbing a legal gun in a fit of rage.
2) high school massacres, because our fifteen year olds can't borrow dad's 9mm.
3) accidental shootings by young children finding dads legal gun e.g. whilst looking for christmas presents

and anyway, your own crime figures show that a lot of gun-owners end up shot by their own weapon.
And for some reason, you seem quite proud of the fact that your murder rate is "only" 3.5 times higher than ours, well done, your only three and a half times more likely to get killed than me.
And in response to the "weapon of choice" for criminals, well in the UK it's still the sawn-off shotgun, why? because you can still legally buy one, so they are easier to get hold off.

As for self defence, can you carry a gun around with you legally? without a permit to carry a concealed weapon? if not, then aren't you carrying an illegal weapon if you do? this puts you in the same situation as the UK, as a mugger is a lot more likely to be carrying a readied weapon than his intended victim, or are your muggers and rapists polite enough to give you a chance to draw?

And no response about the number of gun-crimes in your local newspaper? hmm, well I live in a major city and since Christmas, we've had, let me see......... none. go figure.

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
All irrelevant, there are less fire-arms in this country due to the illegality of owning one. Our fire-arm death rate would be higher if you could own one legally. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. How can you argue?

Remember, you asked.
You are essentially correct, there are fewer firearms in the UK, but your laws ensure that the only ones who have them are criminals.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
1) opportunistic gun-crime e.g. someone grabbing a legal gun in a fit of rage.
2) high school massacres, because our fifteen year olds can't borrow dad's 9mm.
3) accidental shootings by young children finding dads legal gun e.g. whilst looking for christmas presents

1) I'm often told by friends that they could never own a handgun because they're liable to shoot an ******* who cut them off in traffic. My question always is: "Why don't you hit them with your car then? If you're willing to shoot them, ramming into them with your car should be just as gratifying." The answer I usually get is that they don't want their insurance rates to go up as a result of causing an accident. "Ah, so you're concerned about the repercussions, but you'll still shoot them if you had the chance?" I'm not saying that people don't wig-out, but it's a lot less common than the evening news will have you believe.
2) Those opposed to the second amendment of our constitution will have us believe that the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order. I maintain that we are failing our children. I am sometimes flabbergasted when I see how some kids at my local fields walk all over their parents. If I acted that way, I wouldn't be here to tell you about it. Look at Germany; they have as strict of a gun law as the UK, and yet they just recently experienced a school shooting.
3) Would it surprise anyone that the leading cause of accidental death for a child 0-14 years of age is Automobile accidents (56%), followed by drowning (22%). Firearms account for just 3%. More kids died by drowning in a bucket of water, than by a firearm accident.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
As for self defence, can you carry a gun around with you legally?

Yes.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
without a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

No. Currently 36 of our 50 states have laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons as long as they have never been convicted of a felony, been treated for a mental condition, and have attended a firearms safety course. In my homestate of Florida (nicknamed the Gunshine state ) they passed the concealed carry law in 1989. After the law passed, our homicide rate went from being above the national average to being below it. Where it remains to this day. If nothing else this says that 250,000 Floridians packing heat where ever they went did not in itself increase crime.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
if not, then aren't you carrying an illegal weapon if you do? this puts you in the same situation as the UK, as a mugger is a lot more likely to be carrying a readied weapon than his intended victim, or are your muggers and rapists polite enough to give you a chance to draw?

Even though I'm permitted to carry a concealed weapon, I'd still like to answer this one.
If a mugger is willing to let you pull out your wallet for him to take, why not pull out your gun instead? I've been able to defend myself against armed robbers 3 times in my life. I'm sure there are scenarios that would make reaching for my gun counter productive. In fact I've been in one of those, but a robbery like a game of paintball is fluid. There are always opportunities given to you by your opponent, you just have to be ready for them.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
And no response about the number of gun-crimes in your local newspaper? hmm, well I live in a major city and since Christmas, we've had, let me see......... none. go figure.

I don't think any of us are disputing the fact that your crime rate, while on the rise, is lower overall than the US's, but one thing we'll have in our newspapers that you'll probably never have is stories of armed citizens fighting back.
Our premise is that there will always be criminals, and criminals will always find weapons, and preferably firearms. In a free society the police cannot be as obtrusive as they are in a police state, and I think we can agree that none of us wants to live in one of those.
Our politicians, athletes, and celebrities are able to afford armed protection. Most of our law makers feel that that courtesy should be extended to those who empower them.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Oh, that's OK only 3% of accidental deaths in children are gun-related, my mistake. I'm sure that will make people feel better.
And as you say, in some situations reaching for your gun would be counter productive, so that's a criminal with another free gun then isn't it.
And what about those 14 states where it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon?
This post is on UK gun control, I'm not going to get involved in a debate over the US right to bear arms it's a totally separate subject. but for some reason, the minute gun-control is brought up US posters start to have a go about our gun-laws. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that our tighter controls are better for the UK.
It wouldn't work in America, there are too many weapons already in circulation and every criminal that wants one can have one. Over here it was stopped before they became commonplace, in the UK if you intend to shoot someone you are breaking the law by buying, owning, carrying, loading and firing a gun, you can be arrested at any point in the process, when you can legally carry one, you haven't broken the law until you've shot someone.

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
Oh, that's OK only 3% of accidental deaths in children are gun-related, my mistake. I'm sure that will make people feel better.

But the 100% who are murdered every year in the UK and are unable to defend themselves feel better knowing that their fellow citizens are safe from the gun they are not permitted to have?

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
And as you say, in some situations reaching for your gun would be counter productive, so that's a criminal with another free gun then isn't it.

Only if you hand it to him.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
And what about those 14 states where it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon?

Most states allow a gun to be stored in the glove-box of your car, and of course in your home. Usually the police won't arrest someone who defended themselves from a criminal attack, even if they were illegally possessing it. They may confiscate the gun, but that's usually it. Prosecutors will sometimes press charges, but it usually ends up being a minor one. Public opinion generally decides, and most applaud someone who fights back.

Originally posted by JoseDominguez
This post is on UK gun control, I'm not going to get involved in a debate over the US right to bear arms it's a totally separate subject. but for some reason, the minute gun-control is brought up US posters start to have a go about our gun-laws. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that our tighter controls are better for the UK.
It wouldn't work in America, there are too many weapons already in circulation and every criminal that wants one can have one. Over here it was stopped before they became commonplace, in the UK if you intend to shoot someone you are breaking the law by buying, owning, carrying, loading and firing a gun, you can be arrested at any point in the process, when you can legally carry one, you haven't broken the law until you've shot someone.

And that's why I feel for you guys.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
But the 100% who are murdered every year in the UK and are unable to defend themselves feel better knowing that their fellow citizens are safe from the gun they are not permitted to have?

1)So accidentaly shot kids is worth it? and I don't think murdered people care either way mate.

Only if you hand it to him.
2)If you haven't drawn yours (as you stated) then he will tak it.

Most states allow a gun to be stored in the glove-box of your car, and of course in your home. Usually the police won't arrest someone who defended themselves from a criminal attack, even if they were illegally possessing it. They may confiscate the gun, but that's usually it. Prosecutors will sometimes press charges, but it usually ends up being a minor one. Public opinion generally decides, and most applaud someone who fights back.
3)So, the authorities encourage the carrying of illegal fire-arms then? Kinda short circuits your argument.

And that's why I feel for you guys.