So apparently that whole no guns thing in England isn't turning out so well

[Brugdor]

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2317307.ece

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

More at link

Anyone surprised by this?

[Celest]

As they say.... a lock only keeps the honest man out.. same with gun bans.

[Larspeart]

Yup.  They can give me any arguement they want.  They day that GOOD people are made helpless, is the day that tyranny reigns.

Only law-abiding people obey laws... like gun bans.  Insanity to say otherwise.  Are guns dangerous?  Yes.  Do guns kill people?  Semantics aside, yes- but so do millions of other objects.  Guns are banned in prisons, and they still find all SORTS of novels ways to kill. Those are the same people who were on the streets before.  Just as ingenious then as before. 

[Chucara]

I can't think of a single reason that civilians should be allowed to own a gun (other than hunting and sports) if the police do their jobs right. If you limit the number of firearms, you'll also limit the number of people with access to them. I don't believe the "criminals will get them anyway"  argument. Then you might as well allow drugs too - I mean.. criminals will get them too? Bad example, I know

That being said, I think people are a bit too black and white on this. I don't think "anyone" should be able to get a gun, but I don't think "no one" should either. If the Government were to set up some psychological tests and tests of marksmanship before allowing people to obtain a gun, I could live with more people owning a gun.

But I can't live with people owning guns to protect themselves. If that is necessary, the community has a problem. It seems like vigilantist justice to me.

[Solwyn]

Well, here in the states we have an argument over whether the second amendment applies to private citizens or a milita force to protect private citizens from outside forces, which police over-rides.

I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that the rest of the bill of rights apply to personal freedoms, so I think old Bear Arms belongs there too.

My brother (hardcore libertarian) makes the point that it is needed to protect you from the government. And I can understand that a lot of personal paranoia is factored into the constitution. But I don't know how much damage a hunting rifle will do against a tank if the government doesn't like you. Guerilla this, militia that. Nukes win.

[Brugdor]

I'd agree with that if it weren't for the fact that the rest of the bill of rights apply to personal freedoms, so I think old Bear Arms belongs there too.

My brother (hardcore libertarian) makes the point that it is needed to protect you from the government.

And that is exactly why it's there. Of course those guys wrote that thing when a pistol or rifle was adequate protection from the government.

[TK]

A gun ban is entirely pointless when it has no power to control illicit sources. 

Just a wee nitpick though, guns are banned throughout Britain not just England.

[Larspeart]

Then you might as well allow drugs too

Yup.  You said it.

[Haze]

I can't think of a single reason that civilians should be allowed to own a gun (other than hunting and sports) if the police do their jobs right.

That's ridiculous. Police don't exist to be an ever-present, all-powerful force of good, smacking down criminals with a golden hammer in mid trigger pull. No matter how good a police force is, they can't be everywhere at once. Not unless you want to pull some Orwellian shit with cameras in the TVs.

When the bad guy is reaching for his weapon, you're going to be reaching for your cell phone. You'll be full of holes when the police get there 5-10 minutes later, which is an optimistic response time even for a competent police force.

And yeah, England is pretty ass-backwards.

[Sweetpea]

I agree with Chucara that a more thorough screening of gun owners need to be in place but problem with that is that there are a lot of seemingly normal people out there  :anxious:

plus gun crime often fuels and is fueled by other crimes as well so to some extent it does have to be black and white with gun amnesties to try and break the cycle.

on the flip side, at least we'd be nurturing more creative criminals 

seriously tho, just taking guns away isnt going to solve the problem since, as its been rightly pointed out, criminals are just going to get more creative.  society needs to tackle the main causes of people turning to crime like lack of education or prospects, unless they're just bastards in which case, yeah, get a gun and shoot them.

ultimately its a lack of respect and there are always going to be selfish arseholes who only care for themselves so it's just going to take time until I can get round them all and either educate them or stun gun them.

Protect the Human (but only the nice ones)

[Doombot]

Make guns legal but increase the fines/penalties for use of a gun illegally.

Allows the law abiding people to have protection and gradually takes the people who will use guns illegally off the street. Also provides a deterrent against illegal gun use.

[The SysMan]

Make guns legal, sure.
But do what most comics say and make bullets insanely expensive.
To the point where you gotta ask yourself... do you shoot this guy, or do you sell the bullet and make a ton of cash?

[Doug]

I can't think of a single reason that civilians should be allowed to own a gun (other than hunting and sports) if the police do their jobs right.
........

But I can't live with people owning guns to protect themselves. If that is necessary, the community has a problem. It seems like vigilantist justice to me.

That is just balls to the wall crazy

I mean, even aside from everything else said in the thread, which should be way more than enough reason....

A. *lots* of communities have a problem. Saying "well, if you need a gun to protect yourself, your community has a problem". No shit! That's why you get the gun or move or both. Do you expect the community to rise up as some singular entity and go "wow, that guy is right. Hey, guys, we really gotta stop murdering people for their valuables. Oh, and Lester, you gotta stop raping and stabbing all those women, ok?"

B. Vigilante justice is going out and shooting suspected criminals, or hell, even actual criminals. Actively pursuing them with the intent to kill them. Owning a gun for protection is merely putting your life in the hands of the person you trust most, i.e., yourself.

Limiting gun production now isn't gonna do jack. There's too many out there as it is and too many people who know how to clean, repair, fence and distribute them.

Living in a society where only the government/police own firearms just takes what little power the people have right out from under them.

[TK]

I'm not sure if I get the whole 'I own a gun for protection' thing, could someone explain the mechanics?     

[Doombot]

I'm not sure if I get the whole 'I own a gun for protection' thing, could someone explain the mechanics?     

The police cannot be everywhere and we live in dangerous times. A gun will protect me by killing/scaring away the burglar, rapist, etc in my home or wherever I might be and allowed to carry a gun.