You've got to stop doing that, because it's starting to irritate me past what I consider normal for a heated discussion.
Nowhere did I say that half an hour is an adequate response time. I just noted that it's gotten a lot better since the olden days and that half an hour is a better response time than several days.
If 1/2 hour isn't an an adequate response time, what is? What response time is adequate that you have the right to take away my ability to do so?
I would also add "protect its citizens from harm as far as is reasonable and provide protection and care to those that need it."
Well, unless hands need holding...but that's a different topic. Big Government is effective and I think preferable in certain circumstances, whereas Small Government is better in others.
The role of the government is to govern the people. Hence the name.
This is too far off topic but needless to say we're never going to agree on this one either.
Again, a slight misrepresentation of the law. You can buy a replica without a licence or any kind of background check because it's relatively harmless. You CAN buy an actual weapon - like a katana or something - with an edge, but as I understand it, only if you have a specific licence (which I think is sensible; a basic background check so they know they're not giving a dangerous psychopath a deadly weapon) and as long as you don't take it into the street and start waving it about. Also, again, the government isn't banning knives. It's saying that knives of a certain length and/or type can't be sold directly to minors. Once again, you're sensationalising and exaggerating the story to the point where you're grossly misrepresenting the law to make it sound worse than it actually is. I don't agree with all of the laws here in England, but if you're going to ridicule them, at least ridicule laws that actually exist. Like the one that says it's still legal to kill a Welshman with a longbow so long as it's within the walls or York and it's past midnight.
Really? Because I've now provided 3 different links in this thread where, in the UK, your government and organizations has advocated the banning of kitchen knives
, stated that is 100% illegal to carry a switchblade, any
form of straight bladed knife, or even a swing assisted pocket knife. It is also 100% illegal to own, at all (again from your government's website) a butterfly knife or a katana. So please point out exactly what I am exaggerating when I am providing you links to your own government and media to support my claims.
Which as I noted later on, had nothing to do with the gun laws. America has more of both. What's your point?
My point is all you've repeated in this thread is 'we banned guns so we have less gun crime'. Which I already stated earlier in the thread I'm not going to argue against, it's just logical. My argument is very simple: reduced gun crime is 100% irrelevant if your crime level stays the same. This shows mathematically that your ban has had no effect on the crime rate because the crime rate didn't change, just the method of the crime.
It isn't, and I never said it was. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth, thank you.
Then tell me what exactly are you saying?
*snort* the idea of more guns making people safer has been debunked just by the fact that you have a gun for every man, woman and child in America and yet you have more shootings than anywhere else in the Western World. The thing is, self defence isn't "gun or nothing." There are a variety of weapons and techniques and tactics that are, technically speaking, more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm is. That's just an attempt at an emotional prodding. How about I turn that back on you?
"Oh, I'm sorry that somebody broke into your house and shot your daughter, but we have to protect our citizens right to be armed, now don't we?"
Do go ahead and explain to me these weapons and techniques and tactics that are more effective in an enclosed space than a firearm.
Let me go ahead and take a guess what you're going to provide:
Tasers. Wonderful little devices and I highly recommend having one. Guess what the problem with a taser is? They're not close to 100% effective and you get one shot. Miss? Out of luck. It takes even someone practiced at it a good 30 seconds to reload a taser.
Akido, Judo, some other martial art technique they teach at the local boys and girls club? A skilled practitioner of any martial art is going to have a much better chance against an untrained attacker. Problem with that is 'skilled'. To actually be effective as anything more than a 'you might remember enough of this to save yourself, but probably not' it takes years of discipline, sparring, and training.
How many of these techniques are you trained in to the degree that you could stop a man that outweighs you by 40 lbs and with, say, just an extra 3 inches of reach on you?
Again, if the rate of gun crime is low to begin with, any further dip probably won't make a blip on the graph, especially when circumstances are leading to more crimes in general. The fact is, stepping back from the UK for a moment, that every country that has increased gun regulation has seen a dip in gun crime. Other crime rates depend on the country and the time being looked at - since obviously recessions lead to more poverty and therefore more crime, generally speaking - but since none of them had a majority of crime being gun crime in the first place, you wouldn't see much change in the overall statistics anyway.
So you've disarmed your citizens for... a non existent change or an increase in your crime rate.
That's actually kind of terrifying. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that anybody around me could be packing, but then, that's just me; I have grown up in a country where the worst that people are likely - statistically - to be carrying is a particularly sharp keychain. It might also have to do with my area being relatively modern and wealthy, so there's that too. I personally wouldn't feel the need to carry that much weaponry around, and honestly, I don't think deadly weapons should be allowed in public places....but that's just me.
It's called being a responsible gun owner. Considered my permit is to carry concealed you'd never even have known I was carrying it in the first place.
You're saying that Shurikens and Kusari's aren't deadly weapons that should be treated with caution? And why would you want to carry one of those with you anyway?
This. This is why nobody that actually has weapons gets frustrated and stops taking gun control advocates seriously. Shurikens are deadly weapons? You know who thinks shurkiens are deadly weapons? People that watch too many movies and get them confused with reality. Kusari? Kusari is literally a length of chain. And this has nothing to do with Carrying either. The link that I just posted states that these items are illegal for sale
. It's not you can't carry it. Its 'you can't own it'.
Except no. A Kusari is more complicated than that; it's a double-weighted metal chain designed to strike from a concealed spot. It's not "literally a rock tied to a piece of rope," otherwise conkers would be banned as well. Kusari's are most often solid, heavy metal chains. Not quite the exaggeration you're trying to portray. You seem rather fond of that tactic.
Just going to quote, again, your own governments definition that you even quoted yourself:
kusari (weight attached to a rope, cord or wire)
Your government is defining a kusari as a weight attached to a rope, cord, or wire.
I don't know. Maybe because they're just less violent than you lot. Maybe it's because they keep them as display pieces rather than actual self defence weapons. Maybe it's because - as you noted - handguns are the weapons of choice for murderers and serial killers because of the ease you can hide them, whereas assault and automatic weapons aren't favoured due to their size and obviousness. Maybe it's because they're saving all their ammo in case the Chinese invade. I don't know.
Handguns are the weapons of choice for criminals. Very few serial killers in history have used firearms by comparison. But even you say right here. You don't know.
What DO we know? We know the Swiss own guns at a rate higher than any other european country yet do not have proportionate gun crime, mass shootings, or general crime. So what I do seem to know is that gun ownership in any format does not seem to have a direct correlation to crime rate.
Yes, and once again, you're putting words in my mouth and strawmanning my position. I never once said that owning a gun made you more likely to shoot people. I said that the loose restrictions on firearms makes it easier for those people to get ahold of a gun. Would you mind not accusing me of holding a position or saying something that I don't hold or didn't say, please?
The comment you are responding to specifically has me saying:
"Seriously, though, they have higher gun ownership BUT they have more checks and balances to gun ownership. High gun ownership isn't necessarily the issue...it's just the ease with which loonies can get them, and how easily accessible certain tools are."
What checks and balances? The ones that I already suggested in this same thread regarding national background checks, mental health restrictions, and reasonable waiting periods? I'm not strawmanning anything. Your entire argument seems to be 'we should ban handguns because we did it in the UK and its great'. I have provided you multiple statistics showing where:
Your crime rate didn't go down.
Your own government then banned knives
of almost every flavor.
Your crime rate still didn't go down.
The US, whose gunownership laws have only gotten LESS strict has not had an increase in crime but instead has followed the fairly global trend of a slow decline since the 90s.
So what is your argument, exactly?