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.
All I stated is that in that specific circumstance, you're exaggerating how difficult it is, since - as I pointed out - it's possible to get a Collectors Licence that lets you have that sort of thing. It's just illegal for you to go out and buy one from the corner shop without any kind of checks. I'm not arguing that it's a sensible law - I think on this matter, people are going a bit too far - I'm just saying that it isn't quite as bad as you're trying to make out, and that even if it was, the same thing isn't going to happen in America because of the differences in cultures (for example, as Badger helpfully pointed out, England has a precedent of restricting access to weaponry). And yes, there are advocates of banning kitchen knives, but to the best of my knowledge, they're not about to do that (maybe ban people from taking them into the street, but not ban them outright). The point of my objection to your example was that it IS a Slippery Slope Fallacy because you're saying "It WILL lead to this, so we can't do this other thing," when there's no evidence and - given the cultural differences that are present - no logical way that the American government could even TRY to start banning knives without a general revolt from its people.
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.
No it doesn't, for the simple reason I outlined earlier; before the ban, the minority of crime was committed with firearms anyway, so decreasing that number further wasn't going to have a massive effect on crime anyway, since the majority of crime wasn't committed with firearms.
Plus, you seem to be working under the assumption that the law passed and then suddenly nobody had a firearm. That isn't how it works. In England, a Parliamentary Bill takes a few years to come into effect both legally and practically; new systems had to be set up, regulated and refined and police had to be trained on the new laws. That took a couple of years, and once the system came into full effect and all the kinks were worked out, crime started to decline again (which was increasing largely due to the recession). It's less clear cut, but gun legislation DID have an effect on crime, just not an immediate one.
And let's take a more clear example: Australia.
In 1996, about 50-60 people were killed or injured by a lone gunman at Port Arthur. In 12 days, the government managed to propose and pass a Gun Legislation Act that banned most types of semi-automatic, self loading and pump action firearms. Each weapon required a licence with a 28-day waiting period, and if you owned a gun, you would go on the National Firearm Registration System. Only licensed sellers could sell weapons and there were limits placed on what ammo could be sold to civilians. Owners had to be 18, complete a safety course and have a "genuine reason" for wanting a gun (sport, hunting, professional reasons, etc etc. "Personal Protection" wasn't included as a genuine reason). Licenses lasted 5 years and could be revoked by the police if they found evidence of mental or physical factors that made the person "unsuitable for gun ownership." They also started a national buyback program for newly illegal weapons. 700,000 weapons were bought back (or voluntarily handed in), though to date roughly 260,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation...though out of all the weapons, that's not too
bad a proportion.
Do you want to know what happened?
A study in 2012 by staff from the Australian National University showed that gun homicide rates dropped by 59%, firearm suicide rate dropped by 65% and that there was no
proportional rise in non-firearm Homicide and suicide rates. So yes, the UK wasn't clear cut because gun crime was already in the vast minority so couldn't drop much anyway, but surely the statistics from Australia - who had far more gun crime than the UK - bears out exactly what you're trying to deny; that less guns in a country with a high gun crime rate = less violent homicides (As opposed to non-violent homcides? I dunno).
Then tell me what exactly are you saying?
I'm not going to bother rising to that bait, since it should be obvious that I'm not trying to suggest that knife death is somehow better than gun death. I never said that and now you're trying to make me out in a negative way for....some reason.
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?
Dead bloody wrong. This is why you don't go ahead and put words in somebodies mouth, because you risk assuming too much and looking silly.
I was actually going to say that in terms of close quarters, enclosed spaces, knives are generally more effective than guns. And you scoff, but martial arts - if you're trained to a high level like I am - are also FAR more effective in an enclosed space than a gun, especially if you aren't trained in its use. Even if you aren't trained to a high level, all you need to do is remember some very basic techniques and you'll be fine (unless the attacker is trained in MA's). Or just use the age-old strategy of giving them a hefty kick to the baby-maker.http://offgridsurvival.com/close-quarter-attacks-gun-vs-knife/
A nice example. Not exactly applicable to what we're talking about, but it does illustrate some key things, like just how easy it is to close distance quickly without giving them time to aim and fire.
So you've disarmed your citizens for... a non existent change or an increase in your crime rate.
Actually, the gun laws didn't have an impact on increasing crime; that was down to other factors and since gun crime was low to begin with, it obviously didn't make much of a difference. And you know what? If it didn't decrease the amount of violent crime overall but didn't increase it either, but DID stop another mass shooting from happening for another 14 years, I call that a victory.
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.
And you don't see an issue with the fact that anybody could be carrying a loaded weapon on them at all times? That would worry me.
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?
I dunno, I've seen somebody go to hospital with a shuriken embedded in their shoulder. Ok, they were being a dumbass so kind of deserved it, but the point is that they're still dangerous. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with them being outright banned, however. Banned from being owned by dumbasses who are going to end up stabbing themselves, perhaps, but not outright 100% banned.
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'.
If you get a licence, you can. But you try being hit by a weighted length of chain and tell me it's "just a piece of chain." I've gotten clipped by a length of chain before, and it almost broke my wrist. It fucking hurt. >.>
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.
Except in Australia.
Plus, as I outlined, they have lower crime because they have tighter control and lower crime in general due to them having - generally - a higher standard of living, better average education and decent law enforcement.
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:
I've hit those bullet points already in this post, I think, so I'll just address this:
I'm saying that although I personally think that handguns should at least be more heavily regulated, I'm not advocating taking your handguns away because I know that would never happen and that it would be a lot more difficult in a larger country like America. My "entire argument" is that even though I personally think guns should be extremely heavily regulated, I'm advocating the more realistic "meet half way" thing. You're arguing against things that I'm not saying should happen in America.
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.
You still have the highest gun crime rate in the world, though. Imagine what would happen if less loonies could get ahold of deadly weapons.
So what is your argument, exactly?
I've already explained it to you, but I'll do it again here one more time.
I personally think that firearms should be extremely heavily regulated.
However, I know that UK levels of restriction isn't going to happen, mostly due to it being a logistical and cultural nightmare to do.
Therefore, I advocate tighter gun control along similar lines as Australia (minus, perhaps, the "personal protection" not being a valid reason, since that in and of itself is going to cause a lot of problems with people who think that owning a gun you're not trained to use automatically makes you safer) but not outright gun banning.
Is that clear enough for you?
Personally, if I'm in a place where an attacker's weight and reach matter, I'd much rather they have a gun than a knife. Granted, I'm horridly out of shape and screwed in both cases, but the gun will be more useful as a club in grappling range than a projectile weapon.
True, but then a baseball bat or a heavy object would do the same thing....so why would you need the gun? In enclosed, close-quarters spaces, guns used as actual guns are less effective than a nearby golf club or kitchen knife, for example.
If we're going to talk about all violent crime with firearms, I will keep pointing to the "rate has cut in half in 20 years and continues to go down" success story. There is a problem, but it is getting better. Sure, we can still talk about reducing guns, but the issue is not a crisis, it is an improving situation that we would like to improve more.
Cassandra has already addressed this below.
If you're going to point at the mass shootings, I'll keep noting "isolated and incredibly rare incidents that are being used by the media to fuel paranoia and panic."
And I'll keep noting that that is false, since you have a mass shooting at least once every couple of months. How in the world is that "incredibly rare" when, even allowing for population size, that is still at least a 6 times higher rate than most other places?
Again, we can still have a discussion but I'm going to balance limiting the rights of 350,000,000 people with the odds of being killed in a mass shooting being about the same as being killed by lightning.
Well, how many people do you know who can hurl lightning bolts? The odds of being hit by lightning is officially about 1 in 700,000 in the USA. Getting shot and killed? 1 in 10,000. So not exactly comparable odds.
An interesting notion. That's not our goal regarding most other things: we're much more likely to die to heart disease or auto accidents, but as safe as possible certainly isn't our legislation with either.
It should be, though. A governments first priority should be protecting its citizens, from other citizens that are breaking the law if need be. It's why we have (ideally) government run Watchdogs and balancing agencies, like the UK has OfCom and various consumer support groups. The NHS, too, is effectively free health care paid for by taxes to protect the citizens right to not die of flu because they couldn't afford private health care.
A fallacy of false dichotomy.
I know...I thought I would illustrate the issue with your one with one of my own.
Sure; but all the evidence seems to indicate that's the least important issue in regards to gun violence and crime generally. After all, you can commit a crime at any moment: every house you walk or drive past is the opportunity to commit burglary. Why don't you?
Because as far as I know, they don't have any cool shit that I want enough to risk going to prison. I agree that people who REALLY want to kill people will find a way, but there are people who commit gun murder in the heat of the moment who regret it afterwards. It's also about limiting their efficacy. As I noted earlier; Australia heavily regulated firearms, and their crime rate dropped since a large proportion of their crime statistics was gun crime, and gun crime dropped sharply with no corresponding increase in - for example - knife crime.
It is a bit. Particularly if you're considering a crime. There's no handy statistic available to demonstrate how many people decided not to do something because they might take a shotgun to the face.
No, unfortunately...but there are statistics that show that "good guy with a gun" doesn't happen all that often. I wouldn't carry a gun because A) I'd be more likely to shoot myself with it somehow, and B) I don't think I have it in me to pull the trigger. I'm just not somebody who enjoys hurting others. I get guilty and a bit nervous when I get into a brawl with somebody and burst their nose open. I can't imagine how bad I would feel if I actually shot
somebody, even if it was to save somebody else. I guess I'm just too much of a "softy" to use firearms.