Man, you need to let me cook for change…but meantime, another Boardside from HMS Gollevainen…

This is the part you do not seem willing to take on board though. The banning of legitimately owned firearms does not, based solely on statistical evidence, diminish the ownership of guns by the criminal element of society. So to use your words another method, other than the banning of guns, is necessary to ‘limit the effects of criminal hazards’.

The next logical step then being if the banning of legally owned firearms serves no value in a crime-reduction context then what is the value of such a move?. In the UK the guns bans have been undertaken over the decades, as HPSauce very eloquently states it, primarily to see the British populace disarmed. The greater proportion of the British public seem to think thats just fine so thats the legacy we leave our children and is a seperate issue to this debate.

The best post on this entire thread has been DJ’s regarding the failure of US background checks that led to this individual gaining access to a firearm. The post Ren logged up about the Dunblane lunatic, ironically, underscores the same issue. That being that in both cases responsible authorities had procedures in place to filter out the wrong sort of people gaining access to a firearm. In both cases the problem was that those procedures were not adhered to strictly enough to prevent two mentally suspect people slip past the vetting.

Simply put, with the FBI and the relevent local Scottish constabulary doing their jobs more thoroughly, those 30 college students are still alive and Dunblane is still just a nice little town somewhere near Perth – with a terrible Hilton hotel. Taking every legal firearm off everyone in the country does not achieve the same ends as either lunatic just goes out and gets an illegal gun.

My logic of banning of all guns bases pretty much to the logical assumption (thougth Sealord has allready questioned the logic in this thread….) that with out any guns, there wouldnt be guns for illigal activities as well. And begun that process you need to criminalize gun owning. There by you take out business of gun manufactures and production of guns, suitable for criminal purposes would end (or drastically decrease) and in long term the ammount of guns will decrease…unless some spaceship deliver them from Mars….or do you have some other way of understanding this?

You cannot point out of the elements of short term consequence as a prov that this wouldnt work, the results are to be enjoyed by the next generation, but in the sake of its safety, we better start to do something now.

If it violates people rigths, who cares… nation that needs rigth to be armed to the teath isent on healthy foundation anyway

How can it be the result of a transitional phase- guns are banned- there is a amnesty in which legal guns are handed in, then the number of illegal handguns increases, a decade after the ban?

Well did everyone bring their weapons to there?
Anyway, to counter my argument, you need to prove yourself that banning of guns is the reason for increasement of weapons in UK. criminals dont buy weapons only to look good in statistics…

I would say that Im free when I can sleep my nigths without fearing that someone would attack me….
And that I can say…change to get shot my armed criminals is as big as getting hit by suicide airplane in here (like I explained the need of backyard SAM battery)
…and all that without civils owning handguns, gee we must be better humans or why is it possiple then??:diablo:

Sorry, but you persist in ignoring the distinction between guns in the hands of the criminal minority, and those owned by normal decent people – you and me and the other 99% of the population. Persecuting the latter – by diminishing their liberty, treating them as irresponsible children – in order to control criminals is, as we say, to throw the baby out with the bath water. As for collecting all the illegal guns off the streets, it isn’t going to happen. There have always been armed criminals and there always will be, and you cannot wave a magic wand to take their guns away, now or in 500 years’ time.

Criminals dissapear along with capitalism and class structure as a main factor of societies horizontal element, but while waiting for that We need to do as best as we can to limit the effects of criminal hazards

It’s a shame to see you joining the ranks of those whose arguments depend on gross exaggeration. Let’s keep a sense of proportion: we’re talking about the individual’s fundamental right, recognised throughout history, to defend himslef or herself if the need arises – with a handgun if that’s considered appropriate by the individual concerned. No government can or should attempt to take away that right.

Huh? You continue to ignore evidence I present. I pointed out that for 87 years in UK, very strict legislation has continually reduced the number of guns in legitimate ownership – while simultaneously, guns have become owned & used by criminals to their highest degree ever! And if you think gun ownership means freedom to kill people, you have a very low opinion of your fellow citizens – the ultimate logic of your position is the imposition of a police state.

My exageration was justified to prove the exact nonsense of thinking that having rigth to carry arms makes some society more free.

Your logic that banning arms would make a state a police state is silly and nonsense. Police state is facism and bootstamping dictature, but criminalizating military weapons in civil usage is a triumph of legistation and jurical state.

How come we have managed to succee as a forerunners of truely free and democratic nation without seeing any need to give people freedom to carry weapons desinged purely to kill other humanbeings?

You can twist and turn it anyway around, but 9mm pistol hasent got any other purpose than to kill other people. If someone wants to shoot targets, there are lot better and accurate weapons for that, and likewise if you want to hunt animals, there are better weapons to do that

So pardon me If I think wery low of people that wants to own military weapons desinged to kill people…I cannot came out any other usage from them. You cannot justify it becouse it is your fundamental rigth, human rigths cannot compromise the most precious one of them, and that is to let live! By your logic, doing everything you please should be every men rigth, and the overal concept of the morale of any rigth system would come pointless circuss…society isent about what rigths you have, but obligations you have to your fellow citizens

You have missed the point. Handguns in the UK have been banned completely yet their numbers are rising. As I said before you have already been proved wrong.

Did I just said in my last post that it is transistional phase, that can be twisted by gunnuts to fit their lust to have the capacity to kill as much as they can…

But then again didn’t you said that you had allready overrule the concepts of logic in this thread so Im gettin feeling that these arguments are repeated quite well time before the mods close this thread….:cool:

Sorry but you are arguing a point that has already been proved false earlier in this thread. Banning hand-guns does not reduce their availability to criminals. The UK proves this as gun crime is actualy rising there.

Clear logic have been proven false in this thread:confused:
Well I could continue that sentence with siligthly provocative remarks, but I just let you imagine those in your head;)

But joking aside. Well naturally the effects of banning small arms doesent come immideatly effect. The point is that to lower the ammount of gun related crimes, you have to lower the ammount of guns, and only way to do that is to ban them completely. Its a long term progress and will take decades before all the illegal guns have been collected away from the streets….

Whose “active political will”? What kind of mandate? Where does my “political will” come into it? What about my liberty to defend myself, family and property in the way I choose, a liberty I do not see as beholden to someone else’s perceived social utility? These seem fairly critical elements of the equation for anyone remotely interested in living in a free society.

well how I survive when I dont have a freedom to set a SAM battery on my back yard against suecide airplanes targeting my house? (a change to get shot by some stranger in here is pretty much same as that). Ultimate back bone of free society is the juricacy and security officals that defends you and make you feels safe. If society is in that state that you need civil vigilance for that, I wouldn’t brag of its exelence…or call it a society…anarkia would be my choice of words

Exactly so. Legislators and police should be seeking to control criminals, and the criminal use of firearms – not arbitrarily passing stupid, oppressive laws that both fail to protect the public, and diminish liberty.

but you have let your country in such deprivation in this field, that only way to rise from it is to ban guns. And if its made of excuse of peoples freedom to kill others or poses equipment solely mented for that….then You can look in the mirror and think is it worth it? Next time, when this sort of tragedy happens, ask yourself was it worth of it….

Just like most politicians, you fail completely to distinguish between firearms held by upright citizens – the huge majority in any society – and those held by criminals. Surely there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the futility of failing to understand this basic distinction. In the UK, before we had any significant gun-control laws, gun ownership was very widespread, and firearms crime was at a very low level: now, after successive Firearms Acts and a massive reduction in the legitimate ownership of guns by ordinary citizens, gun crime is at an all-time high! How can anyone possibly ignore or fail to understand the basic correlations illustrated here?

The UK decission was propaply made in wrong pace. Everyone with even sligth inteligence understands that if you make something illegal, it would end up in the “Dark” area…but this is transitional effect of it. fifty years from now and the situation will be comepletely reverse, as the gunbase have been worn out and new replacements aren’t there. Like I said it is long march, but nesserical to take.

Your suggestions about cutting back firearms manufacture are unrealistic, even naive: there is an enormous quantity of firearms out there in criminal hands, and a good handgun or rifle lasts for decades. If we had some sort of omnipotent, all-seeing World State (which I would hope you don’t want) that could stop all handgun production tomorrow, there’d still be handguns around hundreds of years from now…
The State has them, criminals have them – I damn well want them too…
hps

Well there will be, Im not saying that there is a magick button to press which would make the guns go away, but it isent civils work to hunt down and rebel criminals.
But we have no luxury of beeing so short-sighted that we cannot start changes that would only benefit our grand-childrens

nb When I was in Finland I was delighted to see ammo and handloading components on sale in department stores, in open serve-yourself trays – clearly the Finnish government isn’t as paranoid or easily manipulated by anti-gun neurotics as the UK government.

But did you try to buy them? You cannot purchase any gunparts nor ammunitions without a gunlicence which is quite hard to get (I explained the process earlier). Also to actually purchase a gun, you need special purchasing licence from police to that particular gun. And the only guns availbe are sportsweapons and hunting rifles and shotguns, thats becouse the whole finland is one big forrest and we really need to keep certain animal populations in check so that they wouldn’t poses danger to the traffic. There are no pistols or automatic weapons aviable for people expect semi-automatic assault rifles avialable for reservist, but those are again nesserical to our geo-strategical situation, as we (counter to US) actually have a change to use our army to defend our soil, rather than adventure abroad…

…well that was bit nasty thing to say:diablo:

About that new minehunter, What are its meassures? What has it eaten (by looks it looks like really small seal eating awfully lot of herring:D ) What does it carry?

i still found it odd that people doesent realise how huge effect to the total ammount of hand guns (simply counted by number of barrels) would be if US would impact rationale gun forbiding laws. If there isent civil markets to sell guns, many gun manufacturer will go out of busines and in the long term the number of guns will automatically drop. Does it takes away guns from criminals, Not all, but it will dramatically effect on the suply that feeds the criminals. Gun manufacturing isent garage-level industry and the illegal need wouldnt justify real industry for the guns. So automatically the number of guns in criminal hands would come lower…

And while we all know that world were there isent criminals with guns cannot happen before dramatical leaps in human inteligence, Yet I see no reason yet to raise our hands and say: Hey there still will be guns, so why no let all have them. By active political will the number of handguns can be cut out and the means of criminals to get their hands on them will be more difficoult and the number of people getting killed by so will also drop….

Like I have said in the first topic over this matter, the purpose of criminology and law-enforcement isent to hunt down criminals to the point where there isent none left, but to protect the law-obeying citicens from the negative effect of criminals, which are by all means really important factor in basic elements of any human society and even economical systems.

If there are so simple and clear way to achieve better security, why attack against it by claiming it isent perfect, becouse it doesent take away all guns? Lot less is still lot better than the current situation, isent it?

So how come you and Gollevaian can not explain why the availability of illegal handguns is increasing despite them being illegal.

Clearly facts mean nothing to you and your opinion is based on nothing more than your mis-placed emotions.

Becouse I tought it would be self-explatory. Basic mathematics. More the total ammount of guns (due the unresponsible gunlaws), more guns availble to the illegal markets. It doesen’t require engineer degree to figure that out, does it?

Its funny that you keep raising this “mis-placed emotional” issues. In what superior, simply fact based idea are you basing your own obinions? God given right- mentality based to the cowboy era? At least I’m trying to tie my to common sense. I’m a gunowner, but exactly the opposite to the common american one. I have one sportsrifle which is usability to other use is almoust non-existing. so is the fear of being forced to use it in such a occasion. the only reason why we keep our doors closed is becouse our dog would othervice take spontainious tours around the neighbourhood…;)

Thats all lovely but you have failed to mention illegal firearms, do you seriously think your average drug dealer is going to ask for a licence for his gun?

Illegal firearms quantity is directly relevance to the quantity of legal firearms.

You also raise another important issue, your ignorance at the use of firearms. They hold significant recreational value both sporting and hunting.
Why do game keepers need guns? becouse they keep game, why do they do that? becouse people like to shoot game birds, do they need to? No, they do it becouse they enjoy it.

Hunting rifles and are bit different than highpower pistols and even submachineguns that are common in US civil markets. There is no reasonable use for them in civil markets.