Firearms

[Hemmers]

basically it was at the local police force's discretion (they could deny it if they felt you had "intemperate habits", you had to demonstrate a "good reason" for owning a gun, and were issued a certificate for a particular weapon and a limited amount of amunition. From 1937, self defence was removed from the list of "good reasons" to own a gun. We've also had various laws that make using a gun in the process of committing a crime a much more serious offence than the same crime without a gun since the 1930s.

It's a little more rigid than purely at their discretion. You have to show good reason for wanting a firearm, but as long as you that reason, and can provide adequate references and have no mental illnesses, etc, then the burden of proof moves to the Police to show you are an unfit person.
Shotguns are different again (Firearms - i.e. rifles and pistols - are on Firearms Certificates(FAC), Shotguns are on Shotgun Certificates (SGC), and each is subtly different), as it is your right to own one - you do not need to demonstrate "good reason". Burden of proof lies with the Police to demonstrate that you have a conviction/illness/some other mitigating factor to show you are an unfit person.
Where the Police are over-cautious, they have been successfully challenged in court.

Britain has had (by US standards) pretty heavy firearm restrictions since the 1920s - basically it was at the local police force's discretion (they could deny it if they felt you had "intemperate habits", you had to demonstrate a "good reason" for owning a gun, and were issued a certificate for a particular weapon and a limited amount of amunition.

We have similar policies in some locations in the US. But from both the UK laws themselves, as well as UK collectors on usenet, before 1997 anyone who really wanted a working gun could get one. If you didn't need it to be a pistol, rifles or shotguns were easier to get. After 1997, there just wasn't a legal way to do it no matter how many forms you filled out.

Eh? Rifles and Shotguns were never easier to get than Pistols. Shotguns are arguably the easiest as there is no need for good reason and you only need one counter-signatory for an SGC, not the two references required for an FAC. Rifles and Pistols were treated equally. Both were valid sporting firearms for target shooting. It was no harder nor easier to own one or the other.
Since 1997, Pistols have been section 5 (i.e. effectively prohibited for the general public).
You can still own rifles and shotguns in the UK.

Anyone who "really wants one" can still get one off the black market, but they are less likely to for of a mixture of reasons. Similarly, even though it was possible to get a gun before, some people would be less likely to, for a mixture of reasons. When phrased like that, i.e. a way that ignores the distinction between "legal" and "illegal" in favor of directly talking about people's actions, before and after can be compared more apples to apples.

It's still possible to get a gun after the "ban".
Sorry, there seems to be confusion here, or else people are just using "gun" and "pistol" interchangeably (which is confusing - stop it! ).

Technically there is no ban. In 1997, short firearms (pistols) were moved to Section 5. This means they are not banned, but unlike Firearms ("Section 1") and Shotguns ("Section 2"), the relevant licence cannot be granted by local police. It must come direct from the Home Secretary, with the result that they are nigh on impossible to get (the "Sections" refer to Sections of the Firearms Act 1968, and deal with different types of firearm and how they are licensed).

They're not banned, just very closely licensed - i.e. target shooting is not adequate.
A few professional game-keepers have Section 5 permits for cases where they need to deal with an injured deer for instance in tight woodland and a rifle would be impractical. Vets can also apply for similar reasons (also if a deer has been hit and is on the road and needs humanely dispatching - a pistol is far safer than a large calibre rifle, the shot from which may go through the deer, strike the road surface and come back, which is no fun for anyone).
A few movie armourers also have S5. permits to allow them to do their job, and a few dealers have the relevant licence so they can supply these few permit holders and import/export relevant firearms for them.
Also, in the last couple of years, they gave British Shooting a couple of permits for selected Pistol Shooters to train in the UK instead of having to go to Switzerland (which is where they've trained since 1997) in the run up to the 2012 Olympics.

There is a hope that with a more shooting friendly party now in power, they can extend those permits to last for the 2014 Commonwealths (Glasgow), and maybe open them up a bit more, with a view to eventually getting the ban repealed as it is demonstrated that sporting shooters do not pose a significant risk to the public safety.
Indeed, there was talk from the Tories that they thought it was a bad law and wanted to overturn it early in their term of office so any adverse publicity would blow over by the next election. Unfortunately with the tragic events in Cumbria, any reversal or perceived softening of firearms laws was totally out of the question.


Rifles, airguns and shotguns are unaffected from the 1997 legislation. People can carry on as normal - and do so in surprisingly high numbers (their activities just never get any press coverage).

[PhatPhungus]

I find this relevant:

Firearms are difficult, but not impossible to legally purchase in Mexico.[52] Drug cartels smuggle some through the U.S. or Guatemalan borders, or by sea, or steal some from the police or military.[53] Consequently, black market firearms are widely available. Many firearms are acquired in the U.S. by women with no criminal history, who transfer their purchases to smugglers through relatives, boyfriends and acquaintances and then smuggled to Mexico a few at a time.[54] The most common smuggled firearms include AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles, FN 5.7 caliber semi-automatic pistols and a variety of .50 caliber rifles and machine guns.[55] While the Ak-47 and AR-15 firearms were likely purchased in the United States in a semiautomatic configuration before being seized in Mexico, many of them were converted to fire as select fire machine-guns.[56] Mexico seized in 2009 a combined total of more than 4,400 firearms of the AK-47 and AR-15 type, and 30% of AK-47 type rifles seized have been modified to select fire weapons, effectively creating assault rifles.[57]

Also, there are multiple reports of grenade launchers being used against security forces,[58] and at least twelve M4 Carbines with M203 grenade launchers have been confiscated.[59] It was believed that some of these high powered weapons and related accessories may have been stolen from U.S. military bases.[60][61] However, most U.S. military grade weapons such as grenades and light anti-tank rockets are acquired by the cartels through the huge supply of arms left over from the wars in Central America and Asia. It has been reported that there have been 150,000 desertions from the Mexican army during 2003 to 2009. Stated another way, about one-eighth of the Mexican army deserts annually.[62] Many of these deserters take their government-issued automatic rifles, some of U.S. origins, with them.[63]
[edit] Gun origins

The U.S. government, primarily through ATF, ICE and Customs and Border Protection is assisting Mexico with technology, equipment and training.[64] Project Gunrunner is part of ATF’s effort to collaborate with the Mexican authorities and its "cornerstone" has been the expansion of eTrace, a computerized system to facilitate tracing guns which were manufactured in or imported legally to the U.S.A.[65]

Since 1992 (and as recently as 2009), the Congressional Research Service has stated that the ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms and it was not designed to collect statistics.[66][67] Nevertheless, on February 2008, William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field Operations of ATF testified before Congress that over 90% of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.[68] However, following a review by the U.S. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on September 2010, the ATF admitted that “the 90% figure cited to Congress could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced.”[65] During this 2010 review by the OIG, the ATF could not provide updated information on the percentage of traced Mexican crime guns that were sourced to (that is, found to be manufactured in or imported through) the United States, [65] and the November 2010 OIG analysis of ATF data suggest a much lower percentage, ranging from 27% to 44%. [69] The OIG analysis of ATF data concluded that ATF’s attempts to expand gun tracing in Mexico have been unsuccessful. [70] While the United States is not the only source of firearms and munitions used by the cartels, it has been established that a significant percentage of their firearms originate from gun stores and other sources in the U.S.[71] It is also well-established that firearms traffickers often use the same routes as drug traffickers, and increasingly, the ATF finds that Mexican cartels transport firearms and munitions into Mexico from Guatemala, situated on Mexico’s southern border.[71]

tl;dr, 27-44% of weapons used by drug cartels are smuggled from the United States, where (as the article goes on to say) they are often bought through straw man purchases, or from gun shows, or from private owners. Among these are .50 caliber rifles and machine guns, and semiautomatic AKs that are converted to automatics (as I understand it this is a pretty simple process).

~30,000 people have died in Mexico because of drug violence in the last 3 years. From a utilitarian perspective, I do not see whatever happiness or security legally owning a .50 cal or AK has outweighing how many people have died from guns smuggled to Mexico. While I realize that they can find guns on the black market, if they weren't legal in the US, it would make things a lot harder.

[EdgarJPublius]

You're making the classic error of conflating cause and effect. Drug Cartels use illegal guns to violently enforce their illegitimate monopoly. So the solution is... to make guns more illegal? How about we try to solve this violent and illegitimate monopoly problem first and see how that goes?

[Thesh]

Also, your post seems to suggest that all those "~30,000" (28,000) deaths were due to firearms by the cartels. How many of them were killed with explosives, how many were killed with government issued weapons, how many were killed with the .50 caliber rifles that people seem so concerned about, how many were killed with semi-auto guns converted to full auto, how many of them were killed with guns that were legally purchased in the US, and if they didn't get guns from the US would that stop ANY of the violence?

[HungryHobo]

Also, your post seems to suggest that all those "~30,000" (28,000) deaths were due to firearms by the cartels. How many of them were killed with explosives, how many were killed with government issued weapons, how many were killed with the .50 caliber rifles that people seem so concerned about, how many were killed with semi-auto guns converted to full auto, how many of them were killed with guns that were legally purchased in the US, and if they didn't get guns from the US would that stop ANY of the violence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UGC2nLnaes
Being a gang member can slightly more dangerous per year than sitting on death row and pays worse than a job at mcdonalds yet people still do it, the threat of getting a few years in jail for having an illegal gun isn't going to put them off much.

But the guns are visible, the guns are sexy, the guns are loud and showy.
Thus rather than try to solve the actual problems people focus on the guns.
Criminal sanctions aren't going to do much especially given that even a significant chance of death doesn't put off gang members.

I don't have a gun, I don't want a gun and I don't even like them but I still find it crazy how people think more laws against them will help.

I didn't always hold such a view until I started thinking about it in terms of "hacking tools" after seeing exactly the same arguments made about packet sniffers, port scanners and various other "hacking tools", many of which I myself use for perfectly legitimate things and asked myself "if you made it illegal to own or distribute nmap would the hackers and crackers stop using it? or would it just lead to people like me getting in trouble for possessing it or using it on my own systems? "

And people don't die "from guns" they die because someone decided to use a weapon to kill them, if it's not a gun then it would be a knife or poison or a bomb or any one of a thousand other things and even then it's probably just going to continue to be a gun since even if made illegal they're still going to be available on the black market.

[Glass Fractal]

And people don't die "from guns" they die because someone decided to use a weapon to kill them, if it's not a gun then it would be a knife or poison or a bomb or any one of a thousand other things and even then it's probably just going to continue to be a gun since even if made illegal they're still going to be available on the black market.

That's not a very good argument. Guns killing much easier so a person who already has a gun is more likely to turn passion into lethal force. In the time it would take to poison someone or buy a rideable lawnmower and chase their enemy down the street most people will cool off. Methodical killings are only portion of gun crime, it's a red herring to say that banning guns won't stop them.

[Izawwlgood]

Yeah, because people never stab someone, or poison someone, or push someone, in a fit of passion.

[Glass Fractal]

Yeah, because people never stab someone, or poison someone, or push someone, in a fit of passion.

How exactly do you poison someone in a fit of passion? That seems like something that would require a great deal of time unless you have some button that can instantly poison anyone in the world. Pushing someone is largely irrelevant to the notion of increased chance of killing someone in a passion.

[Izawwlgood]

I'm sure somewhere out there, someone regrets doping their spouses coffee with roach killer, but sometimes, they'll just push you to the edge and afterall, the bottle was right there.

Pushing someone is entirely relevant; yes, we understand that guns make it easier to kill someone, but so does a baseball bat, or a butcher knife. If you're going to say "guns let crimes of passion become deadly" you're going to have to prove that crimes of passion more survivable if guns aren't involved. Getting stabbed in the throat is just as deadly as getting shot in the throat.

[EdgarJPublius]

And people don't die "from guns" they die because someone decided to use a weapon to kill them, if it's not a gun then it would be a knife or poison or a bomb or any one of a thousand other things and even then it's probably just going to continue to be a gun since even if made illegal they're still going to be available on the black market.

That's not a very good argument. Guns killing much easier so a person who already has a gun is more likely to turn passion into lethal force.

This argument was already refuted just last page.

[Glass Fractal]

I'm sure somewhere out there, someone regrets doping their spouses coffee with roach killer, but sometimes, they'll just push you to the edge and afterall, the bottle was right there.

Pushing someone is entirely relevant; yes, we understand that guns make it easier to kill someone, but so does a baseball bat, or a butcher knife. If you're going to say "guns let crimes of passion become deadly" you're going to have to prove that crimes of passion more survivable if guns aren't involved. Getting stabbed in the throat is just as deadly as getting shot in the throat.

Really? I like to see anything backing up the assertion that a baseball bat and a knife are as dangerous as gun when used with intent to kill. I, at least, would have quite a bit of difficulty beating a resisting person to death with a baseball bat or stabbing that person in the throat, but shooting them a few times from short range is (in relative terms) pretty easy. Just imagine you wanted to kill someone and had to pick between a knife and a 9mm pistol, are you saying you'd flip a coin because there's no real difference?


edit: You know what, I take that back. I decided a simple metric of effectiveness would be the percentage of murders that happened using firearms, if guns were particularly effective then it should stay at a similar level even when guns are restricted (ie people that want to kill would seek them out). Looking at these two sets of data http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders it seems the percentage of murders that occur with guns scales with availability instead, which supports the thesis that having fewer guns mainly serves to reduce your odds of being killed with a gun in particular.

[EdgarJPublius]

We just had almost a full page of argument on the relative effectiveness of guns vs. other weapons, I personally compared the number of people killed in school attacks using guns versus knives and found that the average fatalities per attack were very similar (knives were actually .2 fatalities more deadly per attack)

[Izawwlgood]

which supports the thesis that having fewer guns mainly serves to reduce your odds of being killed with a gun in particular.

Except, again, you miss the point that your comparing murders by availability of item1, which may or may not be at saturation, and murders by availability of item2, which is most certainly at saturation. If you somehow limit the availability of knives or baseball bats, I bet you'd see a similar correlation to murders by them:their availability.

And furthermore, more guns != more gun violence, as seen by Texas and Canada.

[morriswalters]

I think this table says it all.

As I have posted before I am no longer interested in banning or restricting handguns or Nukes for that matter. However guns will kill, easily. They are used that way every day. A loaded gun with the safety off can be used by anyone who can pull the trigger. Guns are designed to kill, it is their only purpose.(Sports shooters are just practicing the art of killing.) This doesn't make them evil but they are what they are. This chart was generated at the CDC website from a search which I had linked to previously.

[Thesh]

Sports shooters are just practicing the art of killing.

As a sports shooter, I call bullshit. The ignorance and irrationality that surrounds political issues is appalling.

[PhatPhungus]

I wasn't trying to say that 30000 people died because guns are legal in the United States, what I was saying was that legal guns from the US make it a lot easier for drug cartels (who, along with all the other actors in the Mexican drug war, have killed 30000 people) to kill people. Certainly, it would be a lot harder to fight drug cartels if they had access to military grade explosives, vehicles, planes, etc., that's why these things are illegal. Drug cartels make their own explosives, but they're not nearly as good as the ones that they could buy if we legalized all weapons.

If nukes were legal, some rich dude could blow away a city because he was fucking crazy. Any extremist government or group could buy one. While having a nuke could be interesting for the purposes of science, that doesn't make it a good idea to let people have them.

We just had almost a full page of argument on the relative effectiveness of guns vs. other weapons, I personally compared the number of people killed in school attacks using guns versus knives and found that the average fatalities per attack were very similar (knives were actually .2 fatalities more deadly per attack)

Which we then agreed was a bad statistic because a lot of the killings were not spree killings, and a lot of them happened before advances in weapons technology.

Yeah, because people never stab someone, or poison someone, or push someone, in a fit of passion.

Drug Cartels don't kill people in fits of passion. You really think that organized crime would survive for long trying to fight the police or the military with knifes, fists, or poison? Organized crime has more access to the black market, but if they don't have to go through the black market, that just makes things easier on them.

Being a gang member can slightly more dangerous per year than sitting on death row and pays worse than a job at mcdonalds yet people still do it, the threat of getting a few years in jail for having an illegal gun isn't going to put them off much.

Yes, but you can get someone for a gun crime and put them in jail where they can't kill anyone. Also, if guns are illegal, then they can't walk down to their local walmart and buy one.


I feel like people are trying to argue that there is absolutely no benefit to weapons control of any kind, which I don't see as a defensible position: stray bullets from drive bys kill lots of people, and if you're firing an automatic weapon, that's a lot more stray bullets. If I point a gun and shoot into a crowd, more bullets and/or more dangerous bullets is more people hurt or killed. If someone blows something up with C-4 he bought, he's going to blow a lot more shit up than whatever he can put together in his garage. If a drug cartel can buy a tank, that's going to make it a lot harder for the government to fight them.

Organized crime depends on weapons supplies, if they're legal, they're a lot easier to get.

If spree killers can get their hands on better weapons, they will, and they'll kill more people because of it.

This argument should be framed in the context of a cost benefit analysis for the legal status of individual types of weapons. I think most people will agree that bazookas and C-4 shouldn't be legal because their legalization would cost society more in death and destabilization than it would grant society in personal liberty and personal interest. I don't think that automatic weapons make that cutoff either. I would like to see either an argument against this position that recognizes that some weapons are better left illegal, and explains why automatic weapons aren't one of those weapons, or an argument for why nukes, C-4, and bazookas should be legal.

[Izawwlgood]

Drug Cartels don't kill people in fits of passion. You really think that organized crime would survive for long trying to fight the police or the military with knifes, fists, or poison? Organized crime has more access to the black market, but if they don't have to go through the black market, that just makes things easier on them.

If your argument is that making guns illegal will mean that Drug Cartels won't have guns, I'd really like to call bullshit. The more illegal a gun is, the more value there is for people to move it around illegally. Drug cartels don't survive because they are well armed, they survive because people buy lots of drugs.

[morriswalters]

Sports shooters are just practicing the art of killing.

As a sports shooter, I call bullshit. The ignorance and irrationality that surrounds political issues is appalling.

Call it what you will. I don't say it's evil, I simply say what it is. There are any number of sports based on killing and mayhem. That doesn't make them bad but don't try to dismiss what it is. Gun were developed to kill with. Competitions are simply way to show your skill without having to kill.

The stats speak for themselves. They are either true or they are not. But if they are true they indicate that the favored way to kill either yourself or someone else is with a gun.

edited for spelling

[EdgarJPublius]

However guns will kill, easily. They are used that way every day. A loaded gun with the safety off can be used by anyone who can pull the trigger.

Not unless the gun is also in good repair, charged and cocked, and even then, guns with other forms of safety mechanism may not fire unless specific other conditions are met, many handguns for example have grip safeties that require the handgun to be held in a particular way before it can be fired, others may have trigger safeties or disconnects that also add steps and particular requirements to readying the gun for firing.

And of course, unlike in movies and video games, firing a gun does not equal hitting anything, let alone hitting anything vital on a moving target.

We just had almost a full page of argument on the relative effectiveness of guns vs. other weapons, I personally compared the number of people killed in school attacks using guns versus knives and found that the average fatalities per attack were very similar (knives were actually .2 fatalities more deadly per attack)

Which we then agreed was a bad statistic because a lot of the killings were not spree killings, and a lot of them happened before advances in weapons technology.

I don't recall that agreement ever occurring and in fact, I calculated the percentage of knife and gun killings that had more than five fatalities specifically to counter the first argument. The second is countered in the data itself, the first high-casualty shooting occurred in 1764.

Yeah, because people never stab someone, or poison someone, or push someone, in a fit of passion.

Drug Cartels don't kill people in fits of passion. You really think that organized crime would survive for long trying to fight the police or the military with knifes, fists, or poison? Organized crime has more access to the black market, but if they don't have to go through the black market, that just makes things easier on them.

So, you plan to fight organized crime by prohibiting something?

Now, I dunno anything about history or anything, but that seems like an entirely reasonable plan.

Sports shooters are just practicing the art of killing.

As a sports shooter, I call bullshit. The ignorance and irrationality that surrounds political issues is appalling.

Call it what you will. I don't say it's evil, I simply say what it is. There are any number of sports based on killing and mayhem. That doesn't make them bad but don't try to dismiss what it is. Gun where developed to kill with. Competitions are simply way to show your skill without having to kill.

The stats speak for themselves. They are either true or they are not. But if they are true they indicate that the favored way to kill either yourself or someone else is with a gun.

Much of the technology we take for granted today has come in one way or another out of war or violence, and as you say, many if not most sports are in some way descended from warfare or other martial practices. Essentially, the comparison in meaningless, sport shooting may be descended from practice for killing, but it is no more connected with that now than marching bands are connected to military battlefield formations.

[Shivahn]

Sports shooters are just practicing the art of killing.

As a sports shooter, I call bullshit. The ignorance and irrationality that surrounds political issues is appalling.

Call it what you will. I don't say it's evil, I simply say what it is. There are any number of sports based on killing and mayhem. That doesn't make them bad but don't try to dismiss what it is. Gun were developed to kill with. Competitions are simply way to show your skill without having to kill.

The stats speak for themselves. They are either true or they are not. But if they are true they indicate that the favored way to kill either yourself or someone else is with a gun.

edited for spelling

Your entire post is a naturalistic fallacy. Computers can have their lineage traced to ENIAC, designed to shell the Germans, but I'm not telling you that you shouldn't dismiss the fact that you're typing on a machine designed to aid in mass killing.

The naturalistic fallacy, especially when used to subtly vilify your argumentative opponents, is not conducive to good conversation.

[EdgarJPublius]

The stats aren't really material either. That guns are responsible for a majority of violent deaths in a particular country indicates nothing with regards to whether or not guns are themselves particularly more dangerous or criminogenic than alternatives.

[morriswalters]

Not unless the gun is also in good repair, charged and cocked, and even then, guns with other forms of safety mechanism may not fire unless specific other conditions are met, many handguns for example have grip safeties that require the handgun to be held in a particular way before it can be fired, others may have trigger safeties or disconnects that also add steps and particular requirements to readying the gun for firing.

And of course, unlike in movies and video games, firing a gun does not equal hitting anything, let alone hitting anything vital on a moving target.

I should let this go but.....see this.

Your entire post is a naturalistic fallacy. Computers can have their lineage traced to ENIAC, designed to shell the Germans, but I'm not telling you that you shouldn't dismiss the fact that you're typing on a machine designed to aid in mass killing.

The naturalistic fallacy, especially when used to subtly vilify your argumentative opponents, is not conducive to good conversation.

I don't think that my post fits the definition of a naturalistic fallacy. I don't comment on the ethics of shooting, I simply state that guns were developed to kill. They were. The fact that sports shooting is a hobby today changes that not one wit. By the way, computers trace their linage to well before ENIAC.

The stats aren't really material either. That guns are responsible for a majority of violent deaths in a particular country indicates nothing with regards to whether or not guns are themselves particularly more dangerous or criminogenic than alternatives.

What? The first is, well I not sure what to say to it, the second is irrelevant since I don't claim it.

[EdgarJPublius]

Not unless the gun is also in good repair, charged and cocked, and even then, guns with other forms of safety mechanism may not fire unless specific other conditions are met, many handguns for example have grip safeties that require the handgun to be held in a particular way before it can be fired, others may have trigger safeties or disconnects that also add steps and particular requirements to readying the gun for firing.

And of course, unlike in movies and video games, firing a gun does not equal hitting anything, let alone hitting anything vital on a moving target.

I should let this go but.....see this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The stats aren't really material either. That guns are responsible for a majority of violent deaths in a particular country indicates nothing with regards to whether or not guns are themselves particularly more dangerous or criminogenic than alternatives.

What? The first is, well I not sure what to say to it, the second is irrelevant since I don't claim it.

I'm not sure how the claim that guns are a significant contributor to crime is substantially different from claiming that... guns are a significant contributor to crime...

Your entire post is a naturalistic fallacy. Computers can have their lineage traced to ENIAC, designed to shell the Germans, but I'm not telling you that you shouldn't dismiss the fact that you're typing on a machine designed to aid in mass killing.

The naturalistic fallacy, especially when used to subtly vilify your argumentative opponents, is not conducive to good conversation.

I don't think that my post fits the definition of a naturalistic fallacy. I don't comment on the ethics of shooting, I simply state that guns were developed to kill. They were. The fact that sports shooting is a hobby today changes that not one wit. By the way, computers trace their linage to well before ENIAC.

If anything, it's a red herring, since claiming that guns were originally intended to kill and shooting sports are descended from practice for killing has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate.

[Thesh]

I should let this go but.....see this.

It's probably his very first time pulling the trigger; personally, I would have him sitting down. You can't expect him to have proper stance and aiming... Wait, what was your problem/point with that?

[Shivahn]

Your entire post is a naturalistic fallacy. Computers can have their lineage traced to ENIAC, designed to shell the Germans, but I'm not telling you that you shouldn't dismiss the fact that you're typing on a machine designed to aid in mass killing.

The naturalistic fallacy, especially when used to subtly vilify your argumentative opponents, is not conducive to good conversation.

I don't think that my post fits the definition of a naturalistic fallacy. I don't comment on the ethics of shooting, I simply state that guns were developed to kill. They were. The fact that sports shooting is a hobby today changes that not one wit. By the way, computers trace their linage to well before ENIAC.

Modern computers still trace their lineage through ENIAC. Which was designed for killing.

If anything, it's a red herring, since claiming that guns were originally intended to kill and shooting sports are descended from practice for killing has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate.

It can be both. It's a red herring because it has nothing to do with the debate, but it's also a... oops, I wrote naturalistic fallacy, my bad. I meant genetic fallacy - the fact that guns were initially designed to kill has nothing to do with what we use them for or really anything about them today other than being an interesting footnote in their history.

[morriswalters]

The point was that having a four year old fire an AK47 once it's ready proves it's not all that hard to shoot. Period.

Okay no red herrings. Guns are deadlier than other weapons of similar size or weight. Practically speaking the energy involved is more focused then other weapons. The speed and the kinetic energy of the round makes penetration certain unless blocked by barriers designed to absorb the impact. As a tool they can be classified as a force multiplier or a lever if you will. A knife or bludgeon are also levers. A knife depends on the strength of the user to supply the force while the sharp point or edge act as the lever making the blade more dangerous than the human hand or a bludgeon. The bludgeon uses the human hand to supply force while the weight of the bludgeon acts as the lever. A gun uses the energy contained in the cartridge(or whatever gun type you might want) as the lever.

Cutting weapons require close contact. You kill by stabbing or hacking or slicing. Blades can be deflected by bones, heavy clothing, or any other thick dense material. Without a knife sufficiently long to reach a critical area it is hard to deal a fatal blow.

Bludgeons are worse. They're slow and require upper body strength to work well. A shot to the head will do the job if your strong enough, else wise your going to get wore out beating someone to death.

Now a gun. We will settle our argument this way. I will give you your choice of any knife or bludgeon weapon. We will start 20 foot apart. I will use a 6 shot double action revolver. We will both ready our weapons. Now go. Last man standing wins.

If you wish a slightly less dramatic example get a 3 gallon milk jugs and take them to the range full of water. Hit one with a baseball bat stab one with a knife and shoot one.

As a practical matter banning handguns is pointless. there are too many in circulation and there would be no way to cut off the supply from out of the country. So people who want guns will have them. However I don't worry about a criminal owning a gun since he is not the one I fear. I fear my coworkers, my significant other, my friends, some drunk in a bar, or some disaffected student. Because these are my most likely assailants. I entered this conversation because I think it is important for people to remember what guns are for. Now I'll butt out.

[Thesh]

The point was that having a four year old fire an AK47 once it's ready proves it's not all that hard to shoot. Period.

First of all, he's a lot older than four and he was assisted by his dad; if you gave him an AK47, a box of ammo and an empty magazine with no instruction it would be a lot different (AK-47's are not intuitive to load). Second, you did see where the bullets were hitting, right? I mean, the target was out of the view of the camera, but the bullets were hitting the ground in view of the camera. Now consider that a rifle is also a lot easier to shoot semi-accurately than a handgun.

The point is that the kid would have a much easier time killing someone with a knife than he would with that gun.

[morriswalters]

My pardon I believe he was ten.

[Thesh]

Even if it was an adult, first time shooter at 20 feet, I would be reasonably confident that they wouldn't be able to hit me. I start most people off at 7 yards, and even with some basic training (mainly proper grip and aiming) they have trouble hitting a six inch target. If they don't have a proper grip, and if they are using a double action revolver without cocking it, forget about it. Usually they miss to the right if they try to aim (if they are right handed), but often they just hit the floor.

[morriswalters]

Average baseball bat 36 inches, average sword 36 inches, six tries to hit you as you come.

[JLauer]

So I've got my choice of any edged weapon, right? At twenty feet. Unless you've a lot of experience with handguns I'd probably have a better chance then you. Ever heard of the 21 foot rule? Essentially, in the time it takes to ready a firearm and fire an attacker can close roughly 21 feet.
This is why I personally believe everyone should have shot a gun by the time they reach adulthood, so their entire experience with the subject isn't from video games, movies, or people on the internet.

[Thesh]

With a poor grip and stance, you'll have a hard time putting the gun back on target in the time to close that distance. Limp wrist many modern semi-automatics, and you are going to have to clear the spent cartridge.

Most murder victims know their attackers, and a large number of them are even related to their attackers, this generally means you can get pretty close. I doubt many murders take place from more than a few feet away. Below are statistics on police shootings. From the NYPD data on page 7, 69% took place at 0-2 yards and at those distances there was a 38% hit ratio. Can't find distance data on civilian homicides.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

[EdgarJPublius]

The point was that having a four year old fire an AK47 once it's ready proves it's not all that hard to shoot. Period.

Yes, when the rifle is ready to fire, all you have to do is pull the trigger and a bullet comes out, part of my point was that getting the weapon ready to fire is not as simple as loading it and making sure the safety is off, and in fact, none of the preparation is shown. Another part of my point was that even after the rifle is ready to fire, pulling the trigger is far from a guarantee that you will hit anything, even if the barrel is pointed in vaguely the right direction. In the clip we even see this as none of the bullets strike anything even in vaguely the right direction as the target, even though the rifle appeared to be pointed towards a target.
If anything, this clip illustrates my points much better than yours.

Guns are deadlier than other weapons of similar size or weight. Practically speaking the energy involved is more focused then other weapons. The speed and the kinetic energy of the round makes penetration certain unless blocked by barriers designed to absorb the impact.

Actually, in terms of energy delivered, a bullet and a swinging weapon are very comparable, if they weren't, the third law of motion tells us that recoil would be unmanageable, and the point or cutting edge of a knife is actually much smaller than the point of a bullet and much more efficient at penetrating. In fact, most bullets intended for use against live targets are designed to expand upon impact to more efficiently deliver the force over a larger area, rather than to actually penetrate. Bullets that don't expand on impact are generally much less dangerous than a knife or bludgeon because they actually effect a much smaller area.

Cutting weapons require close contact. You kill by stabbing or hacking or slicing. Blades can be deflected by bones, heavy clothing, or any other thick dense material. Without a knife sufficiently long to reach a critical area it is hard to deal a fatal blow.

It's actually pretty hard to 'deflect' a knife with heavy clothing, at best, heavy clothing may 'catch' or tangle a knife preventing a second attack, but if the first struck true...
Even in the best case scenario, this isn't very useful, a knife can cut through heavy clothing.

Bullets can also be deflected by bone.
Actually, it's much easier to kill someone with a small knife than with a small bullet.
A knife slash is a pretty dangerous wound, effecting a relatively large portion of the body and letting out copious amounts of blood, even if it doesn't hit an artery or anything vital, a gash from a blade can easily sever enough blood vessels to be very dangerous from blood loss and creating a wound that takes much longer to heal than a simple puncture from even a medium sized non-expanding bullet. Even a stab opens a much larger wound channel than most bullets, and most of your vital organs are within a few inches of the outer layer of skin, so even a small knife can easily reach them

Now a gun. We will settle our argument this way. I will give you your choice of any knife or bludgeon weapon. We will start 20 foot apart. I will use a 6 shot double action revolver. We will both ready our weapons. Now go. Last man standing wins.

I'll be generous, you can have twenty one feet. ninety three times out of a hundred, the knife wins at that distance even against trained police officers, someone who hasn't ever shot a gun before wouldn't even be able to hit a man sized target at that range, let alone a moving target.

I fear my coworkers, my significant other, my friends, some drunk in a bar, or some disaffected student. Because these are my most likely assailants. I entered this conversation because I think it is important for people to remember what guns are for. Now I'll butt out.

I don't think that's statistically true, people with legitimately obtained firearms and no violent criminal background are very unlikely to shoot someone for any reason.

Average baseball bat 36 inches, average sword 36 inches, six tries to hit you as you come.

More like two tries at best, assuming you are actually trained in self defense with a firearm and practice regularly.

[morriswalters]

I don't think that's statistically true, people with legitimately obtained firearms and no violent criminal background are very unlikely to shoot someone for any reason.

See this. In terms of using an AK47, it's not all that hard if you have the manual. In terms of loading and getting a semi automatic ready to fire try this. To the best of my knowledge most "rampage shootings" did not involve people with criminal histories.

While the overall force of a bat and a bullet may be equivalent the area of contact is not.

[Thesh]

Rampage shootings are uncommon, and considering the number of gun owners in this country I would say that "very unlikely" is an accurate statement.

[EdgarJPublius]

I don't think that's statistically true, people with legitimately obtained firearms and no violent criminal background are very unlikely to shoot someone for any reason.

See this. In terms of using an AK47, it's not all that hard if you have the manual. In terms of loading and getting a semi automatic ready to fire try this. To the best of my knowledge most "rampage shootings" did not involve people with criminal histories.

While the overall force of a bat and a bullet may be equivalent the area of contact is not.

Which is why there are expanding bullets to increase the area of contact and do more damage.

Also, I suppose you could read the manual and get on wiki-how or whatever to learn how to use your firearm, but that is substantially different from just being able to load and take the safety off to fire. It also doesn't do anything about your ability to actually hit anything once the gun is ready to fire.

[morriswalters]

This has been fun. About the 21 foot rule,

Determining a sufficient reactionary gap for a police officer to successfully defend against a knife attack is crucial to police officer survival. Recognizing the success of the police officer depends on his or her distance from the attacker and reaction time, a test was conducted to determine if the 21-foot rule provided an adequate reactionary gap to draw a firearm, fire,

What I wrote,

Now a gun. We will settle our argument this way. I will give you your choice of any knife or bludgeon weapon. We will start 20 foot apart. I will use a 6 shot double action revolver. We will both ready our weapons. Now go. Last man standing wins.

And why would you assume that someone who might have a gun available wouldn't know how to use it?

[Thesh]

And why would you assume that someone who might have a gun available wouldn't know how to use it?

That was in response to you saying that anyone could just pick up a gun and shoot it.

Also, look at the data I posted. Even trained officers at distances of up to or less than 6 feet miss 2/3 times on average.

[HungryHobo]

We're back to the image of guns here, in movies they never miss from 20 feet away unless it's the villians faceless inept guards doing the shooting thus people are sure that anyone with or without training will be able to aim and shoot someone 20 feet away with ease because that's all you ever see on TV.

[EdgarJPublius]

In a realistic defense scenario, the shooter would start with the gun holstered (generally in a concealed or secure holster, which nearly doubles the time to draw) with the safety on, and a slasher would probably not be overtly aggressive until closing the distance to much below 21 feet

In a Tueller drill (which the 21 foot rule is based on), it takes the average trained, experienced police officer 1.5 seconds to draw from an un-secure holster and fire two snap shots (un-aimed). During 1.5 seconds, an average person can cover twenty one feet from a standstill and deliver a blow.
From an unsecured holster, it only takes a few tenths of a second to draw and level the pistol, most of the time is actually consumed by the reaction gap (time between stimulus and movement), firing the pistol and bringing it back down from the recoil to fire again.

Thesh's data is much more comprehensive than the study I linked, and easily shows that even with a weapon drawn (as a result of Tueller's study and others like it, almost all police officers are trained to draw their weapon immediately when a suspect with a knife approaches 21 feet, many have moved to thirty, forty and even fifty feet in some cases as a result of studies like the one I linked) the combination of the reaction gap and the difficulty of hitting a moving target even just a few feet away means that the knife wins at close range.
Studies in the last twenty years or so advocate training officers to utilize other defensive techniques for dealing with knife wielding suspects, as a firearm can simply not be relied upon at the distances involved in most confrontations.