Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

Except that you actually pay 15.3% of GDP

cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/highlights.asp

and we only pay about 9%. Oh well, nice theory.

Those figures are for total medical spending. I was referring to the actual cost to us as individuals. Check out the amount of your total income that is taken in taxes compared to ours and add in our average health care expenditure. That paints a differnet picture. (But we are getting off topic here)

Or alternatively they take them from a legal owner or a legal gun shop. You don’t have those, there are fewer sources for guns in the first place.

Don’t worry, the demand will be met one way or another.

The simple fact can’t be got around that the weapon of choice in the UK for the average burglar or mugger or shoplifter isn’t a gun.

That is true here as well. There are far more crimes committed with other weapons.

I don’t see they were implying that the under-reporting has got worse. I certainly don’t see that it has anything to do with gun-related crime, either way.

That was the basis of the stories. The crimes do not have to involve a gun. Criminals are more likely to commit an offence (armed or not) if they know the intended target will not be armed.

Agreed. We then have to determine where the line is to be drawn.

Exactly.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

You may recall, the King of England once decided Americans shouldn’t have guns, and sent out some troops to confiscate them.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Yes, that was the argument Homer Simpson used to justify owning a gun

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

Those figures are for total medical spending. I was referring to the actual cost to us as individuals. Check out the amount of your total income that is taken in taxes compared to ours and add in our average health care expenditure. That paints a differnet picture. (But we are getting off topic here)

We are getting off topic. But all money goes around in a circle in the end, if we’re not paying for it one way, we are paying for it in another.

Don’t worry, the demand will be met one way or another.

It won’t though. It isn’t trivial for a petty criminal in the UK to lay his or her hands on a firearm.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

We are getting off topic. But all money goes around in a circle in the end, if we’re not paying for it one way, we are paying for it in another.

My point exactly.

It won’t though. It isn’t trivial for a petty criminal in the UK to lay his or her hands on a firearm.

The statistics do not support that. The entire point of my posts was to illustrate through reliable sources one simple fact:

Before the ban England’s violent crime rates were lower than the U.S. in just about every category. In the years since the ban U.S. laws have gone in the opposite direction with more and more states passing right-to-carry laws and laws afirming the right of self-defense. In the years since England’s ban and with these changes occuring we now find that England’s crime rates in almost all categories are higher than in the U.S., sometimes twice as high. It is just more proof that gun bans are little more than criminal protection acts.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Libero:

Oh, sorry, I din’t know you wanted it to be about handguns, I only mentioned him because of the new methods he was using and the sucess that it has had. I think you may struggle to find anything interesting about guns and our police officers

Police use methods other than pointing guns at potential criminals. We have community policing in Canada. It is not new. We also have community agencies on every block. I work in a high risk zone. We do the best we can to curb crime in groups of children and youth.

It is not children and youth who are the primary problems in our current spate of shootings. It is gangs. Yes, the gang leaders ‘hire’ children and youth and children and youth end up carrying guns. But the killings are the result of gang strategy.

Talking to children and youth who have been seduced by gangs has merit. But talking does not mean that we give up the common-sense measure of being prepared to meet criminals with the end of a gun. It is not an either-or situation.

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

My point exactly.

shrugs You were the one suggesting our way costs much more. After my four months in hospital last year, I am very grateful for the way medical care works in the UK.

The statistics do not support that. The entire point of my posts was to illustrate through reliable sources one simple fact:

But that presumes that we are operating in a vacuum. Changes to gun control laws are just one of many thousands of changes in society over the last X years. As anyone who knows statistics knows, correlation does not immediately imply causation.

Mike

 

[Sir_Knight]

MikeWM:

… And maybe the USCCB should bring their position into alignment with the official position of the rest of the Catholic church which was place on international public record at the UN’s 2002 Conference on Small Arms where a representative from the Vatican OFFICIALLY representing the Holy See stated that the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is in SUPPORT of the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.

Care to provide a link to that?

link.

MikeWM:

Or alternatively they take them from a legal owner or a legal gun shop. You don’t have those, there are fewer sources for guns in the first place.

That doesn’t explain the drug traffic. Drugs aren’t legally sold in stores and kept in most homes yet they are easily obtained on the streets if you know where to look. The same applies to illegal guns.

MikeWM:

Almost always he is there to rob.

Even if 99% of those that break into your home are there to rob, there is no assurance that you might be facing the 1% that is there for other more violent reasons.

MikeWM:

You’re gambling all the time. You gamble every time you drive your car (assuming you have a car). Everything has an element of risk.

And as the gambler, I am the one who decides what risk level I am comfortable with. You don’t go into a casino and take risks with someone else’s money. In the same manner, nobody else decides what risks I should take with my life and my family’s life.

MikeWM:

Given some of the wild and wacky decisions that come along with the compensation culture in the USA, I’m not totally surprised - though I’d like to see some evidence.

Go here and start searching for lawsuits, judgements, etc.

MikeWM:

So you would have shot someone in the middle of the street.

If I was in fear of death or SERIOUS bodily injury, I would have been legally AND morally justified in shooting someone.

MikeWM:

And if you’d missed, and hit an innocent bystander?

That’s where training comes into the picture. You don’t buy a gun and just start carrying it around. You train with it and develop skills with it and know what your limitations are. With a handgun, I wouldn’t attempt to shoot at anyone who was beyond 50 feet. If the individual was moving, I’d cut that distance down to 25 feet. As a matter of fact, unless the other individual had a gun pointed at me, there would be no reason for me to be shooting at anyone who was 25 feet away.

MikeWM:

When I was mugged, I was drunk. Do you think it would have been wise for me to try to shoot someone in that condition?

I don’t drink. I haven’t touched alcohol in over 8 years since I became a parent. Drinking affects your judgement and your skill level not only with a gun but with just about everything.

MikeWM:

Nothing is ensured - you’re not ensured your gun won’t jam, or the robber won’t get a shot in first. In general, the police do an excellent job, and have training that most of us don’t.

In most cases the police arrive AFTER a crime has already been committed. If I am armed, I am in a position to PREVENT the crime from happening to me.

MikeWM:

How about some links to that, too?

Download the document. You can either take what it says at face value or verify the references for yourself.

MikeWM:

Again, waiting for some proof.

Proof.

 

[2shelbys]

shrugs You were the one suggesting our way costs much more. After my four months in hospital last year, I am very grateful for the way medical care works in the UK.

And I am satisfied with my coverage although it is getting very expensive. We are more sensitive to that fact because we see our costs right up front, it is not hidden among the other many taxes.

But that presumes that we are operating in a vacuum. Changes to gun control laws are just one of many thousands of changes in society over the last X years. As anyone who knows statistics knows, correlation does not immediately imply causation.

So what other factors have affected it. And limit those to things that are unique to either country.

 

[PhillyMatt]

I’m just glad I have the option to defend myself and my family if need be. If some punk breaks into my house, I’m glad I can defend it, or stop him before he injures a person in my family.

I just don’t understand your way of appeasing criminals by just letting them have their way with your house and whatnot and cowering until they leave. Haven’t you Brits learned anything regarding appeasment in WWII?

Appeasement does not work.

I happy that criminals are aware of the fact that they take a chance with their own life if they break into my house. Makes them think twice…

 

[MikeWM]

link.

Oh, come on. That is the statement of one pastor on an internet talk board - and the entry at the top of the thread says in no uncertain terms that the cardinal didn’t approve! You must have something more concrete than that.

That doesn’t explain the drug traffic. Drugs aren’t legally sold in stores and kept in most homes yet they are easily obtained on the streets if you know where to look. The same applies to illegal guns.

I know a lot more people that have laid hands on drugs than have laid hands on a gun.

Even if 99% of those that break into your home are there to rob, there is no assurance that you might be facing the 1% that is there for other more violent reasons.

And as the gambler, I am the one who decides what risk level I am comfortable with. You don’t go into a casino and take risks with someone else’s money. In the same manner, nobody else decides what risks I should take with my life and my family’s life.

Yes they do, of course they do. Other people are deciding things all the time. What is safe in your water, in the air, how your car is constructed, who to let on a plane, what standards the electrics in your house need to be at. You are dependent on other people whether you like it or not.

That’s where training comes into the picture. You don’t buy a gun and just start carrying it around. You train with it and develop skills with it and know what your limitations are. With a handgun, I wouldn’t attempt to shoot at anyone who was beyond 50 feet. If the individual was moving, I’d cut that distance down to 25 feet. As a matter of fact, unless the other individual had a gun pointed at me, there would be no reason for me to be shooting at anyone who was 25 feet away.

YOU might. You might be the most responsible gun owner around. I don’t think you are seriously telling me that everyone in the USA who legally owns a gun has had anywhere near that level of training and competence.

I don’t drink. I haven’t touched alcohol in over 8 years since I became a parent. Drinking affects your judgement and your skill level not only with a gun but with just about everything.

You’re right, YOU don’t drink. Again, I don’t think you are seriously suggesting that every single person in the USA that owns and carries a gun doesn’t drink.

In most cases the police arrive AFTER a crime has already been committed. If I am armed, I am in a position to PREVENT the crime from happening to me.

And if you mined your front garden it would be less likely still. Do you think you have the right to put landmines in your front yard?

Download the document. You can either take what it says at face value or verify the references for yourself.

I can readily believe that if you are in a situation where pretty much everyone has guns to start with, having carry laws for example would reduce crime. The point there is not to get to the situation where pretty much everyone has guns to begin with, so that relaxed gun laws aren’t necessary.

Proof.

Again, something a little more concrete please - from the Vatican for example, given you state it is the official Vatican position.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

And I am satisfied with my coverage although it is getting very expensive. We are more sensitive to that fact because we see our costs right up front, it is not hidden among the other many taxes.

Exactly. When I fell ill, I was between jobs. Thank God that my coverage wasn’t dependant on my job or on my ability to pay.

So what other factors have affected it. And limit those to things that are unique to either country.

No thank you. I have a life, you know. I’m not going to attempt to begin listing all the changes in society in the last 10 years. For some hints, look at just about every thread in the ‘news’ section of these forums.

Mike

 

[Sir_Knight]

Libero:

And have you ever had to shoot an intruder to your home at 4 oc’lock in the morning, still hazy from sleep? This theory sounds brilliant in theory, but is probably very different in practice.

Fortunately, I never had to an intruder in my home but I did have our alarm system short-circuit in the middle of the night sounding the alarm. I woke up from a sound sleep, opened a combination lock, grabbed my gun, flashlight and went to secure the house and I didn’t shoot at shadows or family members when they came out of their bedrooms to see why the alarm was going off.

Libero:

I find this truly unbeliveable, really I do, this makes your community sound so terrible.

An armed community is a safe and polite community because nobody wants to be the one to escalate a situation for both legal & moral reasons.

Libero:

How many times has your house been broken into, and you have had to use your firearm?

None. But if it ever does, I do not wish to be found wanting.

Libero:

Protecting someone is not an everyday task - please remember that!!

Yes it is! Because an attack on us or our family will happen in a time & place not of OUR choosing.

Libero:

Owning a gun is far more likely to cause a terrible accident than having to actually be used on a criminal.

That is an unproven myth.

Libero:

Further more, I do not think that I could bring myself to possibly kill a person in such an instance - even if it is church “teaching” I would easily disobey it.

So you would spare the life of a stranger and allow a loved one to be killed? I find that truly unbeliveable!

Libero:

They would give their own life - that is far more honourable than any gun.

And after they gave their lives, the criminal would still be around with no one to stop him from hurting or even killing you. So, they would have given their lives for nothing because in the end, you still would have been unprotected.

A wiser thing to do, would have been to be prepared with a gun so that they could protect you and themselves.

Libero:

I am more than confident that nobody would ever break into our home and then confront one of us. It is a incredible irregularity if they do.

It is a incredible irregularity for somebody to hit the lottery. I do not know anyone nor do I know anyone who knows anyone that has one but people ARE hitting the jackpot everyday and people’s homes ARE being broken into and people ARE being killed. Bad luck has to strike just once to negatively alter your life forever. Will you be prepared or will you be saying, “I never thought that something like this could happen”.

 

[Libero]

Fortunately, I never had to an intruder in my home but I did have our alarm system short-circuit in the middle of the night sounding the alarm. I woke up from a sound sleep, opened a combination lock, grabbed my gun, flashlight and went to secure the house and I didn’t shoot at shadows or family members when they came out of their bedrooms to see why the alarm was going off.

Are you never afraid about this casual use of guns - that they are a useful tool rather than a weapon and an instrument of hate? What strikes me is the way in which some people over exercise the use of their guns “fetch me my gun” as if it is something that one can just use without profound thought. As well as this, an alarm is very different to seeing a person in your home - and you would allow family members to leave bedrooms when it is possible someone has broken in and you are roaming the place with a gun? However good a practice may seem, it could all go wrong in an instant and then you could find yourself being the one saying “I never thought it would happen to me”.

An armed community is a safe and polite community because nobody wants to be the one to escalate a situation for both legal & moral reasons.

And you think this is all due to guns?

So you would spare the life of a stranger and allow a loved one to be killed? I find that truly unbeliveable!

I pray that a situation like this would never happen, how ever the life of a stranger is not something I would ever easily dispose of. I find the attitude about scenarios with guns when there could be a stranger unbelieveable.

And after they gave their lives, the criminal would still be around with no one to stop him from hurting or even killing you. So, they would have given their lives for nothing because in the end, you still would have been unprotected.

A wiser thing to do, would have been to be prepared with a gun so that they could protect you and themselves

The criminal would not go on to kill everyone - and I am the one who is accused of watching too much TV. How incredibly irregular these instances are they do not even bare thinking about. If an instance like this ever occurs, then I am unsure what I would do, but that really does not bother me, I am not scared of death. You cannot live life creating scenarios like this, there is no end to them.

A wiser thing to do would be to leave the guns in the store, buy a gate to lock, get a sturdy front door, a dog, double glaxed windows, an alarm and a room upstairs that no one would bother entering.

It is a incredible irregularity for somebody to hit the lottery. I do not know anyone nor do I know anyone who knows anyone that has one but people ARE hitting the jackpot everyday and people’s homes ARE being broken into and people ARE being killed. Bad luck has to strike just once to negatively alter your life forever. Will you be prepared or will you be saying, “I never thought that something like this could happen”.

And what happens if your intruder shoots first, killing or seriously injuring you or one of your family? Will you be asking yourself that question - guns are not making your lives invincible.

 

[Libero]

I’m just glad I have the option to defend myself and my family if need be. If some punk breaks into my house, I’m glad I can defend it, or stop him before he injures a person in my family.

I just don’t understand your way of appeasing criminals by just letting them have their way with your house and whatnot and cowering until they leave. Haven’t you Brits learned anything regarding appeasment in WWII?

Appeasement does not work.

I happy that criminals are aware of the fact that they take a chance with their own life if they break into my house. Makes them think twice…

And what if this “punk” stops you or your family first?

WWII is so totally different, believe it or not after WW1 we were not so eager to jump into battle. We did not have such a strong army as the US, we had encountered the terrible war experiences, we had been crippled economically, lost all our colonies, and would have tried to avoid war at all costs. Futher more, Hitler was no normal man, he would say anything to try and boost his own cause. Appeasement would not have been an option in the first place if it were so hopeless.

Brits are not appeasing, we just see that with guns come so many other problems.

 

[Zerith]

Libero:

And what if this “punk” stops you or your family first?

WWII is so totally different, believe it or not after WW1 we were not so eager to jump into battle. We did not have such a strong army as the US, we had encountered the terrible war experiences, we had been crippled economically, lost all our colonies, and would have tried to avoid war at all costs. Futher more, Hitler was no normal man, he would say anything to try and boost his own cause. Appeasement would not have been an option in the first place if it were so hopeless.

Brits are not appeasing, we just see that with guns come so many other problems.

Just a note: America didn’t have a good army at that time, the National Guard outnumbered them. The war kick started their economy in '41. They were worse off than Britain and France, but still, were no match for the Wehrmacht.

The problem with appeasement was Britain had a weak leader.

I have asked Zerith not to discuss Ireland.

Heh? Excuse me? I gave reference to guns in my society and country, and how they, or rather lack there of, have not caused a problem, as the British members of this forum have done so in reference to their country.

So you would spare the life of a stranger and allow a loved one to be killed? I find that truly unbeliveable!

Then why is this not the case for other countries?

It is a incredible irregularity for somebody to hit the lottery. I do not know anyone nor do I know anyone who knows anyone that has one but people ARE hitting the jackpot everyday and people’s homes ARE being broken into and people ARE being killed. Bad luck has to strike just once to negatively alter your life forever. Will you be prepared or will you be saying, “I never thought that something like this could happen”.

I barely hear of any incidents of anyone being killed over a robbery in Ireland, the only case I can think of, is a farmer killing an intruder, he was prosecuted. Why? He killed someone. If you can prove to me, that that criminal would have, without a single doubt, killed him and/or his family, then yes, I will agree with you. But your opinion of: “Oh, but most do…!” does not count. That is why he was prosecuted. If you weigh the crimes out: Robbery and murder, which is more serious? A person who was part of the poor travelling community, stealing as he had no job, with his father, was killed.

Brits are not appeasing, we just see that with guns come so many other problems.

British police have killed innocents before; Irish police have little need for regular use of weapons of that sort. Other than that, I can agree with you.

An armed community is a safe and polite community because nobody wants to be the one to escalate a situation for both legal & moral reasons.

As Libero stated: Due to guns?
And elaborate on “Escalate”?
“Stop your dog from excreting on my garden!” Takes out a gun?

It sounds like your community is one to stick to itself, “Don’t talk to me, you could kill my family, if you come near me, I’ll defend us!” (By that I mean in all situations, not just “Escalating” the situation)

The criminal would not go on to kill everyone - and I am the one who is accused of watching too much TV

Exactly, this is stereotyping a criminal. Assuming he was going to do something, this is completely and utterly unheard of in British and Irish common law systems. Which is why people killing someone entering their home is prosecuted.

 

[Eireann]

Zerith:

A person who was part of the poor travelling community, stealing as he had no job, with his father, was killed.

There are many poor traveller families in Ireland, and there are many poor in all walks of life.
Going out to steal because they say theyr’e poor doesn’t wash with me.
If everyone that was poor went out to steal, rob someone of their belongings what kind of society would we have.
Those traveller’s have state assistance, I’m not rich and I don’t go and break in to people’s homes.
One lady said and she might be right, is the reason the move around is to avoid paying taxes, they drive the newest models, while mine is a clapped out banger.
Those people and I remember the incident, made a choice to rob a farmer who lived in a remote area, they paid the price.
If the farmer hadn’t had the shotgun then maybe he’d be dead by now, who knows.

It would be ideal to have all guns out of society, but we don’t live in an ideal society, and we have the right to defend ourselve’s.

British police have killed innocents before; Irish police have little need for regular use of weapons of that sort. Other than that, I can agree with you.

The Gardi have their emergency response units like the British, and there are legally held hand guns in the North.
If things get out of hand theyr’e called in.

“Stop your dog from excreting on my garden!” Takes out a gun?

This is just plain silly and off topic, we aren’t talking about dogs.

Exactly, this is stereotyping a criminal. Assuming he was going to do something, this is completely and utterly unheard of in British and Irish common law systems. Which is why people killing someone entering their home is prosecuted.

Maybe he just called round at 3am to see how you were keeping.
Assuming he was going to do something, Imagine the conversation, “Are you the window cleaner ?”
NO ! I don’t clean windows at 3am, I’m here to rob you"

OK take what you want, where did you park the van ?

Redicilous, he’s going down if I get the chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Libero:

And what happens if your intruder shoots first, killing or seriously injuring you or one of your family? Will you be asking yourself that question - guns are not making your lives invincible.

What happens if he doesn’t – and you have no way to take advantage of that fact and have to stand there while he does your family in at his leisure?

Do you have life insurance? Automobile insurance? Homeowner’s insurance? Do you have a spare tire and a jack in your car? Do you have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher in your home?

All of these are simple measures a prudent man would take. Being prepared to defend yourself is another such measure.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

What happens if he doesn’t – and you have no way to take advantage of that fact and have to stand there while he does your family in at his leisure?

Do you have life insurance? Automobile insurance? Homeowner’s insurance? Do you have a spare tire and a jack in your car? Do you have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher in your home?

All of these are simple measures a prudent man would take. Being prepared to defend yourself is another such measure.

Automobile insurance doesn’t prevent accidents. Homeowner’s isnurance doesn’t prevent loss of property. Smoke detectors don’t prevent fires. Is this the comparison you were going for?

Or is it something more like Automobile insurance makes you feel safer. Homeowner’s insurance makes you feel safer.

The gun debate isn’t about actually preventing crime, or defending your family. It’s about emotion, how it makes one feel. Does owning a gun make some people feel safer? Yes. Does it make people safer in point of fact? Highly dubious. Does this mean guns should be banned? Seems like the sort of decision each community ought to be allowed to make on its own.

 

[2shelbys]

Libero:

Are you never afraid about this casual use of guns - that they are a useful tool rather than a weapon and an instrument of hate?

An instrument of hate? That is just ridiculous. It is a tool. It does not hate. It can be used in a hateful manner as can anything else a human can pick up.

I pray that a situation like this would never happen, how ever the life of a stranger is not something I would ever easily dispose of. I find the attitude about scenarios with guns when there could be a stranger unbelieveable.

All this talk of killing people ignores the vast majority of defensive gun uses (nearly 1.5 million per year in the U.S.) where the mere sight of the gun ended the danger and no one was hurt.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Automobile insurance doesn’t prevent accidents. Homeowner’s isnurance doesn’t prevent loss of property. Smoke detectors don’t prevent fires. Is this the comparison you were going for?

No, Phillip, I wasn’t. I was pointing out that we take precautions to shield ourselves from adversity, or to repair the damage if a calamity occurs.
Philip P:

The gun debate isn’t about actually preventing crime, or defending your family. It’s about emotion, how it makes one feel.

No, it isn’t – unless you think things like emergency services and smoke detectors have no practical value and are only there to make us feel better.
Philip P:

Does owning a gun make some people feel safer? Yes. Does it make people safer in point of fact? Highly dubious.

If it didn’t make one actually safer, I wouldn’t be alive today.
Philip P:

Does this mean guns should be banned? Seems like the sort of decision each community ought to be allowed to make on its own.

Like the decision whether black children should be allowed to go to school with white children? Or whether newspapers should be allowed to print things the local community government doesn’t like? Or whether people like Catholics and Jews should be allowed to practice their religions?

Basic human rights are not subject to the whims of “each community.”