Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

You could swallow it

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

OK. I accept I am wrong. The argument should go: Guns don't, without an action of people, kill people, people with guns kill people.

Every member of the gun lobby that I have seen debate this, IMHO, lose the argument as they seem incapable of accepting the other side's point of view at all. This is particularly the case in the US.

If they were to accept that certain weapons have no place in anyone's hands outside of a shooting range or theatre, their credibility would increase massively. I have no issue with people owning shotguns. I have no issue with people owning rifles. I have an issue with people owing handguns and keeping them outside of a shooting club (they are simply too inaccurate even when in the hands of experts) and I have an issue with people owing any form of automatic weapon, or semi automatic weapon that has a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. In this respect, I believe that Canada's laws are appropriate.

I don't hunt but I do hold a restricted firearms licence. Shooting at a range is the only time I, and my family, shoot firearms that require a licence.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

You must have a very large mouth for that to be possible but, granted, I accept that it is possible to be killed by a weapon, however, that still requires an action.

For example, one could fall from a building and strike someone on the head. One could trip over one and impale oneself on something.:p

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

I didn't mean "hard time" literally, I meant simply, disagreeing. If you are are asserting "guns don't kill people, only people kill people" (as you did) you score an own goal in any arguments trying to limit gun use. In this case, automatic weapons.

The twisted argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" purposely strips out the user (as Oakvillian pointed out) and that is why it works rhetorically but it is in fact an absurd oversimplification.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

As I have said above, I have no issue with weapons per se. I do have an issue with particular weapons when the benefit/risk analysis is considered.

In my view, the benefit of automatic weapons is massively outweighed by the risk they pose.

I have guns, and it has been decades since I shot at someone. Some people with guns kill people, the vast majority do not.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

That's good for you. You can believe all manner of things, it makes very little difference to the fact that, legislation, in a democratic society should be used to promote personal freedom not restrict it. With certain limitations, we allow the citizenry to own and operate all manner of potentially life threatening objects, eg cars and planes. We limit their use, but we don't ban them. So, as a collector, if I want to own an old WW2 Russian PPSh and fire off 70 or so rounds on a range, of course I should be allowed. And as a collector, that's all the justification I need.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

You can believe whatever you wish too. I appreciate that that is all the justification you need. I was thinking more of society's need.

I have no issue with people being able to shoot from an automatic weapon at a range either.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

As long as I transport it safety and secure it at home safely, as Joe Public what's your issue? :confused:

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

I thought I had set this out above: The risk to society of you or another being able to do untold damage in a matter of seconds.

If you have ever fired such a weapon on "burst" you will appreciate that they are very inaccurate when used in such a mode. Other than during a "yahoo" moment, there is no real benefit to the owner having one.

I appreciate that you feel differently about this and that the two of us are not likely to ever agree on this issue. Neither of us is right; neither is wrong.;)

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

But Joe Public doesn't have access to automatic weapons (not legally anyway), they've been banned in Canada since 1978 and the US since 1986. What is being talked about are semi-automatic firearms usually.

Like I said, there's no indication that bans on them or magazines have stopped or reduced mass shootings, the fallacy of that argument was proven in Cumbria a few years ago and the Navy Yard shootings a few weeks ago.

And even if they are banned, people use them illegally, e.g. the nutcase in Mayerthorpe who shot dead four RCMP officers with a prohibited semi-automatic rifle a few years ago.

"Mass shootings" are just too isolated of an event to say generally, ah, this piece of legislation will stop them from happening.

Look at all the gun controls Norway has for example, licensing, must do a comprehensive hunter's course or be a member of a gun club, registration of guns, bans on certain types of guns and magazines, etc. but still that nutcase shot dead 77 people. Controls in excess of what Canada has let alone most of the US.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

But you're a lawyer - who goes on trial, the gun or the person who pulled the trigger?

I always think this argument is a completely moot point, there is no magic magnet in the sky that is going to suck up all the guns or erase the knowledge of what they are or how to make them. The morality of it is immaterial as it ignores the practical reality.

It's like saying if there were no cameras no-one would be able to take any pictures. Okay, and how would you accomplish that?

That's an illogical statement, rifles and shotguns are by definition more lethal than handguns which is why soldiers are armed with rifles, not handguns (typically). Shotguns as the name implies fire shot which spreads out in a pattern, so if anything is more of an indiscriminate weapon than a handgun.

Handguns most certainly are accurate in the hands of experts, which is why pistol shooting is an Olympic sport.

Well next time you're at the range, buy a 5-round AR-15 magazine for example, take it home, disassemble it and tell me honestly whether you think you couldn't convert it to hold more ammunition.

Like I said, people all too often overlook the practical problems with gun laws.

The whole thing will be totally moot shortly anyway, because manufacturing technology has reached the point now where it is pretty easy to make a gun with minimal knowledge, first it was CNC machines, now it's 3D printers.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

Clearly you've never been in the Army.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

Nobody says that a piece of legislation will STOP gun massacres, what the anti-lobby says is that a piece of legislation will REDUCE the incidence of massacres.

Your logic on Norway is like saying there's no point in having seat belt laws because occasionally seatbelts do not prevent injury.

Why is it that Britain has only 30 gun deaths a year compared to 12,000 a year in the US? What do you think the reason is? Could it possibly be that there aren't many guns about or is that a bit far fetched?

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

Well given how rare they are, that is what they're saying frankly.

Not a valid comparison, the argument is similar to saying that banning cars would prevent injury, which is the same argument as saying banning water will prevent drownings.

That's what they're talking about, banning certain types of gun.

And it didn't work as proven by the shootings in Cumbria.

This is what Piers Morgan is banging on about.

If you want to talk statistics it's actually impossible to say because the gun laws in the UK pre-date the crime statistics by many decades. They didn't start collecting them until 1968 and the system of licensing began in 1920, so it is impossible to measure a "before and after" effect. But the changes in the laws since then don't seem to have reduced armed crime in the UK, it has fluctuated up and down independently of any changes in the law. And the changes in the law after Hungerford didn't prevent Dunblane and the changes in the law after Dunblane didn't prevent Cumbria.

My personal view is that it is to a large extent a cultural phenomenon. British people usually are very anti-gun. But on the other hand if you go into a gun shop in Canada people are typically talking about hunting and target shooting and in the US they are typically talking about the best thing to keep next to the bed to blow someone's brains out.

There's no law that made them think that way. Laws are a reflection of the cultural values of a society, not the other way around.

Like I said, you can't just take the UK and compare with the US, it's not that simple. Vermont for example has virtually no State gun laws at all and has a rate of armed crime on par with the UK. California has gun laws similar to those in Canada but has seven times the rate of firearm-related homicide. Various Caribbean countries have gun laws based on the UK and have vastly higher rates of gun crime than the US.

If people want guns, they get guns and they use guns. And the reasons why they want them and what they use them for vary considerably.

And on the topic of the UK, note there are no national statistics, Scotland and Northern Ireland collect their statistics separately using a different methodology and a different period of time than England & Wales.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns
 

Indeed. Why just ten minutes ago I made six. I've even been making a few bombs ever since the media alerted me as to how easy it was.

I'm always amused when people in Canada argue against restrictions on the basis that there is no point as people can pop over the border and get them in the USA.

I find it quite reassuring that this may involve border crossings in both directions, making dodgy enquiries and the associated risks, associating with criminals, making illegal purchase of possibly unreliable weapons that may already have been used in crime and then, returning at a border crossing carrying their purchase.

Obviously it's a much better idea to just let people buy them at Tim Hortons.