British Expats - Piers Morgan on guns

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)

- The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)

- - Piers Morgan on guns (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/piers-morgan-guns-812117/)

Re: Piers Morgan on guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 10951118)

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

No it is not what they are saying quite frankly. This why your arguments are nonsense, because you don't understand the difference between the word STOP and REDUCE. It's black and white thinking. Effectively you're saying unless legislation can stop every single gun massacre or gun death, 100% effectiveness, then the legislation worthless. But it's not worthless, because although criminality finds a way, 95% of it is avoided.

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.

See above. Substitute the word "reduce" for "prevent" as no one is make the spurious claim that a ban can prevent something entirely.

To you use your simplistic water example: would you be against putting up warning signs and banning swimmers from a river with dangerous undercurrents. Would there be no point in making swimming there prohibited because inevitably somebody would go for a swim and drown?

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.

No need to muddy the waters with doubts on statistics. Last year 12,000 gun deaths in the USA; 30 in Britain. Roughly (according to Piers). That's about 100 Americans killed by guns for every Brit. Is the scale of that not cause for concern?

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.

But what about all the tragedies they did "prevent". Why has there not been one or two Dunblanes every year, when in the USA there's a school shooting every year or so? How many husbands and wives are alive today, simply because there was not a gun in a bedside cabinet that ended up getting used in the heat of argument. If you want to focus on "prevention" think of those instances where lack of availability meant no one got shot. Of course, on population basis, some people will still manage to (illicitly hold and use) a gun. That's why when making sweeping statements, we don't say "prevent" we say "reduce"? Just because drug dealers are always going to have guns at their disposal it doesn't mean that there's no point in restricting guns for the public.

My personal view is that it is to a large extent a cultural phenomenon. British people usually are very anti-gun. 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.

That is true. However, when the children of the country are being slaughtered by guns on an increasingly regular basis, and when the number of deaths becomes astronomical, you have question whether it is time to change the cultural values of the society. Legislation can do that. Wife beating used to be an accepted practice, but has been banned. Mind you, it still happens, it's not "prevented" should we get rid of the law which reduces it's incidence?

Like I said, you can't just take the UK and compare with the US, it's not that simple.

Disagree, I think it is that simple. Culturally and economically the countries closer than they are apart. It is not like the USA and Nigeria, for example. There will always be some differences, and there are reasons for guns in parts of the US (isolation) but with some adjustments, comparisons can be made.

Vermont for example has virtually no State gun laws at all and has a rate of armed crime on par with the UK.

Lucky Vermont. Certainly luckier than Connecticut where one deranged individual had access to his mother's arsenal.

I accept that guns are always going to be around in the USA, but a further degree of control (including bans) would save many many lives. Even if the NRA are doing their best to program people to think otherwise.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 10951170)

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.

Do let us know how long it takes for you to get a knock on the door after posting that. :)

Re: Piers Morgan on guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 10951520)

Do let us know how long it takes for you to get a knock on the door after posting that. :)

Nothing so far.

I think the RCMP is too busy with the anti-fracking protests.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns

Quote:

No it is not what they are saying quite frankly. This why your arguments are nonsense, because you don't understand the difference between the word STOP and REDUCE. It's black and white thinking. Effectively you're saying unless legislation can stop every single gun massacre or gun death, 100% effectiveness, then the legislation worthless. But it's not worthless, because although criminality finds a way, 95% of it is avoided.

It is exactly what they're saying, because they're talking about taking what is a very rare event and making it even rarer. It's so rare there is no actual metric for it. What even is a "mass" shooting? What is the "incidence" of it?

I remember clearly various people arguing that the handgun ban in GB would stop another Dunblane - it didn't.

Like I said, if Canada had the population of the US there would be more than one mass shooting a year based on previous events, so how exactly has anything done with legislation here achieved anything, even after very comprehensive changes after the MontrÃ©al shootings in 1989.

Quote:

No need to muddy the waters with doubts on statistics. Last year 12,000 gun deaths in the USA; 30 in Britain. Roughly (according to Piers). That's about 100 Americans killed by guns for every Brit. Is the scale of that not cause for concern?

As said, you can prove anything with a sample size of two. What is a fact is that many countries have gun laws based on those of the UK. Armed crime got so bad in Jamaica during the 1970s they actually started interning people without trial - a Commonwealth country with gun laws copied from the UK, in fact originally developed and imposed by the UK. I can think of various other countries where that is the case.

It totally oversimplifies it to say the UK has X law, that's why it has less armed crime, if that law was imposed in the US, it would have the same rate of armed crime. There's no indication that would happen, numerous Caribbean countries and Guyana have UK-style gun laws and have sky high rates of armed crime, higher than the US.

It's not clear the UK ever actually had a high rate of armed crime even before the laws were imposed anyway, but there are no statistics. But it's quite likely the UK had a fairly low rate of armed crime and then the laws were imposed, so in fact the situation didn't change much.

There is no cause and effect, there is no evidence to support Piers Morgan's assertions, it's just a myth.

Quote:

But what about all the tragedies they did "prevent". Why has there not been one or two Dunblanes every year, when in the USA there's a school shooting every year or so?

Well, divide by five and you could argue that there is, but anyway my point is that it's a fallacy to think UK gun laws result in the current situation. Look at Germany for example, very tough gun laws but very high rates of gun ownership. There's nothing to prevent anyone in the UK from applying for a licence to own a gun, but they don't - which implies it is a cultural aspect.

Quote:

How many husbands and wives are alive today, simply because there was not a gun in a bedside cabinet that ended up getting used in the heat of argument. If you want to focus on "prevention" think of those instances where lack of availability meant no one got shot. Of course, on population basis, some people will still manage to (illicitly hold and use) a gun.

There's no evidence of a correlation between gun laws and lower rates of gun crime (well there is but it's very disputed). There is evidence of a correlation between gun laws and rates of firearm-related suicide, simply because most guns used in suicide tend to be legally owned. However it's not clear that lower gun ownership rates lead to lower suicide rates as there are other methods used to commit suicide. Many Asian countries for example have low gun ownership rates but very high suicide rates.

Quote:

That is true. However, when the children of the country are being slaughtered by guns on an increasingly regular basis, and when the number of deaths becomes astronomical, you have question whether it is time to change the cultural values of the society. Legislation can do that.

I don't agree, if it could then Jamaica, Trinidad, etc. which are all North American countries would have lower rates of armed crime than the US, but they don't. Brazil and South Africa also have much higher rates of armed crime than the US and by any reasonable measure, tougher gun laws.

And this isn't recently imposed legislation, it's been on the books for decades.

Quote:

Disagree, I think it is that simple. Culturally and economically the countries closer than they are apart.

Not when it comes to guns, the US has nearly as many guns as it does people. Bear in mind even the police in GB don't carry guns.

Quote:

I accept that guns are always going to be around in the USA, but a further degree of control (including bans) would save many many lives. Even if the NRA are doing their best to program people to think otherwise.

But the evidence to support that assertion isn't there, like I said, California has a higher rate of armed crime than the US national average and much tougher gun laws than the national average.

There are all kinds of claims made in the press but when you look at them closely the evidence is shaky at best.

The one argument I hear a lot watching TV is that for example guns are used in a lot of crime in Chicago and are smuggled in from jurisdictions with less restrictive gun laws - but why do those jurisdictions have less armed crime? You can smuggle the guns into Canada from the US too, why do Canadians not shoot each other as much?

Re: Piers Morgan on guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 10950448)

The gun lobby cannot see that their point of view is puerile, so pointing out the logical holes in their argument is a waste of breath.

OK, OakV., you were right. :o

Thanks for the ideas Steve, we disagree on it.

Re: Piers Morgan on guns

Quote:

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 10944324)

Not to mention grenades.

I have no idea what those things are. Gun language is a mystery to me.

But why does a civilian need several guns of different types? Why the ability to fire off a bullet every second?

Why the grenades and other explosives that these lunatics also have when they create mayhem?

In case Bambi starts shooting back!