Piers Morgan on guns
Oct 18th 2013 | 10:03 pm
#91
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: Piers Morgan on guns
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.
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.
Oct 19th 2013 | 8:09 am
#93
Thread Starter
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 55,309
From: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Oct 20th 2013 | 6:26 am
#94
Grumpy Know-it-all
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,928
From: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Piers Morgan on guns
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.
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 Montréal shootings in 1989.
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?
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.
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 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.
And this isn't recently imposed legislation, it's been on the books for decades.
Disagree, I think it is that simple. Culturally and economically the countries closer than they are apart.
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.
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?
Oct 20th 2013 | 11:13 am
#96
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 404
From: Calgary, Alberta
Re: Piers Morgan on guns
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?
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?
