No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 13 posts
Re: undefined
#2http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control
Better link. Good article.
Re: undefined
#3I don't how relevant this strategy will be in an age of under $1000 desktop manufacturers coming up in a decade or two. They'll be able to do generic strong metal shapes, and after that the cat is out of the bag. Guns are really simple devices that haven't been subject to fundamental innovations since WWI.
The only thing left to regulate would be smokeless powder, and gangs are pretty good at importing various powders with impunity as the drug war has shown us.
Re: undefined
#4http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control Better link. Good article.
I've always heard that British people were basically not allowed to own guns. I've never heard that people could own rifles for hobbies, such as hunting and range shooting.
How are gun collectors handled in Britain? Some people collect them like stamps or Facebook likes, and become very attached to their collections. Would collectors be required to show most of their guns to be non-functional? Would there be a limit on the number of guns a collector could own?
Re: undefined
#5I don't how relevant this strategy will be in an age of under $1000 desktop manufacturers coming up in a decade or two. They'll be able to do generic strong metal shapes, and after that the cat is out of the bag. Guns are really simple devices that haven't been subject to fundamental innovations since WWI. The only thing left to regulate would be smokeless powder, and gangs are pretty good at importing various powder…
Well, there are other objects and substances which are illegal to make/possess, despite the fact that most anyone can make them from legal materials, so the situation you describe wouldn't be anything new.
Re: undefined
#6http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control Better link. Good article.
I've always heard that British people were basically not allowed to own guns. I've never heard that people could own rifles for hobbies, such as hunting and range shooting. How are gun collectors handled in Britain? Some people collect them like stamps or Facebook likes, and become very attached to their collections. Would collectors be required to show most of their guns to be non-functional? Would there be a limit…
I think the NHS gives free mental health counseling.
Re: undefined
#7I don't how relevant this strategy will be in an age of under $1000 desktop manufacturers coming up in a decade or two. They'll be able to do generic strong metal shapes, and after that the cat is out of the bag. Guns are really simple devices that haven't been subject to fundamental innovations since WWI. The only thing left to regulate would be smokeless powder, and gangs are pretty good at importing various powder…
Yea, the US needs to work on curbing demand for guns on the street or theyll keep having these problems. This is a big social justice problem more than solvable with simple prohibitions
Re: undefined
#8In 1996 Australia experienced is largest "mass shooting" - 35 people were killed in Port Arthur, Tasmania.[1]
The Australian people agreed this was unacceptable and needed to be prevented in the future. Fully automatic weapons have always been illegal. After this shooting, semi-automatics were also made illegal (we had to hand ours in - the government bought it off us) and handguns were also effectively impossible to own in your own home.
Now all guns are extremely hard to own - it sounds like Britain where you must go through extensive paperwork and testing, and prove a genuine need for a weapon (hunting, skeet shooting, etc.).
I was shocked when I moved to California and people had stories about going to parties where people were shot. Also, police in the subways of NYC with assault rifles is a scary thing.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_%28Austral...
Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
Re: undefined
#9I feel that this argument is lacking in scope when deferring to areas of the world where there are few to no guns in circulation. Of course there will be fewer gun crimes if there aren't any guns.
What should be compared is violent crime in general. Weapons or not, the numbers are quite astounding. Then again, my argument may not take into account how crime is truly defined although I simply want to make a point that the argument in the article is fairly shallow and should push the boundaries of journalism by asking and answering more questions.
UK Violent crime rates per 10,000 people, since ~2000, has been between 400 and 600. That's 4-6%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent-crime-rates-UK-198...)
US Violent crime rates per 100,000, since ~2000, has been between 400 and 500. That's .4-.5%. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the...)
In my opinion, it appears there is a correlation between 300MM guns in circulation vs no guns. Not causation, simply correlation. Unproven correlation at that.
I feel my argument is somewhat weak here because I have more questions: What about the number of victims? What about those crimes committed with a weapon vs without? In the UK, what weapons are used for crime if not guns? How do those weapon-based crimes compare to the same weapon in the US?
Edit: Added the corresponding wiki image to the US stats above.
Re: undefined
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always heard that British people were basically not allowed to own guns. I've never heard that people could own rifles for hobbies, such as hunting and range shooting. How are gun collectors handled in Britain? Some people collect them like stamps or Facebook likes, and become very attached to their collections. Would collectors be required to show most of their guns to be non-functional? Would there be a limit…
I think the NHS gives free mental health counseling.
It's not free.