The right to bear arms

[Aerif]

So a statistic, obviously inflated by the fact that not all incidents involved guns, to establish what is at best an interesting correlation?

That was the point, yes.

It does however draw attention that the USA has a disproportionate number of highly violent and murdersome incidents, most likely established by differences in culture. Since the biggest difference between American and British culture is related to gun ownership, it is a a fair conclusion to draw - even if there is no scientific evidence.

As the gentleman so kindly put it, I am pulling things out of my ass. I did not intend to debate over this observation but merely to draw attention to the interesting phenomenon.

Statistics also show that shoe size has a strong correlation with mathematics, reading, and logical reasoning abilities. This is primarily because most adults do these things better than toddlers. Correlation is worth nothing without evidence of causality.

There is causality in some of the cases though, whenever the incident's inciter legally owns the gun for instance. Most likely had he not owned that gun he would not have shot the people. Yes there are bombs and things like that, but when I say I am against the 'right to bear arms' I say I am also against private ownership of bombs. As you all should be. Why do you need a bomb?

Accurate in many cases, but often quite forgetful when it comes to the important details. Wikipedia articles are usually loaded with bias, that's why it's laughed at in the academic arena. Wiki articles aren't reliably objective and fair, so it's generally not a good thing to use for anything other than obtaining the most basic knowledge of a topic for personal curiosity.

Part of the reason why I didn't increase my knowledge. I merely looked at a list of incidents, which is by no means complete and comprehensive, just to show a point. A poorly received and, as you may have seen, criticised point, but a somewhat valid point in the grand scheme of things I feel.

And what 'forced' them to commit the crimes of purchasing and using illegal drugs that they are then 'forced' to become worse criminals to continue buying to satisfy the addiction a law abiding citizen wouldn't have to begin with? They were criminals from the start. When people disregard one law, there's not much reason to believe they care about the rest of them (except of course when they work in their favor)

Oh well that's rather disappointing. I offered a single example - not a complete explanation. But not all addicting drugs are controlled substances anyway. This is also STILL not the only way to be 'forced' to become a criminal.

Note well that I consider the phrase 'forced to become a criminal' ridiculous, as normally there are other options even if they are less 'rewarding'. But people still use it as an excuse, and in some examples it makes sense when listening to them.

You also have a lower quantity of illegal immigrants from Mexico, is it then reasonable to assume that illegal Mexicans are the cause of all gun crimes? Of course not. Again what you have is an interesting correlation, not an argument. Guns being available in stores is not where the firearms used to commit serious crimes come from. Guns are purchased illegally by criminals, so they they don't have to be registered, and are more difficult to track. Very few serious crimes are committed with legal firearms. The ones that are, are usually, as you already hinted at, drug addicts, who are already criminals. Stupid criminals. Stupid criminals who usually get caught.

That's almost a silly response, I suppose it is technically plausible that Mexican immigrants are the cause of high gun crime, but gun crime existed before immigration problems. Gun ownership and gun crime are connected by their very nature - and as you point out registered guns are sometimes used in criminal activity - these incidents involving guns would never happen if the criminal didn't have a gun, surely?

People steal firearms here too. Only the lowest tier of the stupidest criminals would commit a crime using a legal, registered firearm. They either buy an unregistered one illegally, or use somebody else's gun, so they can't be easily tracked.

I know that, but my original point was that with the lack of guns in Scotland it is more difficult to get hold of one, so if you happen to own one and people know this you are more likely to be burgled by some idiot wanting to get their hands on the gun, than say the nice middle-class couple down the road who don't own any guns.

I'm not sure why somebody would ever be proud to be lacking in a potentially useful experience. Or even one that isn't useful. Lack of knowledge is never a preferable thing. As for risking shooting a human shield, it's not much of a risk when you're skilled enough to safely hit the target. If there was a clear shot, I'd shoot a criminal with a hostage as a shield without a second thought.

If there was a 'forbidden word' that could end the entire world by speaking it (ala the first chronological book in 'The Chronicles of Narnia') would you advocate it's learning? To me, guns are like that on a smaller scale. There is a massive dependence on morality attached to a gun, and quite frankly there are too many idiots who lack the foresight of seeing the potential consequences of using a gun - even trained professionals - how many times have policemen 'accidently' killed perpetrators?

If I were trained to use a gun, I would accept the knowledge - because I am a knowledge-seeker, but I wouldn't seek out the knowledge on my own. For the same reasons that I don't seek out the means to dispose of a dead body quietly or the amount of time it takes for a corpse to freeze in a chest freezer. I consider these events attached by the way - I know you don't because of a difference in mind sets - but at present I do.

Interestingly enough, bows are also weapons, originally designed for the sole purpose of ending lives. Why then, is only the gun inherently evil?A bow is an equally fatal weapon in the wrong hands. If guns dropped off the face of the earth and somebody wanted to kill somebody at a distance, what would stop them from using a bow? Do we need to outlaw them too?

True, although bows were first intended to hunting animals they evolved into a tool of war. But I think you misunderstood me, you see even though I am trained to use a bow and have all the safety knowledge attached to it, and the skill to use one effectively - I don't advocate the private ownership of them. Every time I've practised it has been in a secure, supervised enviroment.

However you may ask yourself the question: In countries where people can't own guns (such as coincidentally, Tunisia - which has the lowest gun ownership figures in the world) why don't they kill with bows and arrows - since they are not banned?

Should we not have access to knives? I mean if a criminal had one and you didn't, you'd be at a disadvantage. People get mugged at knife point sometimes. You can kill somebody with just about anything if you made an honest effort.

Glasgow is the knife crime capital of the world, and by true correlation, is the 'murder-capital of Europe'. Knives are very different from guns though in that they have a more practical and definable primary use outside of violence. Because of the crime in Glasgow it has become illegal to carry a knife on the streets in Scotland without it being in some sort of protective case and only if it happens to be crucial to your occupation (such as chefs).

The thing is, criminals whose intention it is to cause injury and/or death, are going to find a way to do it no matter what you do to keep weapons out of their reach.

Of course. But that's why guns were invented. To kill people. That's their big problem.

For the record, there are uses for a firearm outside of killing people and robbing banks. Several sports involve the precision shooting of nonliving targets with a firearm. Many are quite entertaining. Not to mention that whole hunting thing in which people are not the intended targets. Not everybody who owns a gun, or would want to wants it for the purpose of committing mass murders.

I know that, but it is possible to perform all of these actions without having lethal firearms involved. Using blanks for instance.