Live blog: Cyclists urged to boycott brands including Bell and Giro owned by US gun maker, road police say cycle lanes "not fit for purpose," amazing numbers from Viviani and lots more

StraelGuy wrote:

Exactly ClubSmed, I'm not actually particularly anti-gun but all this rhetoric quoted from the late 1700's is disingenuous. The people who tend to hide behind it fail to take into account the society of the time and how little resemblance it bears to our society. In the late 1700's there wasn't much in the way of government or state law enforcement eg No FBI, no ATF, no real centralised local or state policing etc so it probably WAS an extremely  good idea to have firearms to protect your family from criminals/robbers/pirates/bandits etc. These days, that argument is a lot, LOT weaker.

I think the whole 'right to bear arms' thing was designed as a defence against the state itself rather than rogues and varmints.

Much of the US Constitution is similarly designed to limit the power of the state over the individual.

That ideology runs strongly throughout much of the US and explains the vehement opposition to gun control.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think the whole 'right to bear arms' thing was designed as a defence against the state itself rather than rogues and varmints. Much of the US Constitution is similarly designed to limit the power of the state over the individual. That ideology runs strongly throughout much of the US and explains the vehement opposition to gun control.

That's my impression too. I'm quite conflicted about the U.S. and their relationship with guns. On the one hand I think it's quite a wise addition to their Constitution and should act as powerful check against over zealous politicians. On the other hand, it's plainly not working as designed.

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's my impression too. I'm quite conflicted about the U.S. and their relationship with guns. On the one hand I think it's quite a wise addition to their Constitution and should act as powerful check against over zealous politicians. On the other hand, it's plainly not working as designed.

What's strange is that their are other countries (Switzerland and Norway for example) with gun ownership rates similar to that in the US but they have nowhere near the rate of mass shootings.

The problem isn't the guns per se it's the culture that surrounds them.

Rich_cb wrote:

What's strange is that their are other countries (Switzerland and Norway for example) with gun ownership rates similar to that in the US but they have nowhere near the rate of mass shootings.

The problem isn't the guns per se it's the culture that surrounds them.

I think it's the double-whammy of both.

I had it in my head too at one point that other countries had higher gun ownership (I was thinking Canada and Switzerland) - not so, according to wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...

That has Germany, NZ, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, France and others with 30 guns for each 100 citizens. Seems high to a UK citizen... Then you see the US with more guns than people.

But their use... I wonder how much of that can be explained by the second amendment.

davel wrote:

I think it's the double-whammy of both.

I had it in my head too at one point that other countries had higher gun ownership (I was thinking Canada and Switzerland) - not so, according to wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...

That has Germany, NZ, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, France and others with 30 guns for each 100 citizens. Seems high to a UK citizen... Then you see the US with more guns than people.

But their use... I wonder how much of that can be explained by the second amendment.

I think it's been mentioned earlier in the thread but the US stats are skewed by the fact that a relatively small number of people own a hell of a lot of guns each.

So the number of gun owners is probably a lot closer to the other countries mentioned.

Why a far higher number of those American Gun owners go postal is anybody's guess.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's my impression too. I'm quite conflicted about the U.S. and their relationship with guns. On the one hand I think it's quite a wise addition to their Constitution and should act as powerful check against over zealous politicians. On the other hand, it's plainly not working as designed.

What's strange is that their are other countries (Switzerland and Norway for example) with gun ownership rates similar to that in the US but they have nowhere near the rate of mass shootings. The problem isn't the guns per se it's the culture that surrounds them.

Switzerland is hardly comparible - their guns are issued to people by the state as part of their status as reservists in a militia (the 'well regulated militia' bit of the 2A probably fits Switzerland better than the US).  They get training and have to keep the guns locked up at home.  Even so one went postal with theirs and shot a load of people, leading to further restrictions on the rules around those weapons.

Norway actually has pretty high figures for gun deaths recently, though that's down to Brevik single-handedly.  Per capita their recent figures for mass killing sprees actually come out worse than the US's, thanks to that one incident.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Switzerland is hardly comparible - their guns are issued to people by the state as part of their status as reservists in a militia (the 'well regulated militia' bit of the 2A probably fits Switzerland better than the US).  They get training and have to keep the guns locked up at home.  Even so one went postal with theirs and shot a load of people, leading to further restrictions on the rules around those weapons.

 

Norway actually has pretty high figures for gun deaths recently, though that's down to Brevik single-handedly.  Per capita their recent figures for mass killing sprees actually come out worse than the US's, thanks to that one incident.

Switzerland allows private individuals to own guns other than those you mention. There laws are actually very relaxed relative to the UK.

With Norway it depends on the timeline you take, obviously with a small population one incident will affect the stats for decades.

It was probably a bad example but the point I was trying to make was that high rates of gun ownership don't necessarily translate into high numbers of mass shootings.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's my impression too. I'm quite conflicted about the U.S. and their relationship with guns. On the one hand I think it's quite a wise addition to their Constitution and should act as powerful check against over zealous politicians. On the other hand, it's plainly not working as designed.

What's strange is that their are other countries (Switzerland and Norway for example) with gun ownership rates similar to that in the US but they have nowhere near the rate of mass shootings. The problem isn't the guns per se it's the culture that surrounds them.

How many actual 'mass shootings' per million population though, the mass shootings are a bit of a red herring tbh.

People are quoting Australia as a success and using them as the beacon for introducing gun control but totally fail to understand that firstly there was a buy back scheme, second, gun crime has gone up in Australia since the change in the law because the law is shit in Australia.

A better option is the way Germany have done things, this includes mental health checks on potential gun owners for larger bore, raising the age for ownership, restricting how you can use a gun for self defence and so on.

Germany has the 4th highest gun ownership in the world and had 57 gun homocides for 2014 (UK 23 for same year) which has dropped massively in 20 years from c.800. The rate of ownership is only three times less than that in the US (estimated on lawful and unlawful civilian ownership), in fact per population head it's extremely similar between Germany and the UK for gun homocides per head of pop.

This tells you a lot about gun laws, gun owership as well as how society as a whole has a huge impact on homocide rates. it's not just about banning guns but the control of them.

the US however is too far gone and is so totally fucked up the only real way to deal with it would be to disarm everybody. Use the army to move across the country, through every city, every hick town in a moving wall. Removing guns from all but a specialist armed police like in the UK would help to sway some but no-one in power could get away with ordering such a thing because too many votes are bought and lots of local 'militia' types would rather have a shootout with government forces than give up their weapons for the bettermenet of society.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

People are quoting Australia as a success and using them as the beacon for introducing gun control but totally fail to understand that firstly there was a buy back scheme, second, gun crime has gone up in Australia since the change in the law because the law is shit in Australia.

A better option is the way Germany have done things, this includes mental health checks on potential gun owners for larger bore, raising the age for ownership, restricting how you can use a gun for self defence and so on.

Germany has the 4th highest gun ownership in the world and had 57 gun homocides for 2014 (UK 23 for same year) which has dropped massively in 20 years from c.800. The rate of ownership is only three times less than that in the US (estimated on lawful and unlawful civilian ownership), in fact per population head it's extremely similar between Germany and the UK for gun homocides per head of pop.

This tells you a lot about gun laws, gun owership as well as how society as a whole has a huge impact on homocide rates. it's not just about banning guns but the control of them.

the US however is too far gone and is so totally fucked up the only real way to deal with it would be to disarm everybody. Use the army to move across the country, through every city, every hick town in a moving wall. Removing guns from all but a specialist armed police like in the UK would help to sway some but no-one in power could get away with ordering such a thing because too many votes are bought and lots of local 'militia' types would rather have a shootout with government forces than give up their weapons for the bettermenet of society.

The idea that an unarmed populace and an armed state represents an improvement in society is anathema to many Americans.

A quick glance at the atrocities committed by states against their own citizens suggests they might not be completely wrong.

Rich_cb wrote:

The idea that an unarmed populace and an armed state represents an improvement in society is anathema to many Americans.

A quick glance at the atrocities committed by states against their own citizens suggests they might not be completely wrong.

That's what they _say_ but it doesn't seem a hugely convincing argument. Some handguns and semi-auto rifles against a modern military? How is that likely to go? Besides, when fascist regimes come to power its usually with the support of numerous and powerful parts of the populace, the very people who will be bearing these arms.

And US cops seem far more prone to kill innocent citizens than do those of countries with an 'unarmed' populace, so the strategy doesn't seem to be working terribly well.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The idea that an unarmed populace and an armed state represents an improvement in society is anathema to many Americans.

A quick glance at the atrocities committed by states against their own citizens suggests they might not be completely wrong.

That's what they _say_ but it doesn't seem a hugely convincing argument. Some handguns and semi-auto rifles against a modern military? How is that likely to go? Besides, when fascist regimes come to power its usually with the support of numerous and powerful parts of the populace, the very people who will be bearing these arms.

And US cops seem far more prone to kill innocent citizens than do those of countries with an 'unarmed' populace, so the strategy doesn't seem to be working terribly well.

But what if the British try to take over again?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

]
That's what they _say_ but it doesn't seem a hugely convincing argument. Some handguns and semi-auto rifles against a modern military? How is that likely to go? Besides, when fascist regimes come to power its usually with the support of numerous and powerful parts of the populace, the very people who will be bearing these arms.

And US cops seem far more prone to kill innocent citizens than do those of countries with an 'unarmed' populace, so the strategy doesn't seem to be working terribly well.

A quick glance at the US military's recent adventures should persuade you that a crudely armed but determined populace can defy a far superior force.

The fact remains that state violence against their own citizens accounted for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Given that, a fear of state violence seems like quite a rational position.

In a country founded on the basis of protecting individual freedoms from the state (admittedly something they have not unequivocally succeeded at over the years) the right to bear arms is seen by many as the lodestone of their entire worldview.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

] That's what they _say_ but it doesn't seem a hugely convincing argument. Some handguns and semi-auto rifles against a modern military? How is that likely to go? Besides, when fascist regimes come to power its usually with the support of numerous and powerful parts of the populace, the very people who will be bearing these arms. And US cops seem far more prone to kill innocent citizens than do those of countries with an 'unarmed' populace, so the strategy doesn't seem to be working terribly well.

A quick glance at the US military's recent adventures should persuade you that a crudely armed but determined populace can defy a far superior force. The fact remains that state violence against their own citizens accounted for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Given that, a fear of state violence seems like quite a rational position. In a country founded on the basis of protecting individual freedoms from the state (admittedly something they have not unequivocally succeeded at over the years) the right to bear arms is seen by many as the lodestone of their entire worldview.

I suspect it may be more accurate to say that the modern country is founded on the resentment and bitterness that followed the Civil War, and the gun nuts who bang on about individual freedom are probably the last gasp of those whose concept of gun rights and individual freedom didn't and perhaps still doesn't extend as far as black people. I'd be quite interested to see a demographic and geographic breakdown of peoples' views and history of gun ownership. I suspect it is predominantly white, Southern, middle-aged+ and male.

The founding fathers, who included slave owners, were the heirs of the European philosophers who framed the concepts of freedom and individual rights. These rights are always, in the classical liberal tradition, limited only when they may harm other peoples' enjoyment of their own, equal rights, to paraphrase the French delaration of the rights of Man and the citizen, which is heir to the same tradition.

It seems to me that the extreme gun lobby in the US, exemplified by the NRA, deliberately ignores the part of the equation which balances citizens' rights against the harm they might do to others, to the point where it seems to be 'my right to do whatever I want is unlimited'. They make a spurious appeal to the classical liberal tradition in order to cover their naked and aggressive selfishness, and believe their contingent political right to own a gun outweighs other peoples' absolute natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no natural right to have a gun, or indeed any weapon. The nearest we have is a natural right to self-defence, and that has to be proportionate to the threat - it would be disproportionate to stab someone in the throat because they might step on your toe. The gun lobby appears to have lost, or perhaps discarded, any sense of proportion they ever had.

ConcordeCX wrote:

I suspect it may be more accurate to say that the modern country is founded on the resentment and bitterness that followed the Civil War, and the gun nuts who bang on about individual freedom are probably the last gasp of those whose concept of gun rights and individual freedom didn't and perhaps still doesn't extend as far as black people. I'd be quite interested to see a demographic and geographic breakdown of peoples' views and history of gun ownership. I suspect it is predominantly white, Southern, middle-aged+ and male.

The founding fathers, who included slave owners, were the heirs of the European philosophers who framed the concepts of freedom and individual rights. These rights are always, in the classical liberal tradition, limited only when they may harm other peoples' enjoyment of their own, equal rights, to paraphrase the French delaration of the rights of Man and the citizen, which is heir to the same tradition.

It seems to me that the extreme gun lobby in the US, exemplified by the NRA, deliberately ignores the part of the equation which balances citizens' rights against the harm they might do to others, to the point where it seems to be 'my right to do whatever I want is unlimited'. They make a spurious appeal to the classical liberal tradition in order to cover their naked and aggressive selfishness, and believe their contingent political right to own a gun outweighs other peoples' absolute natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no natural right to have a gun, or indeed any weapon. The nearest we have is a natural right to self-defence, and that has to be proportionate to the threat - it would be disproportionate to stab someone in the throat because they might step on your toe. The gun lobby appears to have lost, or perhaps discarded, any sense of proportion they ever had.

So everything that, in the wrong hands, can harm other people should be made illegal?

That's going to be a pretty long list.

As has already been mentioned in this thread gun ownership does not necessarily mean gun crime.

Rich_cb wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

I suspect it may be more accurate to say that the modern country is founded on the resentment and bitterness that followed the Civil War, and the gun nuts who bang on about individual freedom are probably the last gasp of those whose concept of gun rights and individual freedom didn't and perhaps still doesn't extend as far as black people. I'd be quite interested to see a demographic and geographic breakdown of peoples' views and history of gun ownership. I suspect it is predominantly white, Southern, middle-aged+ and male.

The founding fathers, who included slave owners, were the heirs of the European philosophers who framed the concepts of freedom and individual rights. These rights are always, in the classical liberal tradition, limited only when they may harm other peoples' enjoyment of their own, equal rights, to paraphrase the French delaration of the rights of Man and the citizen, which is heir to the same tradition.

It seems to me that the extreme gun lobby in the US, exemplified by the NRA, deliberately ignores the part of the equation which balances citizens' rights against the harm they might do to others, to the point where it seems to be 'my right to do whatever I want is unlimited'. They make a spurious appeal to the classical liberal tradition in order to cover their naked and aggressive selfishness, and believe their contingent political right to own a gun outweighs other peoples' absolute natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no natural right to have a gun, or indeed any weapon. The nearest we have is a natural right to self-defence, and that has to be proportionate to the threat - it would be disproportionate to stab someone in the throat because they might step on your toe. The gun lobby appears to have lost, or perhaps discarded, any sense of proportion they ever had.

So everything that, in the wrong hands, can harm other people should be made illegal? That's going to be a pretty long list. As has already been mentioned in this thread gun ownership does not necessarily mean gun crime.

that’s not what I wrote, and I don’t know how you infer it from what I wrote.

I ended by writing about getting a sense of proportion - I guess you missed that.

ConcordeCX wrote:

their contingent political right to own a gun outweighs other peoples' absolute natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

ConcordeCX wrote:

that’s not what I wrote, and I don’t know how you infer it from what I wrote.

I ended by writing about getting a sense of proportion - I guess you missed that.

I think the inference was pretty clear.

Rich_cb wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

their contingent political right to own a gun outweighs other peoples' absolute natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

ConcordeCX wrote:

that’s not what I wrote, and I don’t know how you infer it from what I wrote.

I ended by writing about getting a sense of proportion - I guess you missed that.

I think the inference was pretty clear.

No inference needed - just read the words. They refer to guns. Not 'everything that can cause harm', which is the odd conclusion you jumped to and the rabbit hole that Disfunctional Threshold disappeared down.

And the 'sense of proportion' is key: one Dunblane and we place the rights of the kids to live over the rights of weirdos to shoot schools up.

Many Dunblanes later, and the POTUS is claiming that armed officers might still be the answer.... Or maybe armed teachers...

One of these countries continues to have Dunblanes, and a leader that just claimed that, unarmed, he would have run into the school (I shit you not - he said that yesterday). That's possibly another factor: is your country likely to elect a leader who thinks he's in the A Team?

But the single biggest contributor? Malfunctioning douchebags being able to get their hands on killing machines that allow them to kill 17 people in 6 minutes and escape. There's only one type of machine that fits that bill.

davel wrote:

No inference needed - just read the words. They refer to guns. Not 'everything that can cause harm', which is the odd conclusion you jumped to and the rabbit hole that Disfunctional Threshold disappeared down.

And the 'sense of proportion' is key: one Dunblane and we place the rights of the kids to live over the rights of weirdos to shoot schools up.

Many Dunblanes later, and the POTUS is claiming that armed officers might still be the answer.... Or maybe armed teachers...

One of these countries continues to have Dunblanes, and a leader that just claimed that, unarmed, he would have run into the school (I shit you not - he said that yesterday). That's possibly another factor: is your country likely to elect a leader who thinks he's in the A Team?

But the single biggest contributor? Malfunctioning douchebags being able to get their hands on killing machines that allow them to kill 17 people in 6 minutes and escape. There's only one type of machine that fits that bill.

The inference is crystal clear. If ownership of X impinges an 'absolute natural right' then we should restrict the ownership of X.

By applying that rule to other items that also impinge 'absolute natural rights' you take yourself down the rabbit hole.

There are plenty of items that can be used to kill innocent people, the Boston Marathon bombs were homemade, the Nice terrorist attack used a truck to kill many more than any mass shooter in the US has managed.

Banning guns won't solve the problem, the genie is out of the bottle as far as the US is concerned, changing the culture around guns is the only way to improve things IMHO.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

No inference needed - just read the words. They refer to guns. Not 'everything that can cause harm', which is the odd conclusion you jumped to and the rabbit hole that Disfunctional Threshold disappeared down. And the 'sense of proportion' is key: one Dunblane and we place the rights of the kids to live over the rights of weirdos to shoot schools up. Many Dunblanes later, and the POTUS is claiming that armed officers might still be the answer.... Or maybe armed teachers... One of these countries continues to have Dunblanes, and a leader that just claimed that, unarmed, he would have run into the school (I shit you not - he said that yesterday). That's possibly another factor: is your country likely to elect a leader who thinks he's in the A Team? But the single biggest contributor? Malfunctioning douchebags being able to get their hands on killing machines that allow them to kill 17 people in 6 minutes and escape. There's only one type of machine that fits that bill.

The inference is crystal clear. If ownership of X impinges an 'absolute natural right' then we should restrict the ownership of X. By applying that rule to other items that also impinge 'absolute natural rights' you take yourself down the rabbit hole. There are plenty of items that can be used to kill innocent people, the Boston Marathon bombs were homemade, the Nice terrorist attack used a truck to kill many more than any mass shooter in the US has managed. Banning guns won't solve the problem, the genie is out of the bottle as far as the US is concerned, changing the culture around guns is the only way to improve things IMHO.

A complete gun ban seems unlikely for the U.S., but they could easily ban assault rifles as there doesn't seem to be a legitimate use for them except for going on killing sprees.

Rich_cb wrote:

There are plenty of items that can be used to kill innocent people, the Boston Marathon bombs were homemade, the Nice terrorist attack used a truck to kill many more than any mass shooter in the US has managed.

Homemade bombs come with the not-very-nice risk of blowing yourself up. And malfunctioning.

A truck is big and clunky... it can't spray death at hundreds of metres per second in any direction. Yeah the Nice attack was massive but look at the others. The Cardiff EDL nutjob was being beaten to death before an imam intervened - after killing one person who was already stricken when he hit him. The ones who want to then escape arm themselves with an actual weapon, and even then get caught.

No, this argument fails on two major points:

1: assault rifles are quick and easy to use. You need zero training to mow many people down, quickly and efficiently, with little risk to yourself.

2: cars, trucks, and the stuff that homemade bombs are made out of, kind of have other uses. You don't fertilise your garden or drive to work via an assault rifle.

There is no comparable device.

Edited to sort quote tags.

davel wrote:

Homemade bombs come with the not-very-nice risk of blowing yourself up. And malfunctioning.

A truck is big and clunky... it can't spray death at hundreds of metres per second in any direction. Yeah the Nice attack was massive but look at the others. The Cardiff EDL nutjob was being beaten to death before an imam intervened - after killing one person who was already stricken when he hit him. The ones who want to then escape arm themselves with an actual weapon, and even then get caught.

No, this argument fails on two major points:

1: assault rifles are quick and easy to use. You need zero training to mow many people down, quickly and efficiently, with little risk to yourself.

2: cars, trucks, and the stuff that homemade bombs are made out of, kind of have other uses. You don't fertilise your garden or drive to work via an assault rifle.

There is no comparable device.

Did the Nice attacker have any specialist truck driving training?

Does every mass shooting attempt succeed?

The vast majority of mass shooters are either captured or killed during the attack or very shortly afterwards so the argument that Assault Rifles allow escape is a non starter.

The original point was that if an object can harm someone else it should be banned/restricted.

A large SUV causes far more harm than a small hatchback so why don't we ban SUVs?

The vast majority of SUV owners have no legitimate need for it just like the vast majority of powerful semi-automatic rifle owners.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Homemade bombs come with the not-very-nice risk of blowing yourself up. And malfunctioning.

A truck is big and clunky... it can't spray death at hundreds of metres per second in any direction. Yeah the Nice attack was massive but look at the others. The Cardiff EDL nutjob was being beaten to death before an imam intervened - after killing one person who was already stricken when he hit him. The ones who want to then escape arm themselves with an actual weapon, and even then get caught.

No, this argument fails on two major points:

1: assault rifles are quick and easy to use. You need zero training to mow many people down, quickly and efficiently, with little risk to yourself.

2: cars, trucks, and the stuff that homemade bombs are made out of, kind of have other uses. You don't fertilise your garden or drive to work via an assault rifle.

There is no comparable device.

Did the Nice attacker have any specialist truck driving training?

Does every mass shooting attempt succeed?

The vast majority of mass shooters are either captured or killed during the attack or very shortly afterwards so the argument that Assault Rifles allow escape is a non starter.

The original point was that if an object can harm someone else it should be banned/restricted.

A large SUV causes far more harm than a small hatchback so why don't we ban SUVs?

The vast majority of SUV owners have no legitimate need for it just like the vast majority of powerful semi-automatic rifle owners.

This is deliberately obtuse: ConcordeCX used the word 'gun' and disputed your interpretation himself. Bang on about truck attacks all you like.

It is not about the right to use things whose primary purpose is not to kill and maim. It's about banging on about the right to own a gun when 11,000 people, who, presumably, had a right to life, are murdered with them each year.

davel wrote:

This is deliberately obtuse: ConcordeCX used the word 'gun' and disputed your interpretation himself. Bang on about truck attacks all you like.

It is not about the right to use things whose primary purpose is not to kill and maim. It's about banging on about the right to own a gun when 11,000 people, who, presumably, had a right to life, are murdered with them each year.

Not at all.

You can't call for a ban on X without some justification. If your justification is that X harms people then I think it's reasonable to ask if you'll apply the same criteria to other harmful things.

A semi automatic rifle owned and used legally will not harm a single person.

An SUV owned and used legally will.

Very few people require either.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

This is deliberately obtuse: ConcordeCX used the word 'gun' and disputed your interpretation himself. Bang on about truck attacks all you like.

It is not about the right to use things whose primary purpose is not to kill and maim. It's about banging on about the right to own a gun when 11,000 people, who, presumably, had a right to life, are murdered with them each year.

Not at all.

You can't call for a ban on X without some justification. If your justification is that X harms people then I think it's reasonable to ask if you'll apply the same criteria to other harmful things.

A semi automatic rifle owned and used legally will not harm a single person.

An SUV owned and used legally will.

Very few people require either.

Oh behave. Accidental deaths via guns don't happen?

Consider this. If you want to kill yourself, and have access to a gun, that's a very definite way of doing it. I mean, 11,000 people are murdered with guns in the USA, but, staggeringly, about twice that number kill themselves via gunfire. An amazing 6.3 people per thousand die from suicide by gun.

In the UK, it's 0.15 per thousand.

In the US, the accidental gun death rate is 0.18 people per thousand.

Yes, the accidental shooting death rate in the US is higher than the suicide by shooting rate in the UK; you are 3 TIMES as likely to die of an unintentional gun injury in the USA than you are by a gun murder in the UK. Just an acceptable price to pay for all those guns lying around, I suppose! What can you do!

There's a link here, purely associated with one device, that would have you creaming your pants if you could apply it to helmets. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...

davel wrote:

Oh behave. Accidental deaths via guns don't happen?

Consider this. If you want to kill yourself, and have access to a gun, that's a very definite way of doing it. I mean, 11,000 people are murdered with guns in the USA, but, staggeringly, about twice that number kill themselves via gunfire. An amazing 6.3 people per thousand die from suicide by gun.

In the UK, it's 0.15 per thousand.

In the US, the accidental gun death rate is 0.18 people per thousand.

Yes, the accidental shooting death rate in the US is higher than the suicide by shooting rate in the UK; you are 3 TIMES as likely to die of an unintentional gun injury in the USA than you are by a gun murder in the UK. Just an acceptable price to pay for all those guns lying around, I suppose! What can you do!

There's a link here, purely associated with one device, that would have you creaming your pants if you could apply it to helmets. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea...

Neat way of avoiding the point I was making.

I'll rephrase it to accommodate your point on accidents, the crux remains completely unchanged.

A semi automatic rifle owned legally and used carefully will not harm a single person.

An SUV owned legally and used carefully will harm many.

Why are you so eager to ban the former but not the latter?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

This is deliberately obtuse: ConcordeCX used the word 'gun' and disputed your interpretation himself. Bang on about truck attacks all you like. It is not about the right to use things whose primary purpose is not to kill and maim. It's about banging on about the right to own a gun when 11,000 people, who, presumably, had a right to life, are murdered with them each year.

Not at all. You can't call for a ban on X without some justification. If your justification is that X harms people then I think it's reasonable to ask if you'll apply the same criteria to other harmful things. A semi automatic rifle owned and used legally will not harm a single person. An SUV owned and used legally will. Very few people require either.

I think that I struggle to get my head around the fact that there are people willing to waste their time trying to defend the american position of gun ownership. It's shameful and quite embarrassing that someone who attempts to be intelligent can follow this line. It's not even up for debate.

don simon wrote:

I think that I struggle to get my head around the fact that there are people willing to waste their time trying to defend the american position of gun ownership. It's shameful and quite embarrassing that someone who attempts to be intelligent can follow this line. It's not even up for debate.

I find it hard to comprehend how people can be so certain that their position is right but can't abide being challenged to actually justify it.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

I think that I struggle to get my head around the fact that there are people willing to waste their time trying to defend the american position of gun ownership. It's shameful and quite embarrassing that someone who attempts to be intelligent can follow this line. It's not even up for debate.

I find it hard to comprehend how people can be so certain that their position is right but can't abide being challenged to actually justify it.

There is no justification for the majority of (hand)gun ownership apart from defending themselves form other thick cunts that have (hand)guns. If you agree with the US position and can't justify it, you haven't, you have to accept that you have blood on your hands too.

Why should any private citizen have a lethal weapon, specifically a gun) in their posession?

I have a 4x4, now go and  whistle!

EDIT: Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that you are the first person to have introduced an opposing view? Isn't it equally arrogant to assume that my viewpoint hasn't not been subject to thought and consideration before arriving at its current position. Equally I don't have to justify my position to you.

don simon wrote:

There is no justification for the majority of (hand)gun ownership apart from defending themselves form other thick cunts that have (hand)guns. If you agree with the US position and can't justify it, you haven't, you have to accept that you have blood on your hands too.

Why should any private citizen have a lethal weapon, specifically a gun) in their posession?

I have a 4x4, now go and  whistle!

EDIT: Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that you are the first person to have introduced an opposing view? Isn't it equally arrogant to assume that my viewpoint hasn't not been subject to thought and consideration before arriving at its current position. Equally I don't have to justify my position to you.

Nowhere did I say I was the first person to introduce an opposing view. I simply said that certain people can't abide justifying their views. You appear to have confirmed that you are one of them.

I have absolutely no blood on my hands regarding the gun debate, you however have definitely harmed your fellow citizens through the use of your 4x4. I'd ask you to justify that but...

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

There is no justification for the majority of (hand)gun ownership apart from defending themselves form other thick cunts that have (hand)guns. If you agree with the US position and can't justify it, you haven't, you have to accept that you have blood on your hands too.

Why should any private citizen have a lethal weapon, specifically a gun) in their posession?

I have a 4x4, now go and  whistle!

EDIT: Isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that you are the first person to have introduced an opposing view? Isn't it equally arrogant to assume that my viewpoint hasn't not been subject to thought and consideration before arriving at its current position. Equally I don't have to justify my position to you.

Nowhere did I say I was the first person to introduce an opposing view. I simply said that certain people can't abide justifying their views. You appear to have confirmed that you are one of them. I have absolutely no blood on my hands regarding the gun debate, you however have definitely harmed your fellow citizens through the use of your 4x4. I'd ask you to justify that but...

Yet here you are banging the same gun argument without any justification of your position with a mildly amusing and wholly misguided comparison.

Much like you bang on with the same shit in any debate.

Why should the man in the street have a gun in their possession?

It's got fuck all to do with whether I have a 4x4, which does much less harm in my possession than you have the ability to understand.

I told you, I don't have to justify my views to you, or my choices. You've demonstrated that you don't have the ability to understand and there's no debate.

Chao!