Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Gurth wrote:

> I didn't want to say anything in this thread before, because I've seen it
> all and I know there is no way in hell we'll ever change your mind, but
> what you just said is the #1 reason for tight firearms control: if nobody
> has a weapon, there aren't any to steal.

Well, that's not entirely true. Or rather, it's true, but only
in the abstract sense. Yes, if there's nothing to steal, it surely
follows that there will be fewer thefts.
But that totally ignores the fact that weapons are fairly easy to
come by, even in countries where they are tightly controlled. The person
whose post you were replying to should probably have stated that most
criminals get their guns illegally, rather than simply by theft. Theft is
only one of many options available to the would-be criminal.

> Oh yes, they can be smuggled in, and that will happen. But in a country
> where firearms are hard to come by, using one will make you (and/or your
> crime) stand out and become a target of very serious police investigation
> extremely rapidly.

Then why isn't that the case in England? Why is violent crime on
the rise there? Why is firearms use by criminals growing rapidly?
England has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the free world,
yet it hasn't stemmed the tide of illegal guns flowing into the country,
nor has it eliminated gun-related crime.

Marc
Message no. 2
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:43:27 +0200
Marc wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> Then why isn't that the case in England? Why is violent crime on
> the rise there? Why is firearms use by criminals growing rapidly?
> England has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the free world,
> yet it hasn't stemmed the tide of illegal guns flowing into the country,
> nor has it eliminated gun-related crime.

It's not just keeping guns away from the people, it's more so the mentality
of the people. Moral decay anyone?

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 3
From: Quindrael d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:27:31 +0200
> But that totally ignores the fact that weapons are fairly easy to
>come by, even in countries where they are tightly controlled.

I think the issue is not if they can get a gun. If they really want, they
will. The issue is more how they will use it: as a threat (I have a gun and
you don't, so if you do what I want we'll both be happy) or to kill you (I
have a gun and so do you: let's make sure you can't use it).

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")
Message no. 4
From: Robert Blackberg Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:20:03 -0400
>>> Quindrael <d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl> 07/16/99 12:27PM
>>>
>I think the issue is not if they can get a gun. If they really want, they
>will. The issue is more how they will use it: as a threat (I have a gun and
>you don't, so if you do what I want we'll both be happy) or to kill you (I
>have a gun and so do you: let's make sure you can't use it).

I hate to contribute to a thread like this (a subject that divides an entire nation, not
just a mailing list), but I must. :)

Once upon a time in America, if you were accosted by a robber with a gun, either in your
house or on the street, you could be pretty sure that if you didn't cause trouble and gave
the person what he/she wanted, you'd get out of the situation intact.

That's not the case anymore. With today's violent crime, chances are much greater that
you'll be shot and killed by your assailants, even after you've given them what they
wanted. I'm not saying the majority of criminals will take your life just because they
can, but I am saying that it's much more common than it was even 20 years ago.

The question becomes: do you want to take the chance that the robbers in your house or in
that dark alley are the "nice" kind? I wouldn't. If I have a gun, I'll use it.
If I don't, I'll run. I think my chances are better that way.

Serious words for a serious subject.

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line_______________)
Message no. 5
From: Robert Blackberg Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:21:53 -0400
>>> Quindrael <d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl> 07/16/99 12:27PM
>>>
>I think the issue is not if they can get a gun. If they really want, they
>will. The issue is more how they will use it: as a threat (I have a gun and
>you don't, so if you do what I want we'll both be happy) or to kill you (I
>have a gun and so do you: let's make sure you can't use it).

I hate to contribute to a thread like this (a subject that divides an entire nation, not
just a mailing list), but I must. :)

Once upon a time in America, if you were accosted by a robber with a gun, either in your
house or on the street, you could be pretty sure that if you didn't cause trouble and gave
the person what he/she wanted, you'd get out of the situation intact.

That's not the case anymore. With today's violent crime, chances are much greater that
you'll be shot and killed by your assailants, even after you've given them what they
wanted. I'm not saying the majority of criminals will take your life just because they
can, but I am saying that it's much more common than it was even 20 years ago.

The question becomes: do you want to take the chance that the robbers in your house or in
that dark alley are the "nice" kind? I wouldn't. If I have a gun, I'll use it.
If I don't, I'll run. I think my chances are better that way.

Serious words for a serious subject.

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line_______________)
Message no. 6
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:39:15 +0100
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990716112326.20719B-100000@*******>, Marc
Renouf <renouf@********.com> writes
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Gurth wrote:
>> Oh yes, they can be smuggled in, and that will happen. But in a country
>> where firearms are hard to come by, using one will make you (and/or your
>> crime) stand out and become a target of very serious police investigation
>> extremely rapidly.
>
> Then why isn't that the case in England?

It is. Firearm crime is very rare - we have ~70 firearm deaths a year.
That includes suicides and accidents. Criminals with guns are, media hype
notwithstanding, unusual; replicas and deactivated weapons are more
common than functional firearms.

>Why is violent crime on
>the rise there? Why is firearms use by criminals growing rapidly?
>England has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the free world,
>yet it hasn't stemmed the tide of illegal guns flowing into the country,
>nor has it eliminated gun-related crime.

True to a point - going from "tight control" to "abolition" made
damn-all
difference.

On the other hand, we have a quarter of the population and yet 1/400 of
the firearms deaths. Looks like gun control had _some_ effect...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 7
From: Robert Blackberg Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:48:03 -0400
>>> Quindrael <d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl> 07/16/99 12:27PM
>>>
>I think the issue is not if they can get a gun. If they really want, they
>will. The issue is more how they will use it: as a threat (I have a gun and
>you don't, so if you do what I want we'll both be happy) or to kill you (I
>have a gun and so do you: let's make sure you can't use it).

I hate to contribute to a thread like this (a subject that divides an entire nation, not
just a mailing list), but I must. :)

Once upon a time in America, if you were accosted by a robber with a gun, either in your
house or on the street, you could be pretty sure that if you didn't cause trouble and gave
the person what he/she wanted, you'd get out of the situation intact.

That's not the case anymore. With today's violent crime, chances are much greater that
you'll be shot and killed by your assailants, even after you've given them what they
wanted. I'm not saying the majority of criminals will take your life just because they
can, but I am saying that it's much more common than it was even 20 years ago.

The question becomes: do you want to take the chance that the robbers in your house or in
that dark alley are the "nice" kind? I wouldn't. If I have a gun, I'll use it.
If I don't, I'll run. I think my chances are better that way.

Serious words for a serious subject.

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line_______________)
Message no. 8
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> On the other hand, we have a quarter of the population and yet 1/400 of
> the firearms deaths. Looks like gun control had _some_ effect...

Yes, but your crime rates for a variety of different types of
assault, burglary, and robbery have risen dramatically since 1995, and has
actually surpassed the corresponding American statistics on a per capita
basis. So maybe it had the *wrong* effect...

Marc
Message no. 9
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:18:26 -0400
At 18.27 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>I think the issue is not if they can get a gun. If they really want, they
>will.

Thank you for acknowledg\ing that point.

> The issue is more how they will use it: as a threat (I have a gun and
>you don't, so if you do what I want we'll both be happy) or to kill you (I
>have a gun and so do you: let's make sure you can't use it).

Thiry years ago, there was no question- it was mainly a threat. Fifteen
years ago, there was a real question. Increasing, there is no question.
If a gun is drawn, it will probably be used. There is no such thing as
"second place" at that point.
Maybe I am a throughback, I don't know. If that is the case, then almost
everyone I know well enough to know about thier childhood is a throughback,
becuase the majority of us were taught that if there is any doubt, a gun is
loaded, and should be treated as such.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 10
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: On the topic of gun control...
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 13:36:56 +0100
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990716165535.16268B-100000@*******>, Marc
Renouf <renouf@********.com> writes
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> On the other hand, we have a quarter of the population and yet 1/400 of
>> the firearms deaths. Looks like gun control had _some_ effect...
>
> Yes, but your crime rates for a variety of different types of
>assault, burglary, and robbery have risen dramatically since 1995,

"Dramatically"? Not so sure about that one...

>and has
>actually surpassed the corresponding American statistics on a per capita
>basis. So maybe it had the *wrong* effect...

Marc, precisely what change to British firearms laws do you (a) believe
occurred in 1995, and (b) made any significant difference to the
availability of criminal firearms? You couldn't carry a firearm for self-
defence before, you can't now, so _that_ didn't make any difference...


--
Paul J. Adam

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about On the topic of gun control..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!