Espada

[Xavier_Onassis]

This has nothing to do with making a particular sort of gun illegal. It is about the fact that no one needs more than one or at most two guns that serve the same function.

[Plane]

This has nothing to do with making a particular sort of gun illegal. It is about the fact that no one needs more than one or at most two guns that serve the same function.

I guess that is a legitamate opinion, it is certainly better money management to avoid a lot of redundancy.

Other than that, what is the diffrence for a responsibe person to have two when his need is for one?

What diffrence does it make for an irrisponsible person to have many rather than few?

As you have pointed out , it is hard to commit crime with a ot of guns at once.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Which is why limiting the number of guns a person owns is not in any way necessary.

Criminals get guns by stealing them. If a person has 30 guns and someone steals them, there are 29 more guns in the hands of criminals than there would be if the same person had only one gun.
 
Criminals tend to use guns in more criminal ways. Guns do not die with their owners, they are not buried with them like King Tut's treasure. Old Charleton Heston is gone, but I imagine that all his guns are still around, Possibly one or more of them has been stolen and is now in the hands of a criminal.

[Plane]

Which is why limiting the number of guns a person owns is not in any way necessary.

Criminals get guns by stealing them. If a person has 30 guns and someone steals them, there are 29 more guns in the hands of criminals than there would be if the same person had only one gun.
 
Criminals tend to use guns in more criminal ways. Guns do not die with their owners, they are not buried with them like King Tut's treasure. Old Charleton Heston is gone, but I imagine that all his guns are still around, Possibly one or more of them has been stolen and is now in the hands of a criminal.

There has been more than one gun per criminal since centurys ago when guns started to be found in military surplus.
There really is no potential for disarming criminals as a side effect of disarming responsible people.

I believe it would take centurys of severe repression to create a nation in which it was difficult for a criminal to get a firearm, that being an experiment I would rather not start.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I believe it would take centurys of severe repression to create a nation in which it was difficult for a criminal to get a firearm, that being an experiment I would rather not start.

===========================================
Did it take "centuries of severe repression" to do this in Australia or any of the dozens of countries in which getting a gun is difficult?

Get serious.

[Plane]

I believe it would take centurys of severe repression to create a nation in which it was difficult for a criminal to get a firearm, that being an experiment I would rather not start.

===========================================
Did it take "centuries of severe repression" to do this in Australia or any of the dozens of countries in which getting a gun is difficult?

Get serious.

Yes.

For a criminal, is getting a gun in Austrailia really difficult?

I don't need to ask about England , inspite of almost a century of gun restriction , a gun was availible to a coupple of jhaidists about three weeks ago.

If gun regulators get their fondest wishes fulfilled , I can't imagine how it will disarm any criminals .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Compare the number of gun crimes in Britain or Australia with those in the US and you will see the difference. The argument that because a couple of homicidal idiots managed to get guns that guns should be made available to every homicidal idiot is a bogus one. The fewer guns that are in circulation, the fewer gun crimes there will be, The harder it is to get a gun, the fewer guns will be used in crime.

It did not take "centuries of repression" to cut the number of guns in circulation in Australia.

[BSB]

"a gun was availible to a coupple of jhaidists about three weeks ago."

I'm not disputing your claim because I don't know, but I thought they used a knife?


BSB

[Xavier_Onassis]

Some used a knife to kill a cop. I suppose he could have been referring to some other jihaddists.

[Plane]

"a gun was availible to a coupple of jhaidists about three weeks ago."

I'm not disputing your claim because I don't know, but I thought they used a knife?


BSB

There were unconfirmed reports that the attackers may have had a gun and raised it, possibly even fired it as armed police arrived. Julia Wilders, a witness, said: "I walked back up there and the tall black bloke had changed the gun to the other guy and he had two meat cleavers in his hand.

"And the response police turned up and he's ran towards them with meat cleavers before I could even get out of the car so they shot him. And then the other one lifts the gun up and they shot him as well." Later a photograph surfaced of a second potential suspect holding a bloody knife.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-attack-cleaver-knife-jihadist


I must admit , the presence of a gun was not important in this instance of crime, after reading this I am not even sure about it.

[Plane]

Compare the number of gun crimes in Britain or Australia with those in the US and you will see the difference. The argument that because a couple of homicidal idiots managed to get guns that guns should be made available to every homicidal idiot is a bogus one. The fewer guns that are in circulation, the fewer gun crimes there will be, The harder it is to get a gun, the fewer guns will be used in crime.

It did not take "centuries of repression" to cut the number of guns in circulation in Australia.

I question your whole premise and every "fact" you cite here as questionable.

We observe in the US that as MORE guns are in circulation , not only are there fewer gun crimes , there are fewer of all crimes, there is no way to infer from this that a greater number of guns is a cause of greater numbers of crimes, and there is also no way to prove from the facts that

The fewer guns that are in circulation, the fewer gun crimes there will be, The harder it is to get a gun, the fewer guns will be used in crime.

It seems instead to be a disproved myth.


But then what about

Compare the number of gun crimes in Britain or Australia with those in the US and you will see the difference.

No you won't see the diffrence that gun controll makes doing that, not at all.

What you will see is the diffrence that culture and government and diffrent situations make.

If you compared the US and Britian and Austrailia in 1900 before gun controll you would see this same diffrence!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Australia was settled by convicts and had its wild west period. Ned Kelly was one famous Aussie bandit.

[Plane]

Australia was settled by convicts and had its wild west period. Ned Kelly was one famous Aussie bandit.

I know.

Though I don't know about any cowboys that tried steel armor.

Austrailia started Gun controll relitively recently, so a comparison of before and after should not be too hard. I will have a look.

[Plane]

This wikki has a lot of interesting detail(including a few things that would support your argument),

But all in all in terms of results, the propponents of gun controll ought to be disapointed in Austrailia, where suicide by gun went down immediaately , but suicide overall went up.
  Crime rates went down , but no faster than the trends that were already going on.

So there is really no evidence from the Austrailian experience that gun controll is worth the troubble and expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[35] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[36] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[37]
 
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[38]

[Xavier_Onassis]

What trouble?

What expense?

The goal was to prevent mass homicides. And NSW is only one of seven states. The incident that provoked the changes occurred in Queensland.