Guns - to Carry One or Not?

[GotSmart]

The very term "gun violence" minimizes the actual problem.  The violence problem is largely associated with unresolved mental health issues, and our society's willingness to turn to violence to solve disputes.  Assigning a role in those issues to guns is meaningless.  There is no "gun violence," only violence where some kind of weapon is used by one or more of the parties to gain an advantage.

In England some years ago (where guns are hard to come by) an emergency room physicians' group called for the banning of long kitchen knives because THAT was the weapon of choice that sliced and diced the patients they saw in their ERs.  

We need to get the societal violence under control, and we need to have an effective mental health system in place.  Unfortunately, we're doing neither right now, and as long as "guns" or "knives" remain the problem in the collective minds of the press and citizenry, we won't be able to do anything about the real issues.

It still is.  In England buying a set of kitchen knives will have you checked out by the police.  4 years for having a kitchen knife without proof of cookery intent.  This can include a multitool. 




https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]Selling, buying and carrying knives[/font]
[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and an unlimited fine. You’ll get a prison sentence if you’re convicted of carrying a knife more than once.[/font]
[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]Basic laws on knives[/font]
[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]It is illegal to:[/font]

• sell a knife to anyone under 18 (16 to 18 year olds in Scotland can buy cutlery and kitchen knives) unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62cm) or less
  
• carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62cm) or less
  
• carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
  
• use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:[/font]

• have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
  
• can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
  
  Good reasons for carrying a knife or weaponExamples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:
  • taking knives you use at work to and from work
    
  • taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
    
  • if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
    
  • if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it
• 
  A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.

 

[LeeRevell]

It still is.  In England buying a set of kitchen knives will have you checked out by the police.  4 years for having a kitchen knife without proof of cookery intent.  This can include a multitool. 




https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]Selling, buying and carrying knives[/font]
[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and an unlimited fine. You’ll get a prison sentence if you’re convicted of carrying a knife more than once.[/font]
[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]Basic laws on knives[/font]
[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]It is illegal to:[/font]

• sell a knife to anyone under 18 (16 to 18 year olds in Scotland can buy cutlery and kitchen knives) unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62cm) or less
  
• carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it’s a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62cm) or less
  
• carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
  
• use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

[font=nta, Arial, sans-serif]Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:[/font]

• have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
  
• can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
  
  Good reasons for carrying a knife or weaponExamples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:
  • taking knives you use at work to and from work
    
  • taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
    
  • if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
    
  • if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it
• 
  A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.

The utter mindlessness in such laws truly amazes me.
My collection of knives, bayonets and swords would get me put away for centuries over there. Never mind my guns.

 

[GotSmart]

It does not matter what people chose to defend themselves with.  Someone will make a law to control that.  At least we have the constitution. 

Australia's gun ban~(1996)~ Failure.   Crime stayed the same or rose, while the US rate fell by more than 1/2 in the same time period.

 

[slynne]

We need to get the societal violence under control, and we need to have an effective mental health system in place.  Unfortunately, we're doing neither right now, and as long as "guns" or "knives" remain the problem in the collective minds of the press and citizenry, we won't be able to do anything about the real issues.

The good news is that humans are becoming less violent. Both globally with fewer and less deadly wars and domestically with lower crime rates. It sometimes doesn't feel that way because the media tends to sensationalize both crime and guns but really we are much more peaceful than we were just a few decades ago. I agree with you that good mental health care would go a long ways towards improving things further and honestly it feels like something everyone should be able to get behind.


ArtW, what would it take to get you to trust the CDC to study gun violence in order to take a public health approach to solve the problem? Would a pro-gun appointment by our soon to be president help? I really think that it is likely that there are solutions which could be found which don't involve restricting gun rights. For example, it could be that making gun safety classes part of public education could reduce accidental deaths? Maybe better access to to mental health care would reduce suicides? Maybe encouraging women to  arm themselves could reduce domestic violence shootings? I dont know if any of those things are true but they all seem worth studying. As a society I think we can solve any problem if we learn enough about it.

 

[hepcat]

The good news is that humans are becoming less violent. Both globally with fewer and less deadly wars and domestically with lower crime rates. It sometimes doesn't feel that way because the media tends to sensationalize both crime and guns but really we are much more peaceful than we were just a few decades ago. I agree with you that good mental health care would go a long ways towards improving things further and honestly it feels like something everyone should be able to get behind.


ArtW, what would it take to get you to trust the CDC to study gun violence in order to take a public health approach to solve the problem? Would a pro-gun appointment by our soon to be president help? I really think that it is likely that there are solutions which could be found which don't involve restricting gun rights. For example, it could be that making gun safety classes part of public education could reduce accidental deaths? Maybe better access to to mental health care would reduce suicides? Maybe encouraging women to  arm themselves could reduce domestic violence shootings? I dont know if any of those things are true but they all seem worth studying. As a society I think we can solve any problem if we learn enough about it.

I'm not sure that the statistics bear out your thought that we're actually becoming less violent as a species.   Chicago had a record 762 homicides last year (from all causes.)    But you're right in general... the homicide rate in the U.S. has decreased steadily since 1990 when it peaked nationally.

Slynne, as far as studies go, we need first to understand WHY homicides and suicides are occurring... the means aren't nearly as significant as preventing whatever is causing them to happen.  THEN, it would be important to know how best to affect the means.   As humans, we're very poor at risk assessment.  We agonize over terrorist incidents that kill a few hundred folks a year world-wide... but think nothing of the 38,300 killed and 4.4 million folks injured on our highways in the U.S. in 2015 alone.  1,658,370 new cancer cases are diagnosed in the U.S. annually, and over 589,000 folks died of cancer in 2015 in the U.S. 

Our cars, our environment, our water, our air, our food, the chemicals we come in contact with every day, our dietary Roundup and dietary Bromine, food preservatives...  (and who knows what else) are killing us at a breakneck pace...  and here we're consumed with arguing about "gun violence?"    Where best do we put our efforts here?

As an aside, the mental health system's expansion and efficacy would greatly help not only suicides; it is significant to note that the ONLY thing that each of the mass shootings that has been reported by the media have in common are unresolved mental health issues on the part of the shooters.

 

[slynne]

I got the statistics from a book called _The Better Angels of Our Nature_ by Steven Pinker. It is an oldie but a goodie and more recent crime stats bear that out. Chicago seems to be a bit of an anomaly. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said but especially about the environmental factors. There is, for instance, a very strong correlation between exposure to lead and violence to the point where a lot of people think that the elimination of leaded gasoline in the 70's may be a significant factor in the reduction in crime decades later.

If you are interested, here is a TED talk by the author of the book I mentioned above http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence#t-155639

I know it is a stretch but I feel this is still relevant to the original thread. It is part of why I know that when I hit the road, I will not feel a need to be armed. I grew up in the city of Detroit in the 70's and 80's, which was the most violent time in that city's history. I went to school in the inner city. I was mugged twice and shot once before I even turned 18. I have also witnessed some pretty gory crimes. I can see now, though that things have changed. The city is much safer than it has ever been and it is really noticeable to me. I have not seen any violence myself, even though I regularly find myself in the city's... um... more dangerous areas. White kids from the suburbs now come to the city regularly when previously they just didn't. And they go ruin exploring in the most sketchy parts! I actually plan on doing some urban stealth camping there but my reason for being stealth is not mostly a fear for my safety but rather because the city has a "no sleeping in vehicle" ordinance. Anyways, the world really does feel safer to me so I think I will be ok unarmed and given my ignorance of gun safety, I am certainly safer without a firearm.

 

[hepcat]

I got the statistics from a book called _The Better Angels of Our Nature_ by Steven Pinker. It is an oldie but a goodie and more recent crime stats bear that out. Chicago seems to be a bit of an anomaly. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said but especially about the environmental factors. There is, for instance, a very strong correlation between exposure to lead and violence to the point where a lot of people think that the elimination of leaded gasoline in the 70's may be a significant factor in the reduction in crime decades later.

If you are interested, here is a TED talk by the author of the book I mentioned above http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence#t-155639

I know it is a stretch but I feel this is still relevant to the original thread. It is part of why I know that when I hit the road, I will not feel a need to be armed. I grew up in the city of Detroit in the 70's and 80's, which was the most violent time in that city's history. I went to school in the inner city. I was mugged twice and shot once before I even turned 18. I have also witnessed some pretty gory crimes. I can see now, though that things have changed. The city is much safer than it has ever been and it is really noticeable to me. I have not seen any violence myself, even though I regularly find myself in the city's... um... more dangerous areas. White kids from the suburbs now come to the city regularly when previously they just didn't. And they go ruin exploring in the most sketchy parts! I actually plan on doing some urban stealth camping there but my reason for being stealth is not mostly a fear for my safety but rather because the city has a "no sleeping in vehicle" ordinance. Anyways, the world really does feel safer to me so I think I will be ok unarmed and given my ignorance of gun safety, I am certainly safer without a firearm.

I applaud your wisdom in choosing not to carry a gun because you don't know how to use one.  I wish there were more people who were making such good decisions.

I would caution you though, that statistical trends do NOT apply to individuals in the population.  While the odds of you becoming a victim may be decreasing in general, there are still bad guys who prey on folks and you are still eligible to be victimized.  Do your target hardening, make choices to not to look and act like a victim, and you'll go far to ensure your own safety.  The "world being safer" can't do that for you, ensuring your safety is incumbent upon you and you alone.

Best wishes!

 

[slynne]

Oh yeah, I hear you there about taking precautions. I am from Detroit after all and can assure you that I have developed some street smarts over the years. I am good at de-escalation and also am pretty good about being aware of my surroundings. There are things you learn being in unsafe places. I always trust my gut about situations. Even in really safe low crime areas, I tend to walk around with "I am from the D, F with me and I will F you up" attitude. I have my Detroitness on my side there! One of the advantages of van life is the ability to get out of a situation quickly and also a large vehicle like that can be used as a weapon too. Plus baseball bat just in case.

 

[Ticklebellly]

Australia's gun ban~(1996)~ Failure. 

Actually, a tremendous success.   Most of the people in this street don't even lock their doors at night.   Not a mass shooting since the gun laws came in.   People don't walk around in fear waiting for some gun nut to pull one out and start shooting.   Back to the original question, no need to carry a gun here.

No need for a constitutional amendment here.   If I wanted a gun, down to the shop, do the paperwork and get a license.   But, no need to have a gun, unless you need one for work, for example.

 

[LeeRevell]

"License"....? Meh, we don't need no stinkin' license!
Down to the gunshop, choose a gun, pay my money, a quick phone-in NICS background check, walk out the door with rifle or shotgun, wait three working days for a handgun.
"Need"? Maybe I just "WANT". Sport shooting, historical interest, curiosity - usually not considered "viable reasons" to own a gun in less progressive nations. Here, if I want it, and I have a clean record, I can get it.
None of my several dozen guns has ever threatened a soul, nor ever will.....
Unless someone attacks me.
There are many reasons to own a firearm, defense being just one.
Our Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or target shooting.
Those who don't want to use the right to own a gun have no right to take that right from us who do.

 

[GotSmart]

Actually, a tremendous success.   Most of the people in this street don't even lock their doors at night.   Not a mass shooting since the gun laws came in.   People don't walk around in fear waiting for some gun nut to pull one out and start shooting.   Back to the original question, no need to carry a gun here.

No need for a constitutional amendment here.   If I wanted a gun, down to the shop, do the paperwork and get a license.   But, no need to have a gun, unless you need one for work, for example.

Just because there were no MASS shootings ~~~ Watch out for the Kool Aid

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[56]

A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[57]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-57

 

[hepcat]

Just because there were no MASS shootings ~~~ Watch out for the Kool Aid



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-57

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[56]

A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[57]

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#cite_note-57[/font]
And unfortunately this study focuses on "firearm homicide or suicide rates" when that isn't the issue at all.  The issue is whether or not removing firearms reduces the violent crime rate in general.   People and studies are too focused on "guns as the problem"  and not focused enough on the problems of society.

 

[johnny b]

On the lighter side:

A Short Gun Story....


A guy walked into a crowded bar, waving his unholstered pistol and yelled, "I have a 45 caliber Colt 1911 with a seven round magazine plus one up the pipe and I want to know who's been sleeping with my wife."

A voice from the back of the room called out, "You need more ammo". 

 

[flying kurbmaster]

Those who don't want to use the right to own a gun have no right to take that right from us who do.

in a democratic country they could, all they need is a majority to believe that they are doing more damage then good. Just like any other law or amendment can be changed. Another way is the Russians could  hack into the supreme court and change that amendment, they managed to elect a president I am sure changing an amendment would be a piece of cake.

 

[johnny b]

in a democratic country they could, all they need is a majority to believe that they are doing more damage then good. Just like any other law or amendment can be changed. Another way is the Russians could  hack into the supreme court and change that amendment, they managed to elect a president I am sure changing an amendment would be a piece of cake.

WOW!!!  I was unaware that the Supreme Court held all the Amendments in their 'database' just waiting to be hacked.   :huh: :huh:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

 

[Ballenxj]

in a democratic country they could, all they need is a majority to believe that they are doing more damage then good. Just like any other law or amendment can be changed. Another way is the Russians could  hack into the supreme court and change that amendment, they managed to elect a president I am sure changing an amendment would be a piece of cake.

I'm sorry, but not only is this getting political, but I have to call B.S. on this one. Since we have now ventured into that realm, I would like to point out what happened in 1775 & 1776 when another mob ruler tried that once before. IIRLC, you live in N.Z., right? But let's not go there.

 

[DannyB1954]

These gun threads go nowhere. Neither the pro's or anti's are going to change their position.

 

[cortttt]

"Carrying in a safe area....."
No such thing as a 'safe' area.  Criminals and terrorists these last several years shows that shootings can occur ANYWHERE, ANYTIME", period.
Do NOT believe in "gun free zones".  These are hunting areas for killers.
If you are accosted by the goblin and you are unarmed, you are immediately a victim, trusting that letting the goblin have his way he won't kill you.  Do you really want to trust and hope he will not harm you or your loved ones?
If you are accosted and are armed, you have the opportunity to protect yourself and your loved ones.  I may be shot, I may die, but I will do my best to make sure the goblin dies first.
Some people have the mindset to NOT be a victim, some do not.  This is a personal decision.  No one can make it for you.
I have been shot at, it's an amazingly vivid experience, really clears the mind.

It depends on what you consider constitutes "safe". Spending almost sixty years  without seeing anyone take out a gun or knife or getting robbed or even threatened suggests that I'm probably in a safe area - that I am basically safe. There are what 350 million people in the U.S. - how many were killed by terrorist last year? 100 - in a very bad year....That statistic doesn't bother me at all. 

Some areas really aren't safe - I agree with that. I just dont appear to have been in them.

 

[Ballenxj]

Here's the deal as I see it. The antis get on their soap box and try to declare that we do not have the right to defend ourselves as we see fit.
They claim to be the peaceful ones, but when they don't get their way, they have huge riots, protests, and tantrums in general.
The answer is simple, if you do not want to have a gun, don't. By the same token, you do not have the right to trample on "my" rights! Back off already or you might see the Gadsden flag flying here.

 

[LeeRevell]

Here's the deal as I see it. The antis get on their soap box and try to declare that we do not have the right to defend ourselves as we see fit.
They claim to be the peaceful ones, but when they don't get their way, they have huge riots, protests, and tantrums in general.
The answer is simple, if you do not want to have a gun, don't. By the same token, you do not have the right to trample on "my" rights! Back off already or you might see the Gadsden flag flying here.

BIG DITTO!! The Right of Choice. Own a gun, or don't. Carry a gun, or don't. NEVER try to take MY rights away from me.

Corttt: Sixty years for me too, come March. Seen a bit of violence. Been shot at. Been robbed. Seen people hurt by guns. I blame the criminal misusing it, not the gun. Just as I blame the idiot beind the wheel of the car that caused the accident, not the car itself. You have been lucky. May you continue to be so.
I do not consider my longtime AO to be particularly "unsafe", but safety is relative, and changes day to day.