[Closed] Who would buy a gun then?

what about a swimming pool full of guns?

[i]what about a swimming pool full of guns?[/i]

A water cannon?

igmc.

🙂

When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly

Why do pro-gun people have to resort to such idiotic arguments?

Relaxed gun laws bad +1

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that totally unqualified statement...

FWIW, I agree in respect of "relaxed gun laws" in the US mould - both the types of weapons and reasons for holding them are inappropriate in a civilised society.

Why do pro-gun people have to resort to such idiotic arguments?

+1

I remember one or two of them comparing a gun to a car some months back. Yep, idiotic.

rkk01:

hopefully it will be okay. We know some local gameskeepers and I was wondering if I should pop down to the station for a chat about applying? We live in quite a rural area so I was hoping it might ensure a smooth application.

What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

Awesome. That is without a doubt the stupidest piece of data interpretation I've ever read. Would you rather go for a swim or get shot?

Why do pro-gun people have to resort to such idiotic arguments?

Read it, it is actually a reasonable and intelligent article. People are terrible at assessing risk.
And the author was accused of being "rabidly [u]anti[/u]-gun" by pro-gun people 😯

Bang Bang WunUndred 😀

Why do pro-gun people have to resort to such idiotic arguments?

It's all about risk communication. Not very helpful, but what people do in the face of an irrational fear.

I work in an industry where it is very tempting to equate very low (but on occasions, potentially serious) risk to the risks of smoking. This is a mistake. As a scientist, you beleive that you are engaging people on a level you understand. In reality you are patronising and questioning their own lifestyle choices!

So, yes, someone ^ has pointed out that swimming pools present a greater actual risk than guns... That doesn't diminish the fear of guns, no matter how small the real risk is. The best way is to demonstrate utterly responsible ownership. This however, is totally undermined by a very, very small number of tragic cases that receive high media profile

Of course you have.

What you chose to believe in life has nothing to do with my experiences, and everything to do with yours.

Now, did you have anything intelligent and pertinant to contribute?

People are terrible at assessing risk.

And yet there are still many who are afraid of flying (EDIT, as opposed to going for a drive). "Interpretation of risk" doesn't allow for human nature.

I guess the thing is that if I want my children not to drown in a swimming pool whilst watching a movie/walkign down the road/standing in a shop it's a fair bet I'll succeed.

If I want them not to get shot under the same circumstances then I'm statistically less likely to come out on top?

Regarding DD's comments comparing to cars - very interesting...

Cars represent a very real risk - of injury or death, to users, and to innocent bystanders. But as a society we are familiar, no blase, about these risks and the outcomes from them.

I wouldn't compare cars to guns. But I did compare cars to motor bikes a few months ago, on here and in discussions offline.

My mother is concerned about ideas of buying a motorbike. As a former teacher she can recall the former pupils who died in their teens riding motorbikes - but had no response for my riposte - how many of the same peer group had been killed in cars...?

Where they had died at the wheel of a car, it was not the car's fault - they were a young tearaway, a bad 'un, mad, etc.

Where they died on a motorcycle the (ir)rational brain used a totally diffrent logic - they were killed BY THE BIKE - complete disconnect between the type of transport and their own behaviours.

We have a blind spot to risks that we are familiar with - especially those that are broadly accepted by society at large

Regarding DD's comments comparing to cars - very interesting...

This however, is totally undermined by a very, very small number of tragic cases that receive high media profile

Not sure if 30,000 firearms deaths a year is that minimal, even in a large country like the US.

wasn't sure whether he was joking tbh

On the last gun thread, with some of the biggest hitters involved, someone (he's even posted here) did wonder if it might be an idea to ban cars seeing as more people were killed by cars than by guns last year in the UK. I was just pointing out the spuriousnessity of the argument, that was all.

I think comparing cars and motorbikes in a thread is fair enough (though I don't know what rkk01's referring to) as they're both forms of transport.

Anyway, on with the discussion...

Read it, it is actually a reasonable and intelligent article. People are terrible at assessing risk.

Swimming pools and cars exist for peaceful reasons, but they do introduce risk.

Guns do not exist for peaceful reasons. At least, not handguns of the kind you can coneal, which is what this is really about. They are only for shooting people, or threatening to shoot people. Swimming is good, as is getting around - but shooting people is not.

It's not particularly easy or convenient to kill someone with a swimming pool or car.

wasn't sure whether he was joking tbh

I'm pretty sure I read it as meant... I took up the "aside"

Not sure if 30,000 firearms deaths a year is that minimal, even in a large country like the US.

As has been outlined on this thread - US is totally incomparable to the UK, which was my reference point.

US gun laws are totally abhorrent. I think I have made my views on US gun ownership perfectly clear in my posts above.

I'd buy two!
The first would be the L98A2 Cadet rifle (SA80 cut down) just for sentimental reasons.[img] [/img]

...and my 'something for the weekend' would be a Howitzer M777, the titanium one. I'd keep both of 'em at the range. Wouldn't want the kids playing with them.

cars are actually useful..... there is an inherent risk, but also a benefit.

What benefit is there in owning an uzi?

(though I don't know what rkk01's referring to)

Motorcycles / cars are a very good example of irrational risk perception

Swimming pools / guns probably not!

@rkk01, I meant that I didn't read the thread where you made the comparison...

...I think we're dancing around in circles now. You could at least try and look sexy. 😉

[i]What benefit is there in owning an uzi?[/i]

you can impress your mates down the bus stop.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that totally unqualified statement...

As a former teacher she can recall the former pupils who died in their teens riding motorbikes - but had no response for my riposte - how many of the same peer group had been killed in cars...?

Not sure I get you? The road stats would suggest far less surely?

Casualty rates as number Killed or Seriously Injured per billion vehicle miles:
Motorcycle Riders: 1,775
Car occupants: 40

(from Tables RAS30066 and RAS30067 of the DfT Road Casualties Report 2010)

Swimming pools / guns probably not!

Did anyone actually read that article? He absolutely wasn't promoting guns as safe. He was just using them to try and highlight something that causes more preventable deaths but is generally ignored.

In fact he explicitly says:

"Don’t get me wrong. [u]My goal is not to promote guns[/u], but rather, to focus parents on an even greater threat to their children. People are well aware of the danger of guns and, by and large, gun owners take the appropriate steps to keep guns away from children. Public attitudes towards pools, however, are much more cavalier because people simply do not know the facts. "

GrahamS - my mother's [i]perception[/i] of motorbike safety is not based on accident stats. It is based on kids she taught who were killed shortly after school. There were quite a high number in the early 80s - one of my own year group was decapitated shortly after leaving school.

However, she is blind to the fact that a similar number were killed in their teens joyriding, or generally discking around in cars.

I brought up this risk comparison to illustrate our very poor perception when comparing risks. We don't use official stats, we respond on an emotional level.

Gun and gun crime carry a very high "emotional response"

lazybike - I agree if you mean relaxation to US standards.

Interesting lack of corellation between strictness of firearm laws and number of firearms homicides in the states.

States like Utah, with notoriously lax firearms rules, have a much lower level of firearm homicide than states like New York, with much stricter rules.

Same applies to differentials between Canada/US/Switzerland

Indeed notorious leftie Micheal Moore pointed out some very good points about the social differences that feed these problems in Bowling for Columbine.

States like Utah, with notoriously lax firearms rules, have a much lower level of firearm homicide than states like New York, with much stricter rules.

yeah I agree.... it's not all ALL about firearms laws, but having guns and ammo readily available (or not) must be a factor in gun related deaths. In the absence of any coherent plan to deal with whatever it is that compells certain people go on a killing sprees - it would probably be more effective to take machine guns out of their hands.

GrahamS - my mother's perception of motorbike safety is not based on accident stats.

Yeah, but unless you were in a particularly unusual area, her perception does seem to accurately reflect the reality that motorcycle riders are considerably more at risk.

Gun and gun crime carry a very high "emotional response"

Agreed.

[i]States like Utah, with notoriously lax firearms rules, have a much lower level of firearm homicide than states like New York, with much stricter rules.[/i]

But there's only 3 people in Utah and they're all cousins or something?

States like Utah, with notoriously lax firearms rules, have a much lower level of firearm homicide than states like New York, with much stricter rules.

By what measure though? In total? Per capita? As a % of all homicides in that state?

(As I understand it) New York is a very busy place - high population, high stress, gang culture, high homicide rate generally. Utah seems a lot more spaced out (in more ways than one).

Well apply a bit of thought. A large amount of gun crime is gang related, which is a big city phenomenon. If you start breaking the statistics down there is a huge sociological back story.

A friends' wife asked what I thought of her husband getting a pistol (when you could still have them), as she was worried that someone might break in and then shoot them. I said that a far higher risk was that her or my friend would shoot one-another...

But I'm pretty ambiguous on guns, and when you look at Switzerland vs USA you realise its not about guns, but the whole culture.

We've a number of air guns which the kids use (we live in the country and have a big enough garden too). They've all been taught how to use them correctly, just as I was.

FFS, right allow me restate my original sentence then...
I think From my personal interpretation of the sentiments being expressed in this thread, everyone (so far) appears to agrees that it would be a "bad thing" to have relaxed gun laws (like the States)
Happy?

Ok, I'll repeat too: [i]it's not the question asked.[/i]
I was quite interested in this original hypothetical debate: If the laws changed, who would buy a gun then?
So I'd deliberately avoided expressing opinion on the US/UK gun laws, and most other posts appeared to avoid it too.
It was a fresh idea and a little different to the usual gun law debate that crops up on here every few weeks with the usual suspects repeating the same points.
But hijacks happen, with or without guns. 😉

Just read all through this, and to answer the first question, would I own a gun, if the legal situation allowed?
Yes, I would, probably a handgun or two, revolver and auto, just for the different way they work, and probably a semi-auto rifle, like the AR-15 shown earlier.
Carry them? No; use them on ranges, yes, absolutely! Target shooting accurately with a powerful handgun is a tricky, challenging thing, unlike a rifle, where you can lie prone and support the weapon.

An interesting question might be, who currently carries a knife?

Ok, I'll repeat too: it's not the question asked.

Good grief!

I was unaware that we were forbidden from inferring opinions from the answers proffered. Clearly the forum would be greatly improved if this thread was just 129 posts of people voting "Yes" or "No" to the question. 🙄

Very well. Shall we ask [i]that[/i] question then?

[b]Does anyone think that the UK would benefit from adopting US-style gun laws?[/b]

where you can legally carry weapons in public and one man can legally purchase two Glocks, a pump action shotgun, an assault rifle, 6,000 rounds of ammunition (and bulletproof vest & leggings, kevlar helmet and gasmask) within 60 days and not arouse any suspicion.

[img] [/img]

http://www.examiner.com/article/how-gun-control-laws-might-have-saved-lives-colorado

By what measure though? In total? Per capita? As a % of all homicides in that state?

Per Capita: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

(As I understand it) New York is a very busy place - high population, high stress, gang culture, high homicide rate generally. Utah seems a lot more spaced out (in more ways than one).

Which again supports the theory that its nothing to do with firearm laws, but other social issues.

Well apply a bit of thought. A large amount of gun crime is gang related, which is a big city phenomenon. If you start breaking the statistics down there is a huge sociological back story.

Ditto.

Which again supports the theory that its nothing to do with firearm laws, but other social issues.

no it doesn't.... it just means that there are ALSO other factors at work.

who's sellin' some guns then..?[img] [/img]

Which again supports the theory that its nothing to do with firearm laws, but other social issues.

No it doesn't. It supports the theory that a state with less murders has less murders committed with guns than a state that has more murders.

If they gave it as % of homicides involving firearms I'd be a lot more convinced.

Hello! If the streets are infested by zombies who are going to alien probe me ... these:

1. Benelli M4.
2. Glock 19 & 23 or Colt 1911 for being classic.
3. AK-47 & M16 purely for being classic.
4. Mini Uzi
5. Colt 9mm SMG
6. MP5 or MP7
7. UPM45
8. FN FAL
9. M21 or M24 for being classic
10. L115 just like the look of it.
11. Barrett M95 or 99 or 107 or XM500 ... probably XM500 (these are the bad boys)
12. M110 (looks like proper gun)
13. AS-50 (hhhmmm ... a bit like Barrett)