[thechat] Snowball fight turns... umm... I don't even know howto express it...

[Chris Marsh]

> > Whilst I'm with you thus far...
> >
> > > And people wonder why I'm for gun control. Good god, sometimes
> >
> > ...and gun control reduces gun crime?
>
> Well, it sure as hell doesn't *increase* gun crime, does it?

Why would you make that assumption? Place a product on the black market,
it's price drops. This makes guns more affordable thus more accessible.
Remember, gun "control" only has any effect on "legitimate" firearms.
Criminals are not noted for their use of vehicles *or* guns registered
legitimately to themselves.

> > Um, how does that colossal leap of
> > faith work? We have "gun control" in the UK. We also appear to have
> > increasing gun crime.
>
> Duff logic.  We also have rising sea temperatures and a near-
> total absence of the white-coloured dogshit in the streets
> which used to be there when we were kids.  Neither of those
> are causing gun crime either.  I hope.

The previous post implied that gun-control would solve gun crime. I was
merely stating facts.
Fact number 1) The UK implemented "gun control" some time ago.
Fact number 2) The UK has an escalating firearms problem.
Ergo, "gun control" does not prevent gun crime. With your examples my
logic still stands; "The disapearance of white coloured dogshit in the
streets has had no effect whatsoever in the eradication of domestic gun
crime". This statement is true.

> Big difference between proximities and causal links.  Huge.

Agreed. But by disarming the population one is giving Bad Men a near
100% chance that a citizen will be unarmed. Thus if a Bad Man wishes to
assure himself of near 100% probability of success in commission of his
crime, he will purchase a firearm on the black market and use it on any
innocent citizen that he wishes to without fear of any pesky
"self-defence" diversions.

> Me, I like the fact that being found in possession of a
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> handgun in London means you're going to jail.  So do the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> coppers, because every automatically-illegal handgun found is
> a crime either solved or prevented.

Apart from the police, of course. They are being armed at quite a rate.
It makes me feel *much* safer to know that were I to be caught in a
crossfire, the odds of the bullet shattering my spine being
government-issued is rising every day. If gun control *worked*, we
wouldn't need to put more guns on the streets.

> Which doesn't mean that we don't now have gun nuts hanging
> around MeFi etc claiming that the fuckwit crack dealers down
> the road from me shooting each other somehow 'proves' that
> gun control *causes* gun crime of any _important_ kind [1].

I would state for the record that I don't consider myself a "gun nut". I
would also like to know what differentiates *important* gun crime from
unimportant. What is MeFi, btw?

> [1]  To begin with, OF COURSE THERE ARE MORE FIREARMS
> OFFENCES being committed.  Duh. *Owning* a handgun at all
> didn't used to be a crime. Do the math.  And those offences

The math? Er, perhaps you missed this bit: "Firearms were used in 12 per
cent of homicides, an increase of 32 per cent (23 cases) on 2000/01".
These stats have nothing to do with statistical manipulation of crime
figures based on changing laws. You should also note that the source is
governmental, thus highly unlikely to be imparted with negative spin.

> are being committed to a large extent *by* said gun nuts, who
> failed to take advantage of the amnesty and didn't turn the
> guns over.  Fuck 'em.

Regards

Chris Marsh