Skip to main content

Guns Don't Kill People... Really?

Dave has lived and worked in more than 30 countries. Possibly as a result, some of his articles are hard to categorise, like this one...

normality - seven lads, no guns

normality - seven lads, no guns

People kill people...

except, they don't. Not normally. I was brought up in a town of 50,000 people, on the West coast of Scotland. My childhood and teenage years were the 50s and 60s. Our parents had lived through the horrors of the 2nd World War. Now, they were living through the peacetime hardships of shortages and rationing. But of one thing they were certain: the killing had been an aberration; normality had returned, where people live in peace. Where people don't kill people. Where people don't need guns.

On cue, within minutes of every new firearm atrocity, the tired old gun lobbyists (hereinafter, the Globbies, ok?) crawl out of the woodwork with their tired old incantation – Guns don't kill people... People kill people, and every time I shake my head and think – not in my World, they don't. And before any Globby tells me that small-town Scotland is a very sheltered corner of the planet – check my Profile page for where I've lived and worked since leaving there. I still say, fifty years later – not in my World, they don't.

Guns don't kill People... Bullets kill people

It's a truism that without ammunition a gun is a pretty useless weapon. It could serve as a bludgeon of sorts, but the balance is all wrong, It would be no match for a baseball bat, far less a machete. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here. Let's step back and quietly consider some aspects of violence.

For one adult to kill another in unarmed combat, assuming both are in reasonable health and physical condition, is actually no mean feat. It requires either great effort and determination, or considerable knowledge and technique. Or, just conceivably, diabolical 'luck'. It also requires an absolute awareness and total involvement with what you are doing, something the vast majority of people would pull back from, in total revulsion at the enormity of the act, and its consequences.

Bring a knife into the equation and everything changes. We are all capable of lashing out in anger and, with a knife in hand, a single strike can be fatal (though usually it is not). But again, let's step back, to small-town Scotland and the day one lad brought a flick-knife to school.

He had no intention of using it, of course. He just wanted his moment of glory impressing his friends or maybe frightening a few juniors. Inevitably, he was uncovered and the knife confiscated. On the following morning the Headmaster addressed the school: Unable to make an impression on his fellows on equal terms, the culprit had sought an unfair advantage. In trying to command fear in others, he had merely betrayed his own fear. In trying to be the bully he was not physically cut out to be, he had shown himself to be – a coward. The psychology was exactly right. No-one ever again brought a knife to school.

The Headmaster was right. A knife is a coward's weapon. Yet, while it gives an unfair advantage, it still requires a degree of closeness to, and interaction with, the victim. A quick and lethal thrust does not compare with the white-knuckled sweaty intensity of wringing out a life, bare hands around the throat, and yet... A knife will still transmit its passage back from blade to haft to hand. You will feel the changes from cloth to soft tissue, to muscle wall, to vital organ. The scrape of steel on bone. You will know what you have done and most of us could not do it, or live with it afterwards. Quite literally, you will have blood on your hands.

At best, then, the knife is a half-way house. The true coward's weapon would further reduce the involvement between killer and victim. This is where the gun comes in. The gun, or at least its bullet, kills at a distance. There is no need for the killer to feel any involvement whatsoever with the victim. You point, s/he dies. It feels no different from shooting at a target. Easier still is the semi-automatic weapon where you don't even need to know who or how many have died. Isn't this the very epitome of cowardice?

Guns don't kill people... Cowards kill people

What we've seen thus far is a progression, from unarmed equals, to knife-wielding wimps, to gun-toting cowards, to the craven cowards with semi-automatic weapons. Is this the limit of inhumanity? Sadly no, it is not. Crasser still are those who kill by proxy, who pay others to do their dirty work. Those who profit from the manufacture and sale of weapons. Those who foment conflicts and wars to advance such sales and maximise their personal fortunes.

As it is simply distasteful to dwell too long among such miserable specimens, let's look instead at the opposite end of this continuum to see what manner of people can be found there. These are the people who never pull a gun or draw a knife. Who rarely if ever raise a fist. Who will argue and agree to differ. Who will walk away and get on with their lives. Some are quite famous: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus of Nazareth. Most are relative unknowns on the World stage: me, my friends and work colleagues, the grocer on the corner, his wife and kids.

Thank you for reading.

Postscript

In its first six months, this article attracted more than 500 comments. Some of the discussion was informative and constructive, some less so. Based on feedback received, I have reworked the article slightly differently, but only slightly. In particular, I have been more careful in my use of such terms as automatic, semi-automatic, assault, military, etc. This is because some gun enthusiasts pick up on any technical inaccuracy and try to use it to discredit the work and the author. This is, of course, a mere distraction. What matters is: can the gun in question be used to kill a large number of people quickly, say twenty in thirty seconds? If the answer is yes, then it is surely legitimate to ask whether such a weapon has any place in civilian hands.

I also take the view that the desire to own such a weapon is of itself reason enough to seriously question any civilian's mental fitness for such ownership.

I am not calling for a ban. I am not calling anyone insane. I am not even talking solely about America. But anywhere in the World, it must be valid to question any expressed desire to proliferate highly lethal fire-power through society at large.

Again, thank you for reading and thanks to all open-minded respondents who have contributed positively to the discussion.

Comments, newest on top:

Ro from Midwest on January 15, 2014:

Despite the politics that, I believe, brought this issue to the foreground, despite all the rhetoric, all the hidden agendas- I want each and every one of us to think about the babies that were killed in every country, every state, and every city these last 20 years. Just recently the shooter was a 7th grader trying to kill his own peers. A retired cop because he was angry with a man texting his child during the previews of a movie. Please, forget who we vote for or what side we are on. Most of us are parents, all of us are humans. Each one of us have experienced hurt, loss, being made fun of, bad day, loss of patience, etc. If we killed everyone that made us feel these things, we would be an only child, a orphan, a widow/widower, etc. When did guns supersede communication? Logical thinking? I welcome every man or woman that decides to intrude my home with a fair warning- I protect mine with all of the utmost in common sense, and quick action that I can muster. You might think you are safe because I don't have a gun that you can use against me. I will sacrifice it all- as long as children stop dying at the behest of a gun and its user.

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on January 08, 2014:

Scroll to Continue

ThinkN-do; You say that:

'SUICIDE is an increasing number; we have a larger problem here and it isn't Firearms.'

There is, however, a connection. Many suicides are spur of the moment actions at a time of utter despair. If suicide is not easy, if it takes effort, if it means going out and buying pills or finding a high building to jump from, then many would-be suicides have time to think, and the moment will pass. But if an efficient tool for instant suicide like a gun is readily available at home, then it will be used.

Micky Dee on January 08, 2014:

Weapons seem necessary. Deception seems necessary. All the evils that can be thought up seem necessary because of the wickedness of this world. Lies seem necessary.

It is the lack of direction. It is a choice of the true bullies to deceive.

And - there are places one should not go without proper armor or defense. I can name some close to me.

But to continue to glorify the need for lies, deception, and weapons clearly shows the allegiance to a negative world.

This is historically written. It is Biblical. It is of the first written facts of war - the battle of Kadesh. Rulers particularly need lies.

Lies come from the same source as always. People who hold mostly to weapons and lies are serving the negative ruler of this Earth.

Call Satan or the wind whatever you want.

It changes nothing.

There is a benevolent God.

There is a Satan.

To deny the truth is to deny the benevolent God.

To perpetuate death, deception, lies - is to promote the negative.

Guns, weapons are negative. To suppose that we will always need them, therefore we must always have them is to become the bully, the liar, the deceiver.

Things have not changed for thousands of years.

I can't believe an insurance man who creates nothing and preys upon tragedy of humanity would want anything but weapons. There is no use for an insurance salesman.

There is no morality in political parties that profess morality when people are bought and sold.

We have Lost Vegas, Reno, etc. Unbridled capitalism is prostitution.

Guns? These vipers have many weapons of mass destruction and television the one of the most harmful.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on January 08, 2014:

Happy New Year, ThinkN-Do and Jandee.

Maybe the main reason for firearm suicide is guilt at possessing lethal weaponry ;)

ThinkN-Do from Pac NW on January 06, 2014:

CDC Stats:

Assault (homicide) dropped from among the 15 leading causes of death for the first time since 1965.

The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2010 were suicide (61.2%) and homicide (35.0%).

The age-adjusted death rate for firearm suicide increased 3.4% in 2010 from 2009, whereas the death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3%.

In 2010, a total of 40,393 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States

In 2010, 42,917 deaths occurred as the result of poisonings, 23.7% of all injury deaths.

The majority of poisoning deaths were either unintentional (77.0%) or suicides (15.4%).

Bottom line, most firearm deaths are suicide and the majority of those are white males.

Furthermore, SUICIDE is an increasing number; we have a larger problem here and it isn't Firearms.

Happy New Year 2014 and Happy Orthodox Christmas Eve . . .

jandee from Liverpool.U.K on January 05, 2014:

Happy New Year to Paraglider and all of you ANTI-GUN-Brigade.

best from jandee

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on January 05, 2014:

thegecko - happy new year! Interesting indeed :)

thegecko on January 04, 2014:

Interesting recent article at NBC News going over possible causes of rising crime from the 70's on and the recent decline the past decade titled, "Are the Xbox and unleaded gas helping keep you safe from violent crime?"

Micky Dee on September 20, 2013:

As the story below tells us - MONSANTO can kill as many people as they want to. And - it is sanctioned by most every facet of our government and private industry because of a lack of "humanity", a dearth of selfishness, and laziness because nobody wants to farm but corporations. Nobody respects hard work. People attain wealth - not by working - but a modern slavery.

Let the punishment FIT THE CRIME - and that is especially necessary for the repetitious politician that is BOUGHT in America. These thugs like Art Pope of North Carolina, the Koch brothers, et al, bully thieves with money who use their money for modern enslavement.

All "power" be it money or weapons should work for humanity - not self-promotion.

But thieves run free here in the land of fake elections and those are the only elections we have. No new policies will be introduced. We are cave-people with suits.

But, alas, I am redundant:

"BREAKING NEWS: El Salvador bans Roundup and 2,4-D! Over the last two years, the Center for Public Integrity has examined how a rare type of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is killing thousands of agricultural workers along Central America’s Pacific Coast, as well as in Sri Lanka and India. Scientists have yet to definitively uncover the cause of the malady, although emerging evidence points to toxic heavy metals contained in pesticides as a potential culprit. Meanwhile, in the USA, we grow more GMOs, spray more Roundup, and wait for the approval of Agent Orange 2,4-D resistant corn, now in the pipeline."

Micky Dee on September 20, 2013:

What "we" have is UNBRIDLED capitalism and the dollar,euro, Federal Reserve notes, rubles, etc. dictate that "we", you, they can "buy" whatever, whoever, whenever and screw it up, screw us up, screw them up, etc. Unbridled "anything" means monopoly, pollution, torture, sickness, death - as long as the "money" remains protected.

Corporations have more power and money than governments.

There are more "private security personnel" for corporations than for countries.

MONEY kills people. Stupid selfish money kills people in billions of ways.

Money buys privacy, attorneys, gates, "security personnel", etc. Most people are "herded" into their gated communities. Some are prisons. Some are fortresses.

It's all designed to protect the wealth. Arm sales mean revenue for corporations. It's all about the "worship" of stuff, intelligence, property, etc.

When countries and people prize wealth and power over decency, compassion, etc. we have "a weapon" of some sort to use against those who also want a piece of the pie.

When people are disrespected enough, when there is adverse policy toward the disenfranchised - the disenfranchised buy their weapons from the same manufacturers through different channels.

There is NO consistency for "crime punishment".

If there were most of our "leaders" would be in prison or executed.

We have no to little morality coming down from the very people elected to uphold some fairness, some justice, our civilization, etc.

The Koch brothers are still free and sleazy.

There is little to no consistent morality from elected morons.

People think power is their morality. Power is a gun, poison, or commodities to "wield" over their fellow man.

We even use these stupid "intelligent words" against those who disagree.

Ask the Mennonites. They have been around the world and their message of "no guns, no military service, no war is NOT accepted by modern day intellectuals or bozos.

thegecko on September 19, 2013:

Okay, I concede... guns don't kill people... bullets kill people. Guns are merely a delivery system. The bullets are what actually cause physical harm or death.

Any support for a bullet ban?

While we're at it... I think I solved the smoking problem too. Just outlaw nicotine.

Or we can just go with the even more ridiculous solution of actually entering all mentally ill people, people dishonorably discharged from the military, and people with gun related offenses into the proper systems so they cannot legally buy weapons. If this is about stopping 'bad guys' with guys, how come we allow so many people, that so many people and professionals know have no business owning a gun, purchase guns?

But even solving this issue would be unconstitutional and preposterous. Right? ...

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on July 16, 2013:

thegecko & jandee - a new commentator, Credence2, added a comment to the hub. Immediately, Jack and Will jumped on him almost as if they had been hiding in the shadows waiting for the last few months.I allowed their comments but warned them in these terms:

"Now please - I've given both of you more column inches than everyone else put together. I don't need to hear from either of you again. Good day to you both."

Both immediately responded in their usual charmless style. Maybe they thought they were 'standing their ground'. I deleted both comments (and also jandee's which was a reaction to the deleted comments and therefore no longer made sense). The comments section is open again, but these two are not welcome and will be deleted.

thegecko on July 16, 2013:

"In the US, more people are killed in street fights than are killed by 'assault' weapons."

Where do people come up with these bogus 'facts?' We've already gone over the stats, but if you want another recent source of info, look up the CDC 2010 Mortality Multiple Cause Micro Data. You will find that there were a reported 16k+ deaths from homicides caused by assault in the U.S. and of these, 11k+ were by use of firearms. That leaves a remaining 5k to unspecified types of assault, which would include street fights.

Death by hand-to-hand combat doesn't even come close to death by firearm.

Come on.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on July 15, 2013:

Hi jandee

same old same old! Hope all's well :)

jandee from Liverpool.U.K on July 15, 2013:

Paraglider,

good on yer........

best from jandee.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on July 15, 2013:

Jack and Will - in a country that has so lost the plot that it has allowed a gun culture to become a norm, the short term answer to an immediate local issue may indeed be to draw and possibly fire a gun. The difference between us is that you have neither the experience (it would seem) nor the imagination even to conceive, far less work towards, a better society, one in which the prevailing social contract is not based on an undercurrent of violence and counter-violence.

Now please - I've given both of you more column inches than everyone else put together. I don't need to hear from either of you again. Good day to you both.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on July 15, 2013:

"I say that a 'real man' does not need to hide behind a pistol."

Suppose you are a frail man, or someone who is not athletic at all. Are you still expected to be a 'real' man and take a beating? In the US, more people are killed in street fights than are killed by 'assault' weapons. And that does not include all the devastating fight injuries, which can range from broken bones to brain damage.

Why do you think a gun is called the great equalizer? With a gun, even a small woman can defend herself against a big man.

Only bullies and their lackey audiences demand that their victims take a beating like a 'real' man.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on July 15, 2013:

para sez: Jack - don't you think you've already poured enough poison onto my hub's comments section?

Jack replies: I consider it more a mercy act of shining a light into the darkness.

But neither you or cred can actually dispute what I just posted.

Sometimes when the doctor gives you medicine to make you feel better and to cure you of your sickness it may taste like poison... and you may even think it IS poison.

But if you take it properly it is amazing just how much better you feel in the end.

:-) :-)

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on July 14, 2013:

Credence2 - there was a terrible school shooting incident in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996. Fortunately it did not result in a backlash of arming the people. Loss of innocence, increased vigilance, yes, but running scared, no.

Jack - don't you think you've already poured enough poison onto my hub's comments section?

Jack Burton from The Midwest on July 14, 2013:

cred sez: My late auntie used to say ' use your head for something else besides a hat rack'

Jack replies: Martin certainly used Z's head for something besides a coat rack. He used it as a punching bag and a sidewalk denter.

But that's okay with cred. It's more moral to die at the hands of a young thug than to defend your life with a firearm.

Credence2 from Florida (Space Coast) on July 14, 2013:

Hello, Paraglider, you said "Unable to make an impression on his fellows on equal terms, the culprit had sought an unfair advantage. In trying to command fear in others, he had merely betrayed his own fear. In trying to be the bully he was not physically cut out to be, he had shown himself to be - a coward. "

That is my description of George Zimmerman, spot on! This was certainly one of the topics where I have been very involved. If memory served was there not something involving a madman shooting in Scotland some 20 years ago? As you say, Scotland is one of those places that remain peacefully quiet and undisturbed.

I say that a 'real man' does not need to hide behind a pistol. In America, we have gun nuts that would take a pistol with them to the supermarket or church. If you have a mindset to feel that you need a gun everytime you go out, it has to affect your subconsious to the point where you are going to be drawn to an opportunity to use it, in place of your head. My late auntie used to say ' use your head for something else besides a hat rack' Great article thanks.... I have written on the topic, if you are so inclined, look into it sometime.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on July 10, 2013:

Micky - good to see you, and welcome! I agree that a version of the Golden Rule turns up in all or most viable philosophies. But there is always the defeatist crowd ready to dismiss it as idealism and trot out their old tired excuses for why it can't work.

Micky Dee on July 10, 2013:

Nothing new. Those with power and agendas wield power. They do it with guns. They do it with secrecy and backdoor deals. I live in America and I can see clearly the "frontier justice" by judges, courts, law-makers - those of power. Too often they ignore truth to get the results they desire. Disagree with their "findings" and you can "find" yourself, your life and family with their "attitude adjustment.

And this is why I'd rather not participate in even the hubpage rebuttals. You need not look further than right here in hubpage world for their frontier justice.

Cowards wield unjust vengeful power over others - no matter the weapon. Guns? Words? Censorship? Social ostracizing?

Weapons may be inevitable.

The promotion and love of weapons is proof that man does not evolve and/or that weapons will not allow evolving.

Micky Dee on July 10, 2013:

The reliance on weapons is more evidence of man's inability to evolve. Great teachers for thousands of years have spoken the Golden Rule.

Meanwhile for thousands of years of recorded history - the "man" with the biggest "gun" rewrites history with lies - especially about "his" or "her" bravery, strength, and deeds. History is still re-written with lies by brutal conquerors unable to follow the wisest of men and women. Gun owners may be philosophers but "pro-gunners" offer nothing for the future of humanity.

We will love our brother and sisters as ourselves or it's dogs eating dogs.

"Maybe what we should be asking is... why does America have more criminals? Simple...we have far more minorities. 70% of all gun crime is committed by blacks and Hispanics. We don't have a gun problem so much as we have a race problem."

And what if the cowboy hats were surrounded by "blacks and Hispanics"? The cowboys would be accused of more crimes. But educating the cowboy about the injustice system of 3,000 years of written history is futile. There is no evolving for the "pretend cowboy".

This piece of tripe is from a cowboy hat that is supposed to be a symbol of the old west and the "code of the west".

The better weapons allow everyone to be bullies.

The "cowboy hats" cannot solve problems. They romanticize problems.

Every religion but also every society has some form of the Golden Rule or it is no civilized society - just "civilized barbarians".

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on May 02, 2013:

Explain that to the Justice Dept, Jandee. Those are their stats, not mine, and they keep track by race, as does the rest of the world.

jandee from Liverpool.U.K on May 02, 2013:

Will,are you from Apache blood or maybe Crow ?(of course,as you must know, we all came from Africa ! mate! Therefore we are all foreigners,except Africans in Africa ,

jandee

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on May 01, 2013:

I don't think it can be as simple as that. Many countries are multi-ethnic. In fact it's probably the norm in the developed world. In the Middle East, it's not uncommon for the locals to be in a minority by as much as ten to one. Minorities are not intrinsically violent. It has more to do with social cohesion, or the lack of it.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on May 01, 2013:

"Maybe what we should be asking is... why does America have more criminals?"

Simple...we have far more minorities. 70% of all gun crime is committed by blacks and Hispanics. We don't have a gun problem so much as we have a race problem.

thegecko on April 30, 2013:

What, wait, bad things happen out there too? Danger Will Robinson! The world is about to implode! It's the end of reality as we know it!

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 30, 2013:

Or more fear of criminals, maybe? Some pretty nasty things happen here too, but we don't have obsessive, fear-mongering media hyping everyone into a state of paranoia.

thegecko on April 30, 2013:

Maybe what we should be asking is... why does America have more criminals?

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 30, 2013:

Mike - I don't live in Scotland. I live in the Middle East. The culture of gun ownership among law-abiding citizens is an American phenomenon. Most countries get along fine without it, even though there is crime in every country. Americans need to get out more, to see how people live in the free world ;-)

Mike on April 30, 2013:

@para

Again, this is not Scotland. We have a high murder rate due to criminals, not firearms. As for police using firearms for "raids in gangland," those areas exist within every major city in America and that is where most of them patrol. Those areas are where the murders are. There is no major problem with "domestic" shootings. They rarely ever happen and 99.999% of gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 30, 2013:

Mike - it's hard to see how I can be missing the point in my own article ;)

But your stats actually confirm what others have said before: namely that the great majority of shootings are gang related. And I'd venture to suggest that a large proportion of the remainder are 'domestic'.

All of which confirms that for normal community policing guns are not necessary, though they may well be needed for raids in gangland. And similarly, for day to day life in most communities, there is no case for the citizen to be armed.

We have a crime problem in Scotland too, but we get along nicely without a gun culture. The proliferation of lethal fire power through society is an aberration.

Mike on April 30, 2013:

@para

"Generally, you don't need an armed police force. You need the police (specially trained ones) to be able to use guns on special missions where there is no alternative."

That may be true is Scotland, but it's definitely not true in the United States. I think you're missing the point. We don't have a gun problem here, we have a crime problem. Our criminals are the reason for the high number of gun related deaths. They are not going to listen to an unarmed police officer with a funny hat and a whistle. Their aggressiveness and disregard for the law is also the reason many American own firearms for personal protection.

Here is a little info on murders in America:

Chicago had over 500 murders last year and also has some of the nation's strictest gun laws to include registration. Chicago’s murder rate was 15.65 per 100,000 people. The average for the U.S was 4.2 and the state of Illinois had 5.6.

A breakdown of Chicago murders show that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philadelphia, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 30, 2013:

Will, you're wasting everyone's time again. I won't approve any further comments from you unless they contain some original argument; in other words, unless they add something of substance to the discussion.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on April 30, 2013:

First you said:

"The obvious inference is that you think everyone should be equally armed with lethal weapons. In what way have I misinterpreted you?"

But now you say:

"Obviously no one would suggest ownership of a gun should be compulsory - That would be a very strange society indeed!!"

But that's the risk you take when you insist on putting words in your opponent's mouth.

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on April 29, 2013:

Will says: 'I think we should have the right to arms IF we choose to have them. Clear enough?'

Absolutely clear Will, but not really relevant to the point. Obviously no one would suggest ownership of a gun should be compulsory - That would be a very strange society indeed!! But in your post which I drew attention to, you did seem to make clear that you believe it beneficial for everyone - men and women - to be equally armed with guns ie: lethal weapons. Anyway, readers can choose if they wish to look back at the post and see if they take the same inference as I did.

Feel free to reply Will but I won't reply again to this particular thread. I actually wrote a recent hub about Internet commenting in which I criticised people who try to monopolise a Comments section with their point of view, or who deviate from the subject of the hub - after posting 3 exchanges with you, it would therefore be hypocritical of me to keep commenting on this particular aspect of Paraglider's hub.

thegecko on April 29, 2013:

I think I know where I was confused. I thought by party you meant more than one person. You were just referencing a single individual, correct?

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on April 28, 2013:

"The obvious inference is that you think everyone should be equally armed with lethal weapons. In what way have I misinterpreted you?"

I think we should have the right to arms IF we choose to have them.

Clear enough?

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 28, 2013:

All shooters are equal but some are more equal than others...

I've noticed the same inconsistency from several of the pro-gun respondents: on the one hand, they say a gun makes everyone equal; on the other, they want for themselves the greater fire-power of their AR-15s.

thegecko on April 28, 2013:

" If they are armed, they would be more equal regardless of the size of the party attacking them."

Could you elaborate please?

ThinkN-Do from Pac NW on April 28, 2013:

I believe Wills point was everyone has the right to choose under the current laws. He did not say everyone "should be armed". If they are armed, they would be more equal regardless of the size of the party attacking them. Again, that does not imply that everyone "should be armed". The right to bear arms is your choice, not a mandate.

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on April 27, 2013:

Will; you made clear that you felt it was a good thing that since the invention of guns, women and smaller men have had access to these guns ('lethal weapons') because that made them the equal of 'big, strong and highly trained men'. The obvious inference is that you think everyone should be equally armed with lethal weapons. In what way have I misinterpreted you?

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on April 27, 2013:

"It's difficult to know where to begin with this, because it's wrong on so many counts, but suffice it to say that this boils down to a suggestion that everyone should be equally armed with lethal weapons."

Which of course is not what is says at all, but that's the refuge of someone who declares you wrong but can't actually dispute it.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 26, 2013:

Talisker - yes, that just about sums up the contribution to the discussion from certain parties!

thegecko and Greensleeves Hubs - valid points, both. But unlikely to influence one who owns 'the truth'!

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on April 26, 2013:

Willstar says: 'Before the invention of the gun, big, strong, and highly trained men had the advantage and ruled the world. All weapons prior to the gun required great skill and strength, so women and smaller men were necessarily subservient. It was the era of Goliaths, and the era of bullies. But with the invention the gun, a small man (or a woman) was easily the equal of a Goliath, and the era of bullies was over.'

It's difficult to know where to begin with this, because it's wrong on so many counts, but suffice it to say that this boils down to a suggestion that everyone should be equally armed with lethal weapons. All that really means is that everyone should have an equal chance of being killed by lethal weapons - men, women and children. Unfortunately, such a policy means that they also all have a GREATER chance of being killed by lethal weapons. The evidence bears out that that is exactly what happens.

thegecko on April 26, 2013:

Weapons before the gun started leveling the playing field way before then.

I would also send your argument to all the women who lived from the birth of the gun to today. I'm sure they feel its been instrumental in achieving their equality (sarcasm).

Honor Meci from UK on April 26, 2013:

When I taught a class of Year 2. There was one boy in particular who used to put his fingers in his ears and should "Blah blah blah!!" whenever an adult told him off or disagreed with him. He was 6.

:-)

For what it's worth. I think your hub was well written and thought provoking.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on April 26, 2013:

Because it's the truth.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 26, 2013:

Will - what is the earthly point in making a comment that has already been answered three times over?

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on April 25, 2013:

Before the invention of the gun, big, strong, and highly trained men had the advantage and ruled the world. All weapons prior to the gun required great skill and strength, so women and smaller men were necessarily subservient. It was the era of Goliaths, and the era of bullies.

But with the invention the gun, a small man (or a woman) was easily the equal of a Goliath, and the era of bullies was over. It seems silly to me to claim that a small person must defend himself without a weapon against a much larger person, or risk being be labeled a 'coward'!

That sort of labeling usually comes from the much larger and advantaged person.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 24, 2013:

Hi Jandee - open all hours again, but this time moderated!

jandee from Liverpool.U.K on April 24, 2013:

Paraglider, you have lost this one ! They don't want you to close shop !

jandee

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 24, 2013:

Perhaps an 'observable fact' would have been more accurate. We all have violent inclinations from time to time. What matters is how we respond to them.

thegecko on April 24, 2013:

I have to chime in here with Muffins. While records may show women physically acting out less than men, there's also evidence demonstrating women have the same violent tendencies. Whether because they're socialized to follow through with their aggressive intentions using other means than physical aggression or because of other factors is not clear. However, they harbor similar violent emotions under similar circumstances as men do.

I don't think there's anything simple about it.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on April 23, 2013:

Muffins - It's a simple fact that men tend to be more violent than women, statistically, and more likely to own and use a gun. And if I had to choose between being shot or being libeled I think I'd opt for the latter.

Muffins on April 23, 2013:

I liked it up until the last paragraph. It made me gag.

Women aren't necessarily any more pacifistic than men; they just tend to be more subtle about their hatred (e.g. spreading nasty rumors in response to an insult rather than a punch to the face).

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

The situation is really very simple. Gun technology has evolved to the point where, for a small outlay and with no training at all, it is possible for someone to acquire and (if so inclined) to deploy weaponry capable of, and arguably designed for, fast mass extermination.

This situation did not obtain at the time the American Constitution and particularly the Second Amendment were drawn up.

It is the right, even the democratic duty, of all citizens to decide for themselves if they are happy with the situation. If a majority is happy, no action is indicated; if unhappy, further action, perhaps legislation is called for.

And that is my and everyone's final comment on this hub. I am closing the comments section as it has degenerated into a showcase for tiresome bullies. My sincere thanks to all who supported my efforts to encourage rational dialogue. Onwards and upwards!

Rondo on March 08, 2013:

Geck,

Believe it or not pole smoker, there are people in this world who are mentally unbalanced and wish to do others harm. Restricting the ability of people to protect themselves from them is not the solution.

thegecko on March 08, 2013:

Continuing to prove my point Jack... through your 'translations' and petty name calling.

You like to go in circles. I already demonstrated many months and comments ago your misquotes and gross disregard for people's actual meaning and intention in their comments.

But keep poisoning this discussion. Unlike your short term memory lapses, visitors here can actually go back in time and read what was actually written by participants in this debate.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

The geck sez: Jack... you are a hack. You quote people out of context and then twist their words around to make them say what you want, so you can keep pressing your own hollow points and insults.

Jack replies: Ironically, this is EXACTLY why I quote people word for word... so that the Dear Readers can see just what the poster wrote and exactly what I am responding to.

But notice... the geck doesn't dare attempt to quote me "quoting people out of context" because he really can't. He can't make the actual case of me twisting people's words using real examples from my posts. He can only make the drive-by accusation.

Typical, eh.

It's just like all those supposed cases where the mugger will take the gun away from the good guy and use it against him. If there were actual cases such as this you know the Brady bunch would have them posted by the thousands... or by the hundreds... or even by the tens... but they don't because they can't.

Same thing with the geck. He's got an alligator mouth with a butterfly arse. :-)

The geck sez: If this were my Hub, I would have simply marked your comments as spam long ago and removed them completely.

Jack replies: Translation: How dare anyone disagree with my point of view....

The geck sez: You have no interest in bringing any constructive dialogue to this discussion.

Jack replies: Hmmmm.... even para states that he's learned from my posts... I guess you just stick your fingers in your eyes and shout, "la la la" while you read mine.

thegecko on March 08, 2013:

Oh look! Someone just posted a comment that fits perfectly with the profile outlined in your Hub ;)

A sociology professor once told me that sociology simply provides labels for things we already know exist. At least I now know what to call some of the people I interact with on the Internet. Thanks again!

thegecko on March 08, 2013:

An awesome Hub krillco. Thanks for sharing :)

Yes, a very good description of a handful of people posting comments here.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on March 08, 2013:

"As for 'meekly' giving up our guns when they were banned, well, only a tiny percentage had any guns to 'meekly' give up, and very few of us cared about it because we just didn't need to have guns."

That was the same Brit attitude when the Nazis were threatening to invade in WWII. Because of that, the Home Guard was poorly armed, with just a few shotguns and pitchforks. Churchill appealed to Roosevelt, who responded by shipping millions of small arms from the US to arm the Home Guard.

Jim on March 08, 2013:

Alright Jack, fair enough

William E Krill Jr from Hollidaysburg, PA on March 08, 2013:

See: "Characteristics of Vitriolic Radicalism".

thegecko on March 08, 2013:

Jack... you are a hack. You quote people out of context and then twist their words around to make them say what you want, so you can keep pressing your own hollow points and insults.

Ironically, Paraglider, who lives outside the United States, respects your freedom of speech to a higher degree than you do by polluting ours.

If this were my Hub, I would have simply marked your comments as spam long ago and removed them completely.

You have no interest in bringing any constructive dialogue to this discussion.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

Jim... I was dating my wife when that song was dominating the radio waves. I must admit that we have a good laugh and very good memories when we catch it on the air.

Jim on March 08, 2013:

@Jack

I agree with everything you've said except for this one:

"And best of all, I can sing "Kung Fu Fighting" in a concert without any problem with being arrested and fined for hurting the feelings of any random Chinese person who happens to be walking by the front door and overhearing it."

Singing "Kung Fu Fighting" is never a good thing.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

greensleeves sez: We elect a Government. We then expect that Government to govern, which involves passing laws and making policies. That's what governments are supposed to do.

Jack replies: And we expect our government to abide by the Constitution that was contracted between us and them 200 plus years ago. This puts significant restrictions on the "laws and making policies" that they are allowed to do. Which the Brits don't have.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

david sez: You would be hard pressed to identify a single aspect of life in which Americans enjoy more freedom than Brits

Jack replies: I can defend myself against social deviants without the expection that I would be the one going to jail.

I can have a Christmas display on my desk and not have to worry about breaking any laws because my muslim co-worker is "offended" by it.

I can preach against homosexuality on the public square with no fear that a local cop will arrest me.

I can own a firearm.

And best of all, I can sing "Kung Fu Fighting" in a concert without any problem with being arrested and fined for hurting the feelings of any random Chinese person who happens to be walking by the front door and overhearing it.

Would you like more?

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

david sez: you have to spend most of that time responding to some ridiculous accusation made by some Internet troll whose only goal is to prevent genuine reflection on the issue.

Jack translates: How dare anyone disagree with us....

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

Para sez: Jack, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns can indeed do immense harm in experienced hands. But any spotty youth with no training beyond the video arcade can wreak carnage with a modern semi-automatic weapon. Do you refuse to see the difference?

Jack replies; Here ya go, Dear Readers. Just because some two or three “spotty youths” wreak carnage with an object that the other 80,000,000 gun owners use perfectly safely and legally then para feels that those 79,999,998 other folk must pay the price and be banned from an otherwise legal object. He “refuses to see the difference” between a firearm in the hands of the 99.999 percent of the law abiding owners and the .0001 percent who misuse one. To him, there is no difference indeed.

BTW... as guessed... you won't give an answer as to whether or not guns which can wreck the same identical carnage as you complain about should be banned. How about manning up and answering it?

Para sez: Now tell me this - of the twenty or so bereaved mothers from the Newtown school atrocity, how many do you think attributed their loss to a 'magic death ray' (your words), and how many to a bullet fired from a modern semi-automatic gun?

Jack sez: If any of them attributed the death of their children to any one thing other than the actions of a madman than they are wrong. That gun, or any other gun, didn’t pick itself up and fire bullets at their children all by itself.

Para sez: Although you didn't notice it, in my last post to you, I tried to give you credit for a degree of rationality. But you blew it. Your loss, not mine.

Jack replies: In case you never noticed, I never quite worry what ~your~ response to my posts are. It’s virtually meaningless in the greater scheme of life and the ‘net.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

ketage sez: :Amazing figures those 95% and 70%. I did not know it was so high, I am curious where you got those figures from ?

jack replies: Basic gun knowledge. Walk into any gun store and see what’s on their shelves. Do you think that single shot guns are the best sellers?

Ketage says : I think I already answered this in my first post. For self defence a revolver would be sufficient for my needs.

Jack replies; Errr…. By any measure a revolver is exactly the same as a “semi automatic” weapon in function. It loads the next round by itself when you pull the trigger on the existing round. You just posted that “I cannot imagine an occasion when i would need to defend myself against someone with a semi-automatic gun/rifle.”

This is why I question your true knowledge about firearms.

ketage sez: : social breakdown and total upheaval ? WOW I did not know things were that bad. Well if society has broken down where you live, then by all means, use whatever weapons you need to defend yourself.

Jack replies: My bad… I thought you posted you were from Croatia. Perhaps the situation there was not the same as what the news was reporting here.

Ketage sez: I do not understand what is radical about my position on guns? I would consider myself moderate in most things and definitely not a person who holds any radical views.

Jack replies: And I am sure that Stalin thought he was “moderate” also. If you’re looking at yourself as the measuring stick then you are looking at the wrong measure.

Ketage sez: 1: That I was living in a civilized society, where I would only need to defend myself against a rare case of violence involving an armed opponent.

Jack replies: It’s a pretty thin veneer of “civilization” on the human society. Just ask the folk in New Orleans during Katrina about the roaming packs of thugs and social deviants who made whole neighborhoods unsafe for the communities. Or the more recent events in New York.

And a person doesn’t have to be “armed” to be dangerous. Just ask the 100 pound woman going against the 250 pound rapist.

Ketage sez: 2: That the country I was living in was not at war, civil unrest and that the government was stable and not likely to use military force to subdue its residents.

Jack replies: The government is much more unlikely to use military force to subdue its residents when the residents can shoot back with greater firepower. It’s called a prophylactic.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

Greensleeves sez: I'm only up to about 100 comments on my hub and I'm already fed up with the same tired cliches, the same claim to speak for the entire Nation of America, the same paranoia, the same desire to swamp the hub with their convictions, and to turn the hub away from the central issue into a forum in which they can promote their own views.

Jack translates: How dare anyone disagree with me…

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on March 08, 2013:

Will's interpretation of British Government is certainly a novel one. Let's put it another way. We elect a Government. We then expect that Government to govern, which involves passing laws and making policies. That's what governments are supposed to do. If we're not happy with those laws and policies, we kick the Government out after 5 years.

As for 'meekly' giving up our guns when they were banned, well, only a tiny percentage had any guns to 'meekly' give up, and very few of us cared about it because we just didn't need to have guns.

And if we did feel strongly pro-gun then we would be 'allowed' to have guns because we would actively campaign for them and elect politicians to pass a law permitting easy gun ownership. We don't do that because scarcely anyone feels any need to do that.

The British political system is far from perfect. The same goes for the American political system. But this is not about political systems. It is about whether gun laws are sensible and reasonable or not.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on March 08, 2013:

Not at all.

Our UK cousins are quite often surprised that our government 'allows' us to have firearms, because they are used to their own government allowing them to do some things, while denying others, like firearm ownership. In fact, when guns were banned, the Brits just meekly gave them up, because they are used to obeying government. The concept of a free people with the fundamental right to keep and bear arms beyond government power to ban, is, if you'll pardon the pun, quite foreign to them.

Here in the US, we still have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and we allow government to do certain things as proscribed by our Constitution. That's a concept that Brits just cannot grasp.

They simply do not understand why our government allows us to have firearms, because they are not allowed to have them. The fact that Americans individuals do not simply submit to government is unfathomable to a Brit.

David Alan Reed on March 08, 2013:

See WillStarr's comment directly above this one for the perfect example of soundbyte thinking. This is one of the dumbest statements I've seen in a while. The problem is not only that it is factually indefensible. (You would be hard pressed to identify a single aspect of life in which Americans enjoy more freedom than Brits.) But beyond the non-existent factual basis, just notice the facsination for soundbytes. Sounds great, doesn't it? WillStarr's comment would look great on a bumper sticker too. These are the people we are arguing with. And for what? What do you achieve when you banter back and forth with a moron like this for days on end?

Greensleeves, thanks for responding to my comment. I am going to check out your hub right now. I look forward to reading it!

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on March 08, 2013:

BTW, the difference between the US and the UK is 'allow'

In the UK, government allows people to do things

In the US, the people allow the government to do things.

David Alan Reed on March 08, 2013:

I'm glad to hear that, Paraglider. You know, one of the key tactics that propaganda systems use to prevent genuine understanding is to limit the amount of time that people are allowed to talk. I'm sure you have noticed that on the U.S. news programs, nobody is ever allowed to talk for more than 2 minutes. And most of that time is spent responding to sensationalist accusations by the interviewing reporter.

To me, this is exactly what happens when you try to post a comment on this thread. You have to explain your entire case in two minutes, and you have to spend most of that time responding to some ridiculous accusation made by some Internet troll whose only goal is to prevent genuine reflection on the issue.

So the format itself is actually "pro-stupid" and "anti-rational." It's just the wrong vehicle for anyone who thinks on a level that is more subtle or complex than a soundbyte. I look forward to seeing more of your hubs. Next time I'll try to be more cautious before I get caught up in the comment vortex!!

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on March 08, 2013:

"Which is why I have repeatedly said I am not advocating a ban."

"...can the gun in question be used to kill a large number of people quickly, say twenty in thirty seconds? If the answer is yes, then it is surely legitimate to ask whether such a weapon has any place in civilian hands."

Sounds like a ban to me.

Whenever our UK/Canadian cousins advocate taking certain guns away from Americans, they always deny that they are calling for a 'ban'. They just don't think we should be allowed to own one.

A distinction without a difference.

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on March 08, 2013:

David; I agree too. I've experienced the same thing on a hub of my own about guns, and am increasingly feeling the need to 'control' (not 'ban') comments because the original point of the hub can easily become lost in an endless series of wider and wider ranging comments or repetitions of previously made points. I feel forums are the proper place for such long debates, where everyone can feel free to expand the debate and exchange arguments. I admire Paraglider for continuing with this for so long - he must relish a good fight!!

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

Hi David - I agree with that. In fact I devote very little 'quality time' to this hub. Mostly I am just sweeping up responses last thing at night or early morning waiting for the kettle to boil.

Greensleeves Hubs from Essex, UK on March 08, 2013:

Paraglider; the sad truth is It doesn't really matter how often you say you're not advocating a 'ban'. If you say you're advocating any form of 'control', some will always misread that, misunderstand it, or misinterpret your motivations for saying it.

David Alan Reed on March 08, 2013:

It's nice to see comments by some new people, injecting some sense and some life into what was becoming a very tedious exchange of insults on the level of "I know you are but what am I?"

But it's ironic how such a thought-provoking hub (intended for a wide audience) seems to have trapped us all into a kind of long-running argument with a handful of people.

Regardless of whether you love guns or hate them, does it really make sense to spend your energy arguing with just two or three people on the other side of the world?

I don't mean to criticize anyone for contributing their positive energy to this conversation. I just wanted to raise the question, and suggest that maybe a comment thread is simply the wrong medium for this kind of an issue. Maybe we should all take the time to organize our thoughts more carefully, and present them in the form of new thought-provoking hubs.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

Which is why I have repeatedly said I am not advocating a ban. I'm advocating maturity, intelligence, imagination and the will to reduce the number of gun atrocities.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on March 08, 2013:

The fact that someone could misuse a rifle is clearly not adequate justification for banning it, and that, coupled with the Second Amendment, is why there is no appetite for such a ban. Even if such a ban was passed, it would not survive a court challenge.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

Jack, bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns can indeed do immense harm in experienced hands. But any spotty youth with no training beyond the video arcade can wreak carnage with a modern semi-automatic weapon. Do you refuse to see the difference?

Now tell me this - of the twenty or so bereaved mothers from the Newtown school atrocity, how many do you think attributed their loss to a 'magic death ray' (your words), and how many to a bullet fired from a modern semi-automatic gun?

Although you didn't notice it, in my last post to you, I tried to give you credit for a degree of rationality. But you blew it. Your loss, not mine.

ketage from Croatia on March 08, 2013:

jack says: Really? Then perhaps you can explain to us just why you think that 95 percent of the handguns owned and about 70 percent of the rifles and shotguns owned are "overboard" since they are semi-automatics.

ketage replies :Amazing figures those 95% and 70%. I did not know it was so high, I am curious where you got those figures from ?

and if you read my first post post, without prejudice, I think it explains itself.

jack says : Do you think single shot handguns are the only ones acceptable? Maybe a two-shot derringer? Only bolt or lever action rifles are acceptable?

Ketage says : I think I already answered this in my first post. For self defence a revolver would be sufficient for my needs.

JAck says: And yet you want the public to be limited to single shot weapons, eh. In face of the social breakdown and the total upheaval you think that the best way to protect people is to keep them from possessing any weapon equal to the ones the bad guys are going to have.

ketage replies : social breakdown and total upheaval ? WOW I did not know things were that bad. Well if society has broken down where you live, then by all means, use whatever weapons you need to defend yourself.

Jack says: Most people are not honest enough to admit that they think that virtually every handgun made is "overboard" for ownership. They confuse semi-autos with full autos. If you claim that you know the difference, and yet still think that virtually all handguns are "overboard" I would enjoy reading you defend that most radical position.

Ketage replies: I do not understand what is radical about my position on guns? I would consider myself moderate in most things and definitely not a person who holds any radical views.

The first comment I made was based on two points,

1: That I was living in a civilized society, where I would only need to defend myself against a rare case of violence involving an armed opponent.

2: That the country I was living in was not at war, civil unrest and that the government was stable and not likely to use military force to subdue its residents.

from the comments I see here, many people feel that this is not the case. So to those people I guess my post does not apply.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

If her view was that a magic death ray came out of certain firearm and therefore certain guns need to be banned because magic death rays were particularly bad then yes, I would deny that her view is valid at all. Unfortunately at times, we do not prevent those with a complete lack of common sense, or those living in fantasy land, from voting. So be it. We can live with it. To a point.

There is little distinction in reality from her magic death ray view and what you believe.

As I noted, the most popular hunting rifle over the past 150 years is more than capable of killing 20 people in 30 seconds.

The bolt action rifle, the second most popular hunting rifle since the 1920s, is more than capable of killing 20 people in 30 seconds

A pump action shotgun, which is the standard of shotguns for 100 years, is more than capable of killing 20 people in 30 seconds.

I have challenged you on this many times and you refuse to answer. Are you stating for the record that you think the lever and bolt action rifles and a pump shotgun should not be in civilian hands?

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

ib radmasters - sorry, but you make so little sense that I can't be bothered talking to you any more.

Jack - you're in a different league from ib radmasters and Will. I openly acknowledge having learned from you. But, whether you like it or not, guns are in the public domain. Your superior knowledge of gun technology is no more valid than the view of a bereaved mother when it comes to the will of "You the People". In other words, if you held a referendum on the question: Should weapons capable of killing 20 in 30 secs be in civilian hands, her view is as valid as yours. One citizen, one vote. Can you argue with that?

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

The geck sez: We live in a reality where a nuclear war could easily scorch the surface of the planet and us along with it

Jack replies: So the geck actually believes that the U.S. government would drop atomic bombs on Chicago, Los Angles or Dallas.

He makes the basic mistake that all who assume that the armed civilian populace cannot stand against the government. The government armed forces that he thinks will oppose the civilain populace was drawn from and are part of the same group of people.

I have 26 years in the military. I will be happy to match my perceptions of just how many military people will stand against their own family and friends fighting a tryanny versus how many the geck thinks will support the government.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

para sez: I actually said " the desire to own such a weapon is evidence of mental unfitness to do so." where "such a weapon" specifically referred not to "a gun" but to my previous description: "capable of killing maybe twenty people in half a minute", a description that would include, say, an AR-15 but would exclude a simple hand pistol, hunting rifle or shotgun.

Jack replies: Here's where your lack of knowledge of firearms lets you down, and pretty much makes most of your statements invalid.

You claim you are "only speaking of an AR" yet your descriptive of killing multiple people in a minute actually also applies to the large number of other firearms out there.

You may not know that, but those who actually know guns do.

Consider this from an 1862 report assessing Winchester’s lever-action Henry rifle:

187 shots were fired in three minutes and thirty seconds and one full fifteen shot magazine was fired in only 10.8 seconds. A total of 1,040 shots were fired and hits were made from as far away as 348 feet at an 18 inch square target with a .44 caliber 216 grain bullet [compare the .22 caliber 55 grain AR-15 round.]

This is from a gun made 150 years ago, and what is considered one of the standard civilian hunting rifles since the mid-1800s.

The problem you have, para, is that you just don't know enough about firearms to be a competent commentator. I don't have a compulsion to go write a hub and comment about fishing since I don't know anthing about fishing, but your compulsion drives you to post silly things.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. As noted previously, I use you as an sterling example to others.

Brad Masters from Southern California on March 08, 2013:

Paraglider

I have reread your hub, and there is no valid point other than your desire to make people behave your way, instead of the way they have always behaved, which badly.

I failed to see any compelling arguments in your hub, and I wonder why you are getting up our nose in the US. We didn't break from Great Britain to be dictated by them, or Europe. The US did fine before we had all the pc foreigners tell us what we should stand for as a country.

Scotland was built on wars and killers, and so was the UK. Europe is changing to the Muslim will.

You keep talking about the 40 countries that you say validate your comparison with your little Scottish Town life. Maybe if you expounded in more details about the comparison, I might better understand your argument.

Time may start at Greenwich Mean Time, but the world doesn't.

BTW, attacking me personally is not the same as putting out a valid argument. Didn't your headmaster have a story for that situation.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

Actually, Will, you were the one, many posts ago, who first quite correctly said that absolute bans in some of these areas had failed, but did not follow through to the truth, that judicious legislation coupled with public awareness programmes etc had been singularly successful.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

If you google "powerline" and "jama" you'll find an article with the headline, "New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent ..." that shows the JAMA article to be bogus from beginning to end.

Jack Burton from The Midwest on March 08, 2013:

Ketage sez: In reply to Jack Burton's question, Actually I do know what a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon is.

jack replies: Really? Then perhaps you can explain to us just why you think that 95 percent of the handguns owned and about 70 percent of the rifles and shotguns owned are "overboard" since they are semi-automatics.

Do you think single shot handguns are the only ones acceptable? Maybe a two-shot derringer? Only bolt or lever action rifles are acceptable?

Ketage sez: I am Croatian, We not long ago just went through a war.

JAck replies: And yet you want the public to be limited to single shot weapons, eh. In face of the social breakdown and the total upheaval you thinkk that the best way to protect people is to keep them from possessing any weapon equal to the ones the bad guys are going to have.

Ketage sez: Thank you for your concern on my possible lack of knowledge.

Jack replies: Most people are not honest enough to admit that they think that vitually every handgun made is "overboard" for ownership. They confuse semi-autos with full autos. If you claim that you know the difference, and yet still think that virutally all handguns are "overboard" I would enjoy reading you defend that most radical position.

WillStarr from Phoenix, Arizona on March 08, 2013:

So now you equate gun ownership to smoking, drunk driving, and animal cruelty?

Nice attempt to demonize, but utterly transparent and silly.

Dave McClure (author) from Worcester, UK on March 08, 2013:

ib radmasters - It's a perfectly meaningful statement, just one you clearly don't understand. I've said many times that outright bans rarely work. What does work is a shift in public opinion in conjunction with judicious regulation. This is the combination that has largely pushed smoking out of public places, has greatly reduced drink driving and various other forms of road deaths, has contained and sanitised prostitution in some countries, has gradually eroded the hold of bear baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, prizefighting. In fact, has been instrumental in civilising societies the World over.

But oh no, it would never work with guns (except is has, in many countries).

Related Articles