Philosophy Discussion Forums

Spiral Out wrote:Are you asking where the added freedom is in the freedom to enjoy something one finds enjoyable? Isn't it obvious?

But that has to monitored by a common moral code. A pedophile is not free to enjoy his appetites.

Spiral Out wrote:The freedom to rely on my own abilities and take personal responsibility for my actions and my family's safety.

I can appreciate this but it does suggest that there is a culture in which we expect to be attacked and should arm up or be left vulnerable. I am free to enjoy and live in a culture which doesn't allow guns to civilians and I feel all the safer for it. I am still free to rely on my own abilities and take personal responsibility for my family's safety. The law still states that I have the right to defend myself using reasonable force. Having guns doesn't change that- you aren't suddenly allowed to kill someone you find a threat, unless you are in grave danger yourself, which is the same here. Or are you admitting that using a gun is different from a knife after all?

Spiral Out wrote:people living in other countries should just be content with their lot and mind their own business.

As we have both said, gun crime is part of the bigger issue of violence in general, present across the globe.

Spiral Out wrote: I don't mind confrontation at all, especially in person.

I can see that. I prefer for others to feel comfortable and safe. I feel there is the opportunity to be heard more clearly and to hear the real views of others by being a little calmer and more considerate of other people's feelings. If we are just being confrontational, we can only expect the other person's knee jerk reaction, which is frustrating for both parties and makes us feel that we are not being listened to. Most people do not like confrontation by nature and will either become upset or retreat. Perhaps this has the double benefit for you that you can then feel that other people aren't able to understand a topic as well as you and are less intelligent/ worthy than you. This is an illusion brought on by conflict.

Spiral Out wrote:
Yeah, so why aren't you also questioning the gun control statistics?

I do. I question all statistics and I have taken great pains to question my beliefs and think deeply about this topic from both sides.

Do you feel that guns are inherently good? That we should introduce them in the UK and that we would be better off?

Frankly, the 'States are welcome to their gun-totin' freedom fantasy. And Spiral Out is right: statistics are manipulable, and we should be looking for answers to the problem of violence of any kind which goes on around the world.

But the question was about Gun Control and Mass Murder. So does anyone have anything worth reading on that subject? Or has the whole thread been doomed from the outrageous remarks in the OP, about those who would seek to control guns CELEBRATING another mass murder because that would vindicate their position. Talk about getting off to a bad start.

Robert, this is a philosophy forum and all debate is relative although I agree it is not easy keeping to the point of gun control when you have an immovable gun lobby who are obsessed with their own safety and an anti gun contingent who see private ownership as self defeating. Guns are a necessary evil due to the mental state mankind has fallen into but personally, I feel they should only be in the hands of those who are chosen to uphold law & order.

Robert66 wrote:Gun Homicide (1995-2012) averaged: USA: 1 per 25,430 people Australia: 1/432,910

Yes, that is indeed a problem. But that is a violence problem, not a gun problem. The other problem is that such statistics don't tell the whole story. What are the specific and relevant details behind those numbers? My guess is that gun control advocates don't really care about those details. And that's yet another problem.

>>>

Stormcloud wrote:For a bloke who spouts on about thinking first you sure have let your emotions run amok.

The difference there is that I don't use my guns to express my emotions. That's not what they're for. That's what my brain and my voice are for. So it's ok if I get emotional. See how being a responsible and lawful gun owner makes all the difference?

As for the rest of your post… wow, I hope you don't own a gun.

>>>

Lucylu wrote:But that has to monitored by a common moral code. A pedophile is not free to enjoy his appetites.

I hope you're not trying to equate gun ownership with pedophilia??? Oh my, how desperate would that be?

Lucylu wrote:I can appreciate this but it does suggest that there is a culture in which we expect to be attacked and should arm up or be left vulnerable.

I'll make one thing perfectly clear. I don't carry my guns on my person. They stay at home. I'm not paranoid enough to think I need to carry a gun on my person at all times. I do carry a small hidden folding knife for personal protection against unforeseen events just in case, because I'm also not foolish enough to believe that I'm perfectly safe either.

Lucylu wrote:I am free to enjoy and live in a culture which doesn't allow guns to civilians and I feel all the safer for it.

I feel safe in my community as well. The difference is that the gun owners here are lawful and responsible. It's the violent criminals you have to watch out for. Do you not have violent criminals over there in the UK?

Lucylu wrote:I am still free to rely on my own abilities and take personal responsibility for my family's safety. The law still states that I have the right to defend myself using reasonable force.

What kind of "reasonable force" are you able to use against someone twice your size and strength? You're a female, yes? Are you trained in the martial arts? Are you physically fit and strong?

And do you not have a home invasion problem there in the UK because of your inability to possess guns?? Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?

Lucylu wrote:Having guns doesn't change that- you aren't suddenly allowed to kill someone you find a threat, unless you are in grave danger yourself, which is the same here. Or are you admitting that using a gun is different from a knife after all?

Using a knife is very different from using a gun. I don't carry a gun, I carry a small folding knife. But I am very physically fit & able and I know how to read body language and spot potentially dangerous situations and I know how to use my knife appropriately whether it be lethally or non-lethally. Some people like the small, weak and/or elderly might require the use of a gun in order to effectively protect themselves against grave bodily harm from able-bodied violent attackers (yes, it does happen, even in the UK). These people are not paranoid, they're prepared. Big difference.

Lucylu wrote:I feel there is the opportunity to be heard more clearly and to hear the real views of others by being a little calmer and more considerate of other people's feelings. If we are just being confrontational, we can only expect the other person's knee jerk reaction, which is frustrating for both parties and makes us feel that we are not being listened to. Most people do not like confrontation by nature and will either become upset or retreat. Perhaps this has the double benefit for you that you can then feel that other people aren't able to understand a topic as well as you and are less intelligent/ worthy than you.

That's good advice. This is an emotional and contentious issue. I'll do my best.

Lucylu wrote:Do you feel that guns are inherently good?

Guns are inherently neutral. People in general are inherently good. Some people are inherently defective. The combination of guns and the inherently defective is inherently bad.

Lucylu wrote:That we should introduce them (guns) in the UK and that we would be better off?

Perhaps the UK would have fewer stabbings and home invasions.

Spiral out wrote:

"I feel safe in my community" Yet he carries a knife hidden on his person? Ah, it gets more hilarious by the post

Apparently nobody wants to discuss the lateral shift in the types of violent crimes and the consequent increase in those crimes that their gun control policies have actually created in their own countries. It's understandable because it's painful to have to admit that their gun control policies aren't working and cannot work since guns aren't the source of the violence.

It's scapegoating, plain and simple. And it's lazy. It's the "easy way out" of a false problem. That's the reason why gun control doesn't work and isn't working. The problem is not the guns, it's the people who use the guns as an outlet for their violence. To suggest that the removal of guns will somehow cause people to abandon their aggression is patently absurd.

The myths perpetuated by the gun control advocates are provably false. Their arguments simply don't hold up to critical scrutiny and thorough examination. Every point proposed by gun control advocates is easily defeated by simple logic and common sense.

CATO Institute Research Findings

Lucylu wrote:Thank you for staying in the debate. I tried to talk to someone much earlier in the thread and he seemed to storm off in a huff when faced with any facts he didn't like.

I hope you're not doing the same thing as the person you refer to in the quote above? Do you wish to discuss the real effects of gun control in the UK as in the significant increase in stabbings and home invasions?

Side-Effect of British Gun Laws

Overall rates of violence is relatively equal across all countries around the world. This is common sense and is quite evident if one is paying close attention and not sidetracked by the gun control rhetoric.

One of the primary problems with crime statistics is reporting. Only certain types of crime are regularly and properly reported and documented, such as crimes using firearms. Other types of violent crime such as rape, spousal abuse (especially women abusing men), suspicious deaths in countries such as Mexico which are rarely reported or investigated, bullying, child abuse, etc., are reported far less frequently (and subsequently not properly categorized), if at all, due to factors such as victim intimidation, embarrassment and social stigma.

The illusory perception that gun control reduces crime rates is difficult for some to get past. The fact that gun control reduces only gun-related crimes is a self-referencing loop of futility since the consequent lateral shift in violent crime functionally cancels any perceived benefit, and even causes the worsening of conditions.

In summary, gun control does absolutely nothing to reduce overall rates of violent crime. At best it reduces only one type of violent crime (but invariably forces an increase in other types), and at worst creates an imbalance of power in favor of criminals and renders law abiding citizens basically defenseless.

To continue the article Spiral Out just quoted:

Defenseless British citizens are attacked in their own homes by violent burglars every 30 Minutes

February 3, 2010 Recent statistics from Britain indicate that a citizen is attacked in their own home by a violent burglar once every 30 minutes. Those statistics, along with my thoughts on British gun control, the British ban on self defense, and what all this means for law-abiding British citizens, can be seen below:

A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. . . According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. . . Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes. . . It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases. . . Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 – 20 per cent – of burglaries. . . Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder. The folly of British gun control<P>

In a knee-jerk reaction to a pair of high-profile shootings, the British government enacted strict gun control at the national level. These anti gun laws went as far as to ban the .22 target pistols used by the British Olympic Pistol Team, forcing those athletes to go to Switzerland and France to practice their sport.<P>

However, the gun ban laws didn’t stop criminals from acquiring and misusing guns. Instead, British criminals buy their guns the black market, or simply manufacture their own illegal guns. Crime statistics reflect this fact, showing a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the first two years after the gun ban took effect, and a doubling of gun-related crime in the first decade after the gun ban took effect.<P>

It is also notable that even those British criminals who don’t have a gun are often quite capable of harming or killing their unarmed, physically weaker victims. In other words, a situation where neither the criminal nor the victim has a gun is often a situation in which the victim still loses. As an example, this elderly British man was tortured to death in his own home by unarmed criminals who incorrectly thought he had large amounts of cash they could steal. This elderly British woman was severely beaten and left for dead by an unarmed sadistic home invader who simply felt like harming another human for the fun of it. Similarly, this disabled woman was slashed with a knife by a gang of teenagers who attacked her and stabbed her dog to death for no reason at all. As a final example, I would note the stabbing death of Pat Regan, who was an anti-gun crusader. Again, looking at crime statistics rather than anecdotal evidence, stabbings in Britain have risen since the gun ban was enacted, and the stabbing of juveniles is up a staggering 72% over the last 10 years.<P>

For those who don’t believe that gun ownership allows for effective self defense, I would point out this statistical evidence along with these real-life examples.<P>

The injustice of the British ban on self defense<P>

Making matters worse, the British legal system seems to treat crime victims worse than it treats the criminals who attacked them. An example is the Tony Martin case:........

See rest of article here: http://www.examiner.com/article/defense ... 30-minutes

All I can say about England is.... And it is hard to say anything - It is too depressing a country to talk about - That is why we had the American Revolution in 1776 - And one of the reasons for that revolution was the Crown under the king was taking guns away from the Colonists. England in a monarchy and any illusion that they give you of it being a free democracy is just that, an illusion - The gun laws in England are to maintain the absolute authority of the state {the crown} and to make the British people completely dependent upon the state - A sad, sad situation when a great people allow their government to take away their rights so as to assure the power of that government - A form of organized crime.

FREE MEN OWN GUNS - SLAVES DO NOT !

UniversalAlien, that landmass that you reside in must have been a lovely place once, where the indigenous owners had no need of your so-called democracy nor your money. What is at the bottom of all this? Man's greed and his ideologies of self interest which creates inequality which equates to poverty which leads desperate people to crime. Stop blaming the criminals as an excuse for gun ownership and look to mend your systems which are rotten to the core.

I've watched the gun supporters trying to divert the debate from "gun control and mass murder" to "overall levels of violence". This is because they know that if some nutter wants to break into a school & kill as many children as possible, then the gun is the weapon of choice.

Nobody has suggested that the US should ban guns completely, just that gun ownership should be subject to more stringent rules to make it more difficult for nutters to get guns. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but then I'm not a paranoid irrational gun supporter.

I think that's enough of the insults and fact-evasion.

Are we not trying to shift the debate to a more reasonable and productive one? Please let's get this thread back on track so that we may examine all of the factors of gun control and its realistic effects.

What exactly makes an advocate of legal and responsible gun ownership "paranoid" or "irrational"?

We all agree that mentally ill violent criminals should not own guns. There is no debate on this point. However, why all the rhetoric and insults over the ownership of guns in general by lawful and responsible gun owners?

Can any gun control advocate provide even one justifiable reason why any lawful and responsible gun owner should be prevented from owning any type of assault rifle? Let's use the Fabrique Nationale P90 Personal Defense Weapon as an example.

View the FN P90 PDW here.

Why should any mentally stable law abiding citizen be denied ownership of this gun in its standard fully automatic configuration?

The simple fact that I myself own guns, even though I don't carry them on my person and have never used them illegally in any manner whatsoever, has caused some to label me some type of "paranoid, irrational, crime-supporting, freedom-fantasizing, violence-loving, gun-crazed maniac who doesn't care about children", and has even been attempted to be equated to pedophilia of all things!

I can justifiably say that such a view of such a person simply based on their ownership of a firearm is indeed "irrational" and "paranoid".

So can any gun control advocate stick to the points of the debate and at least attempt to propose a somewhat cogent argument to support their position?

I have made numerous points supporting my position which thus far have either been completely ignored or have been met with irreverent sarcasm.

Let's get this debate back on track. We have much to discuss.

Spiral Out wrote:Lucylu wrote: Thank you for staying in the debate. I tried to talk to someone much earlier in the thread and he seemed to storm off in a huff when faced with any facts he didn't like.

I hope you're not doing the same thing as the person you refer to in the quote above?

Morning All!

I'm not sure if this news will have crossed the Atlantic, but in the past week, two young men from Cardiff (in the UK) have been shown in a recruitment video for Jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Their families have begged them to come home and say that they feel their sons had been radicalized here in the UK over the past few years. I was thinking specifically about these disaffected young men, and the many others like them and also the cases of school shootings, which are so tragic. I've been surprised to be convinced by this thread that it is not the presence of guns in the US culture that is the problem, but rather extremism itself.

It seems young men are particularly subject to alienation, perceived humiliation, and poor economic and political opportunities. It must be awful to be coming in to your prime, with so much energy and have nothing to do and no real sense of purpose. So perhaps you either get angry and decide the world is going to pay for your pain, or you start listening to a new ideology which aims to oppose the 'collective'.

What can we actually do to help these young men who have no sense of purpose and nothing to do? Is violence and war something which some young men enjoy (at least initially) because it is exciting and gives them that sense of purpose and the thrill of feeling that they are taking control of their lives and fighting for a perceived higher power?

Naturally, these extremes are also found, albeit in milder forms, in general society. It seems we either turn our hatred inwards and damage ourselves, in such cases as depression, and drug and alcohol abuse or we turn the hatred outwards and become aggressive or even violent.

Stormcloud wrote:What is at the bottom of all this? Man's greed and his ideologies of self interest which creates inequality which equates to poverty which leads desperate people to crime.

So, naturally, I fully agree with Universal Alien that the cases, in which people are attacked are awful and there are times that I would want people to be able to defend themselves. However, it cant be ignored that there would also be a downside to introducing guns in to the British system, as well as the upside. There are plenty of people who would be able to responsibly own a gun, but there are also many (such as all these violent stabbers you have highlighted!) who would not and I would rather they didn't have access to them. The downside outweighs the upside for me.

Of course people can buy things illegally- that's a given (its not like making heroine illegal stops people using it) but the majority of criminals wouldn't and don't it seems, if it is knife crime and not gun crime which is the crime de jour in the UK. There is no doubt plenty of knife crime and criminals in the UK but for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be happening in my town to any worrying degree. (My main fear is people on the road who drive aggressively).

I accept the fact that acts of violence are not caused by having a gun, and there are extremists in any group. eg most Muslims are very peaceful people- it is not their fault that some choose to highjack their religion for the sake of extremism. But you cant deny that there is the relatively recent phenomena of young people going in to schools and shooting as many people as possible. This kind of carnage wouldn't be possible with a knife. The thread may then read "Knife crime and Murder" (note the singular) rather than "Gun Crime and Mass Murder".

But the UK is a different beast than the US. Your culture has grown up with guns and for many it seems this is part of your identity since the American Revolution in 1776, as Universal Alien pointed out. The UK has a completely new identity since colonial times, one which seems to have reformed since the end of the Second World War. It is a more humble and mature culture than before, I think, and one which is now very multicultural, and progressive. If we attached our identity to our complete history, where would we be? The question of guns here is very different than in the US so its hard to compare in any useful way.

I cant speak for the whole of the British Isles (at least not before I've had my coffee!!) but any anger about the oppression by Kings of the past as Universal Alien mentioned, is ancient history and I feel completely safe and free. No matter what happens, it just doesn't even cross our minds that we should all have guns. That would be so extreme. Our Government is not perfect by any means but we do have a rigorous democratic process and a media that will ruthlessly hunt down even the smallest, unscented rat. And Kate and Wills are just a pleasant couple that do a lot of PR, hosting for dignitaries, and the like. No oppression here.. but what we choose as our story is our own decision at the end of the day. I could well be completely wrong- I could be better off living differently and just not know it! I'll plead the blissful ignorance defense!

You'll admit that there seem to be many Americans who do not share your same love of guns as part of your free culture. They feel that freedom without guns is preferable, and they are free to have their opinion, whether you think it is ill founded or not. Have you considered the possibility that others may honestly choose to live without guns, not because they are ignorant, but because it is simply their preference? So does it just boil down to a culture clash? And how do we live alongside people who have such fundamentally different values? Do we separate? Is that even possible? Or do we compromise? This are very pressing question in today's world where so many different peoples and cultures and religions are mixing together and colliding.

At the end of the day, every group must take whatever steps necessary to prevent unnecessary accidents, extremism and abuse of the system by criminals. The issue for me is not, who is right and who is wrong (as it is perfectly possible to both be right) but whether we are happy to allow others to live differently than ourselves and respect their right to choose. I feel that it is reasonable, as Rederik says, to create more stringent rules around gun licencing and ownership in order to allow for a peaceful coexistence. Why not?

(And to be clear, I didn't compare owning a gun to paedophilia, or at least, that isn't how it was meant, so I apologise if it came across that way- I only meant to highlight that the argument that something is inherently right or good because it is enjoyable is flawed).

Spiral Out wrote:What exactly makes an advocate of legal and responsible gun ownership "paranoid" or "irrational"?

How exactly does gun control preclude legal and responsible gun ownership?

Can any gun control advocate provide even one justifiable reason why any lawful and responsible gun owner should be prevented from owning any type of assault rifle? Let's use the Fabrique Nationale P90 Personal Defense Weapon as an example.

Being responsible members of a society, they might agree with others to forsake their right to private ownership of such a fine weapon, and to use one only in a restricted (club) setting perhaps, in order to limit the potential for the wrong people to get their hands on it

The simple fact that I myself own guns, even though I don't carry them on my person and have never used them illegally in any manner whatsoever, has caused some to label me some type of "paranoid, irrational, crime-supporting, freedom-fantasizing, violence-loving, gun-crazed maniac who doesn't care about children", and has even been attempted to be equated to pedophilia of all things!

The freedom-fantasizing part was from me. Sorry. But I do think that restrictions will be found in every society, and can be agreed upon if the people have the will, and the leadership, if those restriction are seen to be beneficial. In other words, giving up a little freedom for the common good

So can any gun control advocate stick to the points of the debate and at least attempt to propose a somewhat cogent argument to support their position?

This is precisely what I first attempted to do, by setting out how gun control in Australia solved the mass murder problem we once shared with USA. This would be sticking to the points of the debate, would it not?

I have made numerous points supporting my position which thus far have either been completely ignored or have been met with irreverent sarcasm.

Sorry again in advance, but its hard not to respond to this without seeming sarcastic: you should be revered?

Let's get this debate back on track. We have much to discuss.

This debate began with a very cheap shot at gun control advocates and has therefore remained on track. I agree with your sentiment, however. And in that spirit, I once again urge people who are interested in the subject of gun control ( and can we agree that there may be many, a majority perhaps, who are neither fanatical pro- or anti- gun control) to take a look at the Australian experience, as it shows that something can be done. I'm not writing as a one-eyed patriot, as I acknowledge Australia's many imperfections, a rise in knife violence which we share with others among them. But this thread started with an out-and-out lie, which I corrected because I believe that knowledge of the Australian experience could be helpful to others.

Can any gun control advocate provide even one justifiable reason why any lawful and responsible gun owner should be prevented from owning any type of assault rifle? Let's use the Fabrique Nationale P90 Personal Defense Weapon as an example.

You're doing it again. I'll repeat it for you in bold letters, as you seem to be having problems reading:

Nobody has suggested that the US should ban guns completely, just that gun ownership should be subject to more stringent rules to make it more difficult for nutters to get guns. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but then I'm not a paranoid irrational gun supporter.

Lucylu wrote:You'll admit that there seem to be many Americans who do not share your same love of guns as part of your free culture. They feel that freedom without guns is preferable, and they are free to have their opinion, whether you think it is ill founded or not.

I'm aware that other people do not share my comfort level with guns (it's not a love of guns) and they are free to not own them. So why should they win out in the fear aspect and be able to preclude my ability of ownership of any weapon I choose, especially when I have shown for 44 years now that I am trustworthy of such ownership?

Why should fear win out over reason?

Lucylu wrote:Have you considered the possibility that others may honestly choose to live without guns, not because they are ignorant, but because it is simply their preference?

I would not force my choices on them and make them own guns. What gives them the right to force their choices on me?

Lucylu wrote:The issue for me is not, who is right and who is wrong (as it is perfectly possible to both be right) but whether we are happy to allow others to live differently than ourselves and respect their right to choose. I feel that it is reasonable, as Rederik says, to create more stringent rules around gun licencing and ownership in order to allow for a peaceful coexistence. Why not?

I'm perfectly fine with reasonable and logical restrictions. However, gun control laws and much of the proposed legislation have massive amounts of unreasonable and illogical rationalizations for their blanket laws that group law-abiding citizens in with the criminals.

Lucylu wrote:(And to be clear, I didn't compare owning a gun to paedophilia, or at least, that isn't how it was meant, so I apologise if it came across that way- I only meant to highlight that the argument that something is inherently right or good because it is enjoyable is flawed).

It did appear that you were equating the two, but I as well wasn't trying to put forward any argument that something is inherently right simply because it is enjoyable. My point was that if it is not causing any harm or infringing on anyone else's rights and people enjoy it then why not allow it provided they haven't shown any justifiable reason to not allow it?

If the right to engage in an activity must be earned through a requisite of responsible behaviors then why isn't the restriction of an activity also required to be earned through a requisite of irresponsible behaviors?

>>>

Robert66 wrote:How exactly does gun control preclude legal and responsible gun ownership?

I cannot own the FN P90 PDW Standard because it falls under the assault rifle ban on civilian ownership. Even though I have no criminal record of any sort, I am still prohibited from owning one. There is no rational reason, or legal grounds, to prevent my ownership of this weapon. This is what "gun control" does. It makes blanket judgments and creates rules that apply to everyone as if we are all equal to the criminals they are trying to exclude.

Robert66 wrote:Being responsible members of a society, they might agree with others to forsake their right to private ownership of such a fine weapon, and to use one only in a restricted (club) setting perhaps, in order to limit the potential for the wrong people to get their hands on it.

I understand the logic but it is still unjustifiable to enact laws simply based on what-ifs.

Robert66 wrote:But I do think that restrictions will be found in every society, and can be agreed upon if the people have the will, and the leadership, if those restriction are seen to be beneficial. In other words, giving up a little freedom for the common good.

Again, I understand the logic but in regard to the common good no benefit would be realized by the preclusion of ownership by legal and responsible parties of any type of weapon.

Robert66 wrote:This is precisely what I first attempted to do, by setting out how gun control in Australia solved the mass murder problem we once shared with USA. This would be sticking to the points of the debate, would it not?

Yes it would. Could you offer that information again?

Spiral Out wrote:I cannot own the FN P90 PDW Standard because it falls under the assault rifle ban on civilian ownership. Even though I have no criminal record of any sort, I am still prohibited from owning one. There is no rational reason, or legal grounds, to prevent my ownership of this weapon. This is what "gun control" does. It makes blanket judgments and creates rules that apply to everyone as if we are all equal to the criminals they are trying to exclude.

Say, hypothetically, there was a type of large cat discovered deep in the Rainforest which was similar to a Tiger in size and appearance but behaved very differently. It was beautiful but also EXTREMELY aggressive to anything that moved. It didn't attack for food or any other reason, it would simply rip animals and people to pieces. Killing seemed to be its raison d'etre.

Now, lets say that lots of people wanted to own one as a pet. "What fun!" they cheered. They all solemnly promised they would keep them secure, only on their property and said that as adults it was their decision to keep whatever animal they liked. Sure enough, there started to be problems: some owners just weren't able to cope with the responsibility or eventually got bored and failed to keep the cages secure. Sometimes it was just simple human error. Every now and then one of these large cats would escape and scenes which can only be imagined in our nightmares or a horror film ensued. Some even ended up being stolen and were trained to kill at their new owner's command. But all too often, the first time anyone was aware that the owner wasn't doing what they were supposed to, or that there was a problem, was when a cat was already loose!

The Government put a ban on these animals being kept as pets. There was an outcry by some of the big cat owners who had kept their cats responsibly and who had genuinely loved their pets and taken care of them well but it was decided that these animals were simply too dangerous to be kept amongst the general population. The risk was just too great. The Government said that people were still free to own regular tigers and lions and panthers if they wanted to, the kind that we have come to know and love. They can still kill you and will rip your head off if they're in the wrong mood, but all in all they are only aggressive when threatened.