NationStates Jolt Archive

Burglers are going to carry guns or other weapons no matter what Controls are put out on them, the only people who follow laws are law abiding citizens, not Criminals. If they suspect that someone has a gun in their house, they are going to move on to someone who they think doesn't, do you want to be helpless against an intruder?
Most burglaries in Holland are carried out without any form of weapon on them. Why?
A) they don't want to get shot
B) they do not intend to harm anyone physically
This shows how luttle you know about guns, 1 bullet does not necessarily(and very rarely) takes down a target. There is a reason that the SWAT team is trained "2 in the Chest, 1 in the Head". If you missed with an MG, you have a chance for a couple of rapid fire up shots to try to hit him. And as I said, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect yourself from the Government, and to do that you need some firepower. Not to mention the fact that they are fun to shoot and there has never been a violent crime commited with a legaly owned one by a Citizen.
Compare the shooting abilities of SWAT (so good they can hit a body twice in the chest and once in the head with three shots) and those of civilians (bad). Now consider the things SWAT should do with guns (taking out dangerous criminals the Police Force can NOT handle) and what civilians should do (nothin).
I don't see the US as a Dictatorship, All I was saying is that it was an interesting fact that every Major Genocide has been proceeded by mass Gun Control.
Every Major Genocide IN A DICTATORSHIP. Guns are banned in Holland, when was there a major genocide? And in the UK? And so many other countries in the world?
What stockpile are you refering too, do you think people would buy guns in gun stores and stock pile them to sell for a lot less money to the Criminals? Or do you think that we know where the stock piles of illegal guns are in this country and don't do anything about it? Banning them won't raise the price because the illegal guns are still pouring into this country, just like drugs. Criminals will always have guns, the only way to even the playing field is to have one yourself.
How many guns are there now in the US? Don't you call that a stockpile?
You know you can check everything that comes into your country? That is if you really want no guns or drugs in your country...
My last point being the origins of Gun Control? All I was saying is that denying guns to the African Americans in our country was the beginging of it.
Which has nothing to do with banning guns completely...

If the military was gonna level a city, then there isnt anything we could do about it. but if they are goingto occupy a city then there are plenty of things to be done. guerilla wars are not fought head on. It is like what happened in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afganistan. lone patrols are picked of. Supply depots are sabotaged etc. All the while the enemy is blending into the population. We are not talking about to armies meating on the field of battle.
So you are willing to fire guns/bombs/grenades at human (maybe even Americans in case of a coup) beings, putting yourself, your friends and your family at risk.
No, being a patriot means you fight for the ideals of your country. That is why our soldiers are obligated to disobay an illegal order. And while there will always be people like in abu gharab, there will also be people like the soldier who threatened an Iraqi with a gun to get info that saved his troops, then he went to his commander and turned himself in.
Good for you. Now you're not a soldier, but a civilian. Your nation has officially surrendered to another. What will you do?
A) Accept your fate. Respect the Presidents decision (he'll know what he's doing). See how it turns out
B) Arm yourself to the teeth. Endanger yourself, your friends, your family, and you entire community, by fighting against an army of trained soldiers.
Well, I am sure we will have well informed and intelligent people such as yourself to make sure that we are aware of whats going on.
Sanity at last

Disarming a gunman hand-to-hand is just as risky as trying to shoot him. He already has his gun out and could shoot you if you so much as bat an eye.


Well, you got one right, now for the two wrongs in your statement:


Oh and gun ownership and killing people are linked. You buy a gun in order to kill as you buy a computer to surf the internet. You can't have one without the other.


First, you can eventually link anything to anything else, if you try hard enough. Gun ownership is definitely involved with killing animals--they're called hunters.

Second, if you buy a computer to surf the Internet, explain what businesses that own computers and prohibit surfing (either by policy or at the border router) do with their machines? Bad analogy. Wait! GOOD analogy! Guns are used for multiple purposes as well! Hunting, defense, target competition, etc. Thanks!


And if you don't have the option to run you are either about to be murdered or are not going to be able to reach for your weapon without being shot first.

Hmm. No. If that were the case, up to several millions of people would be dead, instead of having stopped their respective victimizations.

No, being a patriot means you fight for the ideals of your country. That is why our soldiers are obligated to disobay an illegal order. And while there will always be people like in abu gharab, there will also be people like the soldier who threatened an Iraqi with a gun to get info that saved his troops, then he went to his commander and turned himself in.
that is not the definition of a patriot, and were it, the ideals of a country change if they become a dictatorship dont they, and the military would still be subject to the government control, so either they fight or arnt patriots any more



Well, I am sure we will have well informed and intelligent people such as yourself to make sure that we are aware of whats going on
sicne you take my statements already as ludicrous rantings, you wont realise im right until its slapping you in the face

How many guns are there now in the US? Don't you call that a stockpile?
You know you can check everything that comes into your country? That is if you really want no guns or drugs in your country...



No, actually we cannot check everything that comes into our country. Are borders are too big. Too much cargo comes into our ports.

There are somewwhere between 200-250 million firearms in our country(I dont think this includes the military). 40% of US households have a firearm

Second, if you buy a computer to surf the Internet, explain what businesses that own computers and prohibit surfing (either by policy or at the border router) do with their machines? Bad analogy. Wait! GOOD analogy! Guns are used for multiple purposes as well! Hunting, defense, target competition, etc. Thanks!
but lets see what are computers designed to do: carry out computations, and that is ALL computers do, and dont try to argue, EVERYTHING the computer does, even now when you are surfing the net and whining about you being right, the computer is ONLY computating crap
guns are for 1 purpose: shooting and killing. hunting: killing. defense: killing, and dont give me bullshit about that not being what defense is, a gun is NOT a form of deterrent, guns come after deterrents because people cannot see you have a gun and if they do they would be more inclined to shoot you first,
now target practice, im sure you will feed me some lame ass lines about it, now what is target practice for? honing ones aim and precision. and why would one need to hone aim and precision? to use the weapon to kill more efficiently

No, actually we cannot check everything that comes into our country. Are borders are too big. Too much cargo comes into our ports.

There are somewwhere between 200-250 million firearms in our country(I dont think this includes the military). 40% of US households have a firearm
You can if you were willing to invest in it and not in, oh say, A WAR

If it's so random, it has to be one heck of a coincidence that it's dropped in EVERY state that's adopted the concealed carry laws....
im pointing out that it HASNT

FACTS relate that some states with gun control laws have LOWER gun crimes per capita than some other states WITHOUT gun control laws. AND some states without gun control laws have lower gun crimes per capita than some other states WITH gun control laws

IT IS COMPLETELY RANDOM, there is NO constant, and WITHOUT a constant holding to "more guns = less gun crime" you have NO backing for your argument, stop using NRA fuzzy logic to support your opinion

i have already seen the crimes by state, i looked it up to when some one attempted to confront me with NRA fuzzy logic.

more guns does NOT equal safer; HOWEVER, it does NOT equal more dangerous EITHER

it is a RANDOM chance

new york, where im told has strict gun laws, has less gun related crimes than a state with laxer gun laws, and vice versa. ITS STATE BY STATE RANDOM STATISTIC, you can NOT use it in argument for you, for EITHER position

If it's so random, it has to be one heck of a coincidence that it's dropped in EVERY state that's adopted the concealed carry laws....

can you people at least pretend you can think for yourself instead of parroting people that hold your position

have you actually ever looked at a nonpartisan straight facts chart, and looked at it past the one example that agree with you?

You're looking at facts charts, and only looking for gun-related stuff.

We're looking at facts charts, and looking for all crime. You continually fail to see that.

You're looking at facts charts, and only looking for gun-related stuff.

We're looking at facts charts, and looking for all crime. You continually fail to see that.
ok
lets play your ludicrous game and include realistic facts

fact 1: gun crimes are less in countries with gun regulation and banment
fact 2 (i havnt checked so i will pretend you are right, which is HIGHLY doubtable): laxer gun laws decrease crime
fact 3: stricter gun laws can decrease gun crimes, thus decreasing all crime
fact 4: i rather be beat than shot to death by some punk
fact 5: you claim switzerland has low crime because everyone is required to have a gun

lets eleaborate now, i would assume they are trained, just everyone having a gun is nothing important, trained to use it is far more important
now, with that intelligent assumption, i can say that banning all guns can decrease crime overall, how? remove all guns from society, REQUIRE every person of able age to take self defense classes in some school or other of martial arts, thus decreasing crime because every person is trained heavily in martial arts and no one really has an advantage over any one else

Would have to see that one in writing. I believe that even police officers cant shoot perps who are running away. Otherwise I think we might see a few more police shootings.

You can shoot anyone on your land, at night, stealing your property, regardless of the way they are facing--in Texas.

So, if someone's stealing a TV, and they're still on your land, you can legally fire at will....probably damage the TV, though.

Don't necessarily agree with the law as it's written there, then again, I don't necessarily agree with many laws.

now, with that intelligent assumption, i can say that banning all guns can decrease crime overall, how? remove all guns from society, REQUIRE every person of able age to take self defense classes in some school or other of martial arts, thus decreasing crime because every person is trained heavily in martial arts and no one really has an advantage over any one else
Ooooor: you could teach you're children that guns are bad, and they should stay away from them and instead respect eachother

fact 1: gun crimes are less in countries with gun regulation and banment

FACT: In 1994, America had far more gun regulation than it has now, and far less guns per member of population. After legalizing concealed carry in 36 states, crime has now reached it's 30-year low.


FACT: Those EU countries with low violent crime had even less violent crime before they intoduced those laws.

FACT: " While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain
has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992."

Colin Greenwood "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992, p.34,65

FACT: " Armed crime and violent crime generally are products
of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon."

Ibid.

FACT: " While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain
has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992."
some one is really up to date here [/sarcasm]

FACT: In 1994, America had far more gun regulation than it has now, and far less guns per member of population. After legalizing concealed carry in 36 states, crime has now reached it's 30-year low.


FACT: Those EU countries with low violent crime had even less violent crime before they intoduced those laws.

FACT: " While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain
has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992."

Colin Greenwood "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1992, p.34,65

FACT: " Armed crime and violent crime generally are products
of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon."

Ibid.
GUN crimes are lower in countries with guns regulated or banned than in america

Ooooor: you could teach you're children that guns are bad, and they should stay away from them and instead respect eachother
they do that in martial arts

They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.

If weapons didn`t exist, you wouldn`t need to protect your family from them..

what else do you need a gun for?

GUN crimes are lower in countries with guns regulated or banned than in america

Why do have this fixation on gun crime? Crime is crime. If I am murdered, it doesnt make a differance if it was with a knife or with a gun.

If I am robbed I dont care if the robber had a gun or knife.

They only thing of importance is that it is more likely that a crime committed with a gun is going to have a more dangerous outcome for the victim.

But there is no need to consider that because we can look at the number of murders.

Why do have this fixation on gun crime? Crime is crime. If I am murdered, it doesnt make a differance if it was with a knife or with a gun.

If I am robbed I dont care if the robber had a gun or knife.

They only thing of importance is that it is more likely that a crime committed with a gun is going to have a more dangerous outcome for the victim.

But there is no need to consider that because we can look at the number of murders.
you tell me how much easier it is to defend yourself from a knife than a gun if trained to do so, if you are afraid of being stabbed after guns are banned or regulated, sign up at your local martial arts studio

I must honestly admit that I am quite new to these boards, as one may be able to see by my post count, but I'm not new to Discussion Boards. Still, this has to be one of the most unfriendly gun-lobby discussions I have ever seen.

Is it really neccesary to degrade your opponent just because you don't agree with him? Some people feel that liberties are more important, another may value securirty more. Both sides have their pros and cons, because if this matter was so easily solved, it would have been already. Thus, as a spectator of this more than interesting discussion I would like to ask for everone to cool it down and to think before posting someone is insane for posting something in that matter.

Again, Tolerance.

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis

they do that in martial arts
and they should at home

Okay, if you're really going to get that granular (you seem to have an issue with working on the same level, for some reason), a firearm is designed to support the extreme force of a cartridge firing a bullet.

A bullet is designed to transfer the force of it's momentum into whatever object (note, not necessarily a living being) it hits.
You mean guns are designed to shoot cans?

but lets see what are computers designed to do: carry out computations, and that is ALL computers do, and dont try to argue, EVERYTHING the computer does, even now when you are surfing the net and whining about you being right, the computer is ONLY computating crap
guns are for 1 purpose: shooting and killing. hunting: killing. defense: killing, and dont give me bullshit about that not being what defense is, a gun is NOT a form of deterrent, guns come after deterrents because people cannot see you have a gun and if they do they would be more inclined to shoot you first,
now target practice, im sure you will feed me some lame ass lines about it, now what is target practice for? honing ones aim and precision. and why would one need to hone aim and precision? to use the weapon to kill more efficiently

Okay, if you're really going to get that granular (you seem to have an issue with working on the same level, for some reason), a firearm is designed to support the extreme force of a cartridge firing a bullet.

A bullet is designed to transfer the force of it's momentum into whatever object (note, not necessarily a living being) it hits.

GUN crimes are lower in countries with guns regulated or banned than in america


And?

im pointing out that it HASNT

FACTS relate that some states with gun control laws have LOWER gun crimes per capita than some other states WITHOUT gun control laws. AND some states without gun control laws have lower gun crimes per capita than some other states WITH gun control laws

IT IS COMPLETELY RANDOM, there is NO constant, and WITHOUT a constant holding to "more guns = less gun crime" you have NO backing for your argument, stop using NRA fuzzy logic to support your opinion

There you go again. I'm not looking at JUST GUN CRIME. I'm looking at ALL crime. Get it through your head.

dont give me bullshit about that not being what defense is,

FACT: In the oppressive majority of cases where a gun is used successfully in self-defense, nobody is killed.

FACT: In the oppressive majority of cases where a gun is used successfully in self-defense, nobody is killed.
that would be the definition of a succesful self defence.

A bullet is designed to transfer the force of it's momentum into whatever object (note, not necessarily a living being) it hits.
a bullet is any projectile really, a rock could be a bullet, its not designed, now there are ones designed to kill easier

FACT: In the oppressive majority of cases where a gun is used successfully in self-defense, nobody is killed.
cite what you are quoting, i'd love to see

If weapons didn`t exist, you wouldn`t need to protect your family from them..

what else do you need a gun for?
Totally agree, the first one who acually stole my line.

Have anyone noticed that the majority of criminals shown on US television is black? Of some reason it's much easier to be a white criminal than black in the US.

FACT: You guys are not going to agree with each other

What situation would ask for a small object to hit a larger object with greater-than-sound-speed?

I must honestly admit that I am quite new to these boards, as one may be able to see by my post count, but I'm not new to Discussion Boards. Still, this has to be one of the most unfriendly gun-lobby discussions I have ever seen.

Is it really neccesary to degrade your opponent just because you don't agree with him? Some people feel that liberties are more important, another may value securirty more. Both sides have their pros and cons, because if this matter was so easily solved, it would have been already. Thus, as a spectator of this more than interesting discussion I would like to ask for everone to cool it down and to think before posting someone is insane for posting something in that matter.

Again, Tolerance.

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis


You pretty much hit it on the head. However, it's a little more than that. When you argue liberties, taking them away, regardless of the reason is a direct threat to the person you are taking them away from.

Security is a state of mind. It's not a right (due to the fact that it varies from person to person).

Me having a gun is not a security threat, due to my track record of not shooting anything other than paper, and one bird, in my entire life. You have to go by evidence, not by potentials based out of fear.

This is why it's such a hot button for those of us who support gun ownership. We're not taking anything from anyone, and yet there are those that want to take from us.

You pretty much hit it on the head. However, it's a little more than that. When you argue liberties, taking them away, regardless of the reason is a direct threat to the person you are taking them away from.

Security is a state of mind. It's not a right (due to the fact that it varies from person to person).

Me having a gun is not a security threat, due to my track record of not shooting anything other than paper, and one bird, in my entire life. You have to go by evidence, not by potentials based out of fear.

This is why it's such a hot button for those of us who support gun ownership. We're not taking anything from anyone, and yet there are those that want to take from us.
In your house is a device designed to kill. This does not trouble you?

There you go again. I'm not looking at JUST GUN CRIME. I'm looking at ALL crime. Get it through your head.
Gun crimes affect all crimes. Get THAT through YOUR head.

Fine, a cartridge, then. There are also knives designed to kill easier as well, yet we don't ban all knives do we?

You're putting specific qualifications on firearms, but no qualifications on anything else. Your logic remains as faulty as ever, kid.
For rocks/knives to kill you'd have to be at a relative close distance. With guns however, you do not.

a bullet is any projectile really, a rock could be a bullet, its not designed, now there are ones designed to kill easier

Fine, a cartridge, then. There are also knives designed to kill easier as well, yet we don't ban all knives do we?

You're putting specific qualifications on firearms, but no qualifications on anything else. Your logic remains as faulty as ever, kid.

Of course not. I'm not afraid of an object. I respect what it can do, yes, but does it trouble me? Not in the least.

You're the one assuming that its only purpose is to kill. It's not.
what's the other purpose?

For rocks/knives to kill you'd have to be at a relative close distance. With guns however, you do not.
How can your granny defend herself with rocks and knives?

How can your granny defend herself with rocks and knives?
how can she defend herself with a gun?

In your house is a device designed to kill. This does not trouble you?

Of course not. I'm not afraid of an object. I respect what it can do, yes, but does it trouble me? Not in the least.

You're the one assuming that its only purpose is to kill. It's not.

I use it to deter, and if necessary, stop a threat. Luckily, I've never had to do either. I hope I never have to.

Well, I guess many fear that their life will be taken from themselves.

Security, for a large part, is indeed a feeling. As a martial artist, I find that I am never attacked, even when going through areas that some might classify as dangerous, simply because I have a lot of confidence in my own abilities, which seems to be enough for most not to attack me. This is without carrying a gun, by the way ;).
I, personally, have no need for a gun, and have no desire to carry one as I believe I would endanger myself by carrying it. Thusly, I personally would be in favour for a gun ban, if it was not such an infringement in the liberties of others. It's a pickle, no doubt.

Still, no person here on earth lies in complete freedom. Only the birds in the sky have that ability. Whether we are not allowed to kill people, or simply have an opinion, we are always limited in our options simply to preserve the species. The question is, is banning a gun worth the loss of freedom? To answer that question, one would need to prove that by banning guns, there would be no more gun-violence, to whom I think we can all agree that it simply will not solve.

The US is unable to keep hard-drugs out, while it has been banned, and they will fail when it comes to guns as well. Unless there is some way we can insure that there are no guns at all, I believe we should not limit anyone in their liberties. Note the 'I believe', which designates an opinion. You can either agree or disagree with it. Please do not flame me or anyone else for their opinion, no matter how well or badly they support it :).

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis

what's the other purpose?

Deterrence, challenging competition (targets), hunting.

Deterrence, challenging competition (targets), hunting.
Deterrence: yeah that really works for criminals who carry guns too EDIT: and are more willing to use it
Competition: this is no purpose of the gun
Hunting = killing (animals)

It does, checks the statistics.
It does not, check other statistics

Deterrence: yeah that really works for criminals who carry guns too EDIT: and are more willing to use it

It does, checks the statistics.

you are more likely that you or your loved ones will die from a gunshot.

how can she defend herself with a gun?
Very easily, don't you remember those eighties films with grannies on the porch shooting at bikers with a shotgun? Every eighties film either had that or the guy who was drinking and saw something weird then poured the whisky away.

How can your granny defend herself with rocks and knives?

hihihi
imaging, drive by stonings!

Deterrence: yeah that really works for criminals who carry guns too EDIT: and are more willing to use it


Actually, yes, it does cause concern for criminals. The number one fear of criminals is that a victim may be armed.


Competition: this is no purpose of the gun


Then there is no purpose of a soccer ball, or a pool table, or anything else people do for fun or sport. Just because you don't like what's used in the sport doesn't mean it's not viable. I don't like automobile racing, but hey, who am I to tell someone they can't like it, or they must stop it?


Hunting = killing (animals)

Yup, I've said that there is killing with guns (specifically with hunting, actually, so thanks for almost quoting me)--but it's not the only purpose.

hihihi
imaging, drive by stonings!
Islamic gangsters?

Actually, yes, it does cause concern for criminals. The number one fear of criminals is that a victim may be armed.
Not the fear of being caught? That's f*cked up.
Then there is no purpose of a soccer ball, or a pool table, or anything else people do for fun or sport. Just because you don't like what's used in the sport doesn't mean it's not viable. I don't like automobile racing, but hey, who am I to tell someone they can't like it, or they must stop it?
Maybe there should be a bombing or, better yet, nuking competition too, so you can have all the nukes you want, just because it serves a single other purpose, next to killing
Yup, I've said that there is killing with guns (specifically with hunting, actually, so thanks for almost quoting me)--but it's not the only purpose.
so what, I quoted you, it's still killing

you are more likely that you or your loved ones will die from a gunshot.

Yes, if something is near you, of course you're more likely to die from it. That's logical.

Still doesn't mean that it will ever happen.

Why do people live in California? They're more likely to die in an earthquake. Why do people live in Kansas? They're more likely to die in a Tornado. Why do people live in Florida? They're more likely to die in a hurricane. Why do people live in Washington D.C.? They're more likely to be killed by a criminal.

Yes, removing a gun may decrease your chances of dying by a 9mm round. It can increase your chances of dying by an intruder, though, regardless the weapon.

Islamic gangsters?

hahaha

we now have 2 points: fear of getting killed & killing

So? The point I was making was that guns aren't just for killing.

curious, would that mean that they could regulate the type of guns available.

say only bolt action rifles allowed by law

Not the fear of being caught? That's f*cked up.

Maybe there should be a bombing or, better yet, nuking competition too, so you can have all the nukes you want, just because it serves a single other purpose, next to killing

so what, I quoted you, it's still killing

So? The point I was making was that guns aren't just for killing.

oh yeah... shooting for sport. At first it was only hunting wildlife, but since people did not want to or were not allowed to kill animals everywhere they changed to shooting the shit out of inanimate objects.

oh yeah... shooting for sport. At first it was only hunting wildlife, but since people did not want to or were not allowed to kill animals everywhere they changed to shooting the shit out of inanimate objects.

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's that simple.

You don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do. Again, it's that simple.

It IS a sport. It's even in the olympics. Various kinds of shooting.

You don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
Well, the laws can tell you that you shall not kill, weapons incease the chance of getting killed.

If you like it as a sport, the clubs should have the weapons, not you.

curious, would that mean that they could regulate the type of guns available.

say only bolt action rifles allowed by law

Nope. The second amendment covers that one--"Shall not be infringed". Limiting weapon type is an infringement.

If you don't like it, don't do it. It's that simple.

You don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do. Again, it's that simple.

It IS a sport. It's even in the olympics. Various kinds of shooting.
I am not telling you what to do. I'm trying to convince you. I think you should not have a gun, that's why I argue. Otherwise I would post 20 posts "Zaxon: Throw away your gun."

EDIT: It's a real sport being the best in being able to shoot people

FACT: In 1994, America had far more gun regulation than it has now, and far less guns per member of population. After legalizing concealed carry in 36 states, crime has now reached it's 30-year low.

For the US:
In 1997, firearms were used in 68% of murders (10,369 cases), and sharp instruments in 13% (1,963). 65 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in the same year, 16% higher than the total in 1996, but still 17% lower than the figure a decade ago.


For the UK:
While the most common method of killing in 1997 was with a sharp instrument (just under a third of offences), nine per cent of the 650 homicide victims currently recorded for England and Wales in 1997 were shot.
Eight per cent of all homicides in 2002/03 involved firearms.
The proportion of robberies involving firearms (including air weapons) has remained between four and five per cent for the last six years.

FACT: " While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992."
Overall, firearms (including air weapons) were used in 0.41 per cent of all recorded crimes. The proportion excluding air weapons was 0.17 per cent.
The proportion of other serious offences of violence against the person involving a firearm remained at 3.5 per cent in 2002/03. The proportion of robberies in which firearms were used was 4.4 per cent, a similar proportion to the previous six years.

When you're dealing with numbers that low, any increase will look bad.

In 1979 the Homicide rate in the UK was 1.3 per 100 000. In 1997 it was 1.4 per 100 000.
One police officer was seriously injured on duty by a firearm during the 12 months ending in March 2003. Eleven officers received slight injuries. There were no fatal injuries to police officers caused by a firearm between 1996 and 2002-03.

In 1976 the Homicide rate in the USA was 9.9 per 100 000. In 1997 it was 7.3 per 100 000.
Of the 688 officers killed in the line of duty over the past decade (1988-1997), firearms were used in 92% of cases.

All stats taken from Home Office documents.

I am not telling you what to do. I'm trying to convince you. I think you should not have a gun, that's why I argue. Otherwise I would post 20 posts "Zaxon: Throw away your gun."

EDIT: It's a real sport being the best in being able to shoot people

So, you'd rather convince me? Cool. I can deal with that.

Would you force me with a law? That's not cool.

The various shooting sports are actually a number of things--the biathalon, for instance. It's how well you can shoot accurately, after having your heart rate and breathing jacked up. And it is target shooting, not people shooting. The targets don't even look like people. :)

Well, the laws can tell you that you shall not kill, weapons incease the chance of getting killed.

If you like it as a sport, the clubs should have the weapons, not you.

So now everyone that wants to play soccer has to leave their ball, cleats and pads at the field? Can't take a baseball or bat to the park? Darts have to stay at the pub?

In america guns are lot, lot easier to get a hold of & the gun death rate is 10x what it is of european countries.

In america guns are lot, lot easier to get a hold of & the gun death rate is 10x what it is of european countries.

Yup. But what are the corresponding violent crime rates? Go for a global picture, not just concentrate on one item.

blaming guns for people dying, is like blaming spoons for rosie o'donnel being fat, its not the guns that are killing the people its the people behind the machines. I say once they go away for murder, put em in the chair, no more sitting on death row for 15 years, they need to go straight to the front of the line

It is interesting that some anti gun people want all guns banned and some pro gun people want no guns banned.
Having a father that was a police officer, I grew up around guns. I learned to shoot them and learned to respect them.
I very much agree that guns dont kill people. Stupid people kill people. (and maybe McDonalds food but that is another argument)
But I also see that there are a lot of stupid people out there that, if some guns are avalible, will do stupid stuff with them.
I admit that I do belive in the assult rifle ban. I also acknowledge that even if you ban something it will not entirly remove it from the streets.
Until the court system truely starts punishing those that are stupid with firearms, we need to have some basic gun ban laws in effect. Decideing which guns?? That is a hard question to answer. To me, most hand guns hunting rifles are pretty basic fair. I have shot assult rifles but realy didnt get the thrill that the rest of the group got from it. Yet I know that for some people, a BeeBee gun should be banned due to it being dangrouse.
Then we hit on the point a few posts back. Does this mean banning baseball bats and darts and pool cues cause you can kill with these. Lets go further and ban beer cause that causes people to get stupid.
It is a hard decision to make but I think that both sides need to sit down and find the middle ground. Until that happens, we will never come to a consences.
Just my personal opinion babble

ok
lets play your ludicrous game and include realistic facts

fact 1: gun crimes are less in countries with gun regulation and banment
fact 2 (i havnt checked so i will pretend you are right, which is HIGHLY doubtable): laxer gun laws decrease crime
fact 3: stricter gun laws can decrease gun crimes, thus decreasing all crime
fact 4: i rather be beat than shot to death by some punk
fact 5: you claim switzerland has low crime because everyone is required to have a gun

lets eleaborate now, i would assume they are trained, just everyone having a gun is nothing important, trained to use it is far more important
now, with that intelligent assumption, i can say that banning all guns can decrease crime overall, how? remove all guns from society, REQUIRE every person of able age to take self defense classes in some school or other of martial arts, thus decreasing crime because every person is trained heavily in martial arts and no one really has an advantage over any one else


The flaw in your logic is to assume that a ban will get rid of guns. Criminals will always have them, so your plan won't work. It'll just increase the "Death of Martial Artists" stat.

Okay, let's start out with the fact that there are 3 legitimate uses for guns. Hunting, sport shooting, and self defense. Hunting is not only guns, you can hunt with bows, spears, slingshots, whatever. And from what I have seen, the arguement really isn't about hunting with guns, it is about the ethics of killing animals. So, if you want to discuss hunting, that takes us into a whole other ball park. Sport shooting is what is says, shooting for sport, usually against inanimate targets. There are many puposes for sport shooting, such as, target practice/training, historical reproduction, and as with other sports, just seeing who is the best.
Now, you could rid this country of sport shooting, but then how would you train cops in the use of their firearms? Are you just going to give them their gun and say, "Here, figure it out for your self"? Now, you are going to set up competions, so that a cop can make good use of their firearm. Albeit, you could just take away the cops firearm, but how then would he stop a criminal with a ranged weapon, even a long bow? Second, target shooting is a great way to get in touch with our past(think of the cowboy action shooting association). Where would our kids be if guns were stricken from our history books, and if they couldn't attend reenactments? Would the struggles our forefathers endured go unremembered? Should one of the reasons our country won the revolutionary war(better marksmen) go unheeded? History is a wonderful thing, why should we leave any part of it out? For the rest of us, shooting is like every other sport, we want to see who is best. I want to know if I can hold my gun steadier, and see my target better then the guy next to me. Just like I like to know if I can kick a ball faster and more accurately then the guy on the other soccer team. And heck, if you can still calm yourself to be able to hit a small target after skiing for a while, you deserve my admiration.
Lastly, a use that hasn't seemed to come up often in this topic, is the use of guns for self defense. I might add that, yes, if I were a criminal, I would be more worried about walking in on an armed homeowner, then being caught by the athoritities. Think about it, if you were robbing a house, and suddenly, from a dark corner, you hear the loading sound of a 12 guage pump, wouldn't you be scared? The homeowner has the element of suprise on you, you don't know where or when he might pop out at you. The police, on the other hand, can't really get there until late, so you can pretty much know that, if you are quick, you can get out of the house. You also know that they following you, and you might even have a good idea of the magnitude and area of the search through the newscasts. You may be a hunted animal, but atleast you know that you are hunted. Secondly, I may point out the gun as a great moderator. If your 60 year old grandmother was mugged by a guy that was 6ft, and 180 pounds ouf muscle, would you rather she had a gun, or a knife? A knife is only good if you have the muscle/technique to use it. A gun, on the other hand, can be used by anyone, anywhere, no matter how strong you are.

The flaw in your logic is to assume that a ban will get rid of guns. Criminals will always have them, so your plan won't work. It'll just increase the "Death of Martial Artists" stat.

This is a fair point, in regard to the USA. Your country is awash with guns, and is consequently doomed to suffer the associated high murder and assault rates that seem to go with large-scale gun ownership. At the very least you would have a long, long way to go to begin to get the problem under control. I still think it would be a good idea to exercise some degree of caution over just who is allowed to own what sort of firearm, though.

However, this US problem in dealing with its millions of firearms makes a bloody good argument for countries like the UK, where guns are rare and the murder rate is much lower, to maintain and even strengthen its popular anti-gun laws.

the fact that most americans have guns is america's downfall. ye trust nobody, not even your own people. and your insecurity encourages terrorists.

Yup. But what are the corresponding violent crime rates? Go for a global picture, not just concentrate on one item.
Surely, if the overall violent crime rates in countries with strict gun control are similar per capita as the USA, then this is a good argument FOR gun control. It proves that having ready access to guns is a really stupid idea, as it causes more deaths.
But since you asked:
Violent crime stats:
NZ:
NZ defines violent crime as: Homicide, grevious assaults, serious assaults, minor assaults and intimidation or threats
3.7 p/1000 (for 2000)
(http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/nzstories.nsf/092edeb76ed5aa6bcc256afe0081d84e/8c48c083074bca3ccc256b1800026365?OpenDocument)
Australia:
Oz defines violent crime as: sexual assault, assault, manslaughter, murder, attempted murder.
9.1 p/1000 (fpr 2002)
(http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/35f92b1557cf12d2ca256ea00079b457!OpenDocument)
US:
The US defined violent crime as: Aggravated assault, Simple assault, Murder, Rape and Robbery
22.3 p/1000 (for 2003)
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm)
UK:
The Uk defined violent crime as: It's a f**king long list! you can find it here:
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page78.asp
It even includes: Causing death by dangerous driving, Threat or conspiracy to murder, Endangering railway passengers, Harassment, Possession of weapons, Being found in possession of an object or instrument (!).
3.9 p/1000 (for 2003)
(http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/Default.asp?region=0&force=0&cdrp=0&l1=6&l2=0&l3=0&sub=0&v=21)
BTW in 1998, in the UK they changed the rules of reporting and crime stats jumped up approx. 20%.
Canada:
Canada defines violent crime as: Homicide, attempted murder, assaults, other assaults. sexual assaults, abduction, robbery.
9.9 p/1000 (for 2001)
(http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020717/d020717b.htm)

So make of it what you will. No doubt the pro-gunners will use the stat that the US is more violent to 'prove' that guns are necessary while the anti-gunners will say it shows that gun use leads to more violent crime, since you feel you can get away with it carrying a gun.

One last stat:
US:
Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual assaults involved an armed assailant.
Between 1993 and 2001 approximately 26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon
(From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:)
UK:
The proportion of all other serious offences of violence against the person (excluding Homicide) involving a firearm remained at 3.5 per cent between 1996 and 2003.
(From the Home office)

very well researched, bravo!

One last stat:
US:
Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual assaults involved an armed assailant.
Between 1993 and 2001 approximately 26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon
(From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:)
UK:
The proportion of all other serious offences of violence against the person (excluding Homicide) involving a firearm remained at 3.5 per cent between 1996 and 2003.
(From the Home office)

Um, armed assailant. It doesn't say gun. You're comparing people armed with ANYTHING to stats that explicitly say gun. That doesn't wash.

If guns were legal in Britain i imagine half of the people i know would be dead and there would of been many horrible massacres

If guns were legal in Britain i imagine half of the people i know would be dead and there would of been many horrible massacres

Wow, you guys are that violent? I've heard about those soccer matches of yours, but geez.

All the people I know are still alive, and some even have guns. Wow! And guns are legal here!

guns don't kill people, rappers do!

(I saw it in a documentary on BBC2)

Guns don't kill people. Bullets don't kill people. People don't kill people. When you get right down to it, physics is what kills people. If you want to stop homicide, petition your state representatives to introduce physics-control legislation. :mp5:

Guns don't kill people. Bullets don't kill people. People don't kill people. When you get right down to it, physics is what kills people. If you want to stop homicide, petition your state representatives to introduce physics-control legislation. :mp5:
Wrong! Physics would cause the human body to accellerate in the same direction of the bullet. It's chemistry and biology that kills people

If guns were legal in Britain i imagine half of the people i know would be dead and there would of been many horrible massacres

It's the image that some people outside the US have about the US.
Highly publicised multiple killings involving guns....
+
The US is awash with guns....
=
There must be many horrible massacres each and every day.

That logic makes sense to some people, regardless of the actual situation.

Nothing like living in a country where you can tote around your AK-47.

Where are we again, Iran?
In Yemen it's the official dresscode actually.

i would like to thank DH for thoroughly debunking the lamer attempts at use of "facts" by the pro-gun nutties, im sure zaxon has made some inane attempt to kill cited facts, but luckily i have him ignored so i dont care

Attempted? I got him on the last one in his post. He compared apples to oranges. Real convincing....
Quoting you just incase Chess doesnt have me ignored.. :D

i would like to thank DH for thoroughly debunking the lamer attempts at use of "facts" by the pro-gun nutties, im sure zaxon has made some inane attempt to kill cited facts, but luckily i have him ignored so i dont care

Attempted? I got him on the last one in his post. He compared apples to oranges. Real convincing....

of course guns kill people, but so so knives and forks, and wooden stakes, and a whole variety of sharpened objects. The problem is not with the guns or with the weapons it is that people enjoy killing people. This explains why we have a judicial system. At a point some one must be willing to put all criticism aside a push for the greater good of mankind. Uproot those that do wrong to better the society.

Physics would cause the human body to accellerate in the same direction of the bullet. actually, an equal force is distributed in both directions, but since the human body has a much greater inertia, it isn't propelled as is the bullet. just fyi ;)

ON the issue:

1. Criminals are criminals because they DON'T obey laws. While there are plenty of crimes committed with firearms aqcuired legally, it does not follow that outlawing gun ownership by private citizens would prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally. THEY ARE CRIMINALS.
2. Communities with a large percentage of gun-owning families are also communities with a lower rate of crime. Why? Because people are going to be just a bit more cautious when they might be interrupted by someone with a handgun. Citizens should have the right to be able to protect themselves from those who would threaten them.

actually, an equal force is distributed in both directions, but since the human body has a much greater inertia, it isn't propelled as is the bullet. just fyi ;)

ON the issue:

1. Criminals are criminals because they DON'T obey laws. While there are plenty of crimes committed with firearms aqcuired legally, it does not follow that outlawing gun ownership by private citizens would prevent criminals from acquiring guns illegally. THEY ARE CRIMINALS.
2. Communities with a large percentage of gun-owning families are also communities with a lower rate of crime. Why? Because people are going to be just a bit more cautious when they might be interrupted by someone with a handgun. Citizens should have the right to be able to protect themselves from those who would threaten them.
1) so because criminals who try can get illegal guns we should make it easier for them and other criminals to get those and more powerful guns?

2) do oyu have stats, no better yet, do you have UNBIASED stats. do you have those stats compared to people who have dogs in their house or yard or people who have security systems

guns are NOT a deterrent because they cannot be seen, its better and more effective to deter crime than commit one yourself because some one wants your cd player

They also help you protect yourself and your family better. Stop trying to control other peoples' lives.

statistically speaking, a huge majority of those killed by bringing a gun into a house are people in your family that you're trying to protect.

2 cases in point, my mom was a police officer for a number of years (in a town with 30,000 people...not too many officers) 2 officer's had children who were killed in gun accidents.

Guns do exactly the opposite of making you safer. Accidents happen, even to people who believe that they're being as careful as humanly possible.

Attempted? I got him on the last one in his post. He compared apples to oranges. Real convincing....
You made a good point about the weapons use, but how does that refute everything else in the post I made?

FYI:
In the US, Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2002, 51% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics

statistically speaking, a huge majority of those killed by bringing a gun into a house are people in your family that you're trying to protect.

Wrong:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Wrong:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Not quite wrong, I'm afraid. His data shows:
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9

So the 43 to 1 ratio is misleading, but there is still a higher chance that a gun will be used to kill a family member than it will be to defend yourself against an intruder. Ignoring the suicide figures, 56 family members died from gunshot wounds and only 9 intruders. It still backs up the claim you're more in danger from a fellow member than an intruder. Suicides are different, but you could argue that ready access to a deadly instrument that can kill you instantly might cause suicides to be high in firearm-owning households.

Anyway this article claims that these stats are misleading, then goes on to manipulate the stats anyway.

For example, The writer makes the erroneous assumption that since there were 333 suicides due to gun shot in firearm owning Households therefore all other suicides (from all other methods) have to be in non-firearm owning households. He (or she) then goes on to back the same assumption for all the above stats.
If they weren't killed from a gun, therefore they must have died in a household that doesn't own guns!
That is the most asinine and silliest jump of logic a person could make. If I'm depressed and want to end it all, and own a gun, it doesn't necessarily follow I HAVE to use it to end my life.
Likewise the criminal homicide stats. Are we to assume that all firearm-owning households in this study had no knives, gas, blunt objects, baseball bats, pillows, cars, etc etc. Just a wooden box to sit in and a gun?

Wrong:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html


:D hahahahaha...you're idea to link me to a site to prove my argument wrong is rather funny when you consider that their idea of "Gun Control News" involves the san diego NRA. Let me guess though, that's a fair and balanced site!

All this argument about statistics doesn't include a very important statistic. 2,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.

perhaps so, but over 11 million gun deaths/year.

perhaps so, but over 11 million gun deaths/year.
Where did that number come from? World wide? I know it cant be from the US, where the 2,000,000 defensive uses comes from. You didnt just make that number up did you?

Thats funny....

However.... when you look at WHO is being murdered and by WHOM it becomes clearer that this argument is flawed. By far the people BEING murdered have put themselves into that position. Drug deals gone bad account for more killings than not. Is the loss of two drug dealers who kill each other a tragedy? I don't think it is a loss to society at all.

I am not saying that innocents are not murdered, but discounting the drug dealers and those who engage in activities that open themselves up to being killed, the numbers are far lower.


Look up the facts before you state things (it isn't that hard, I know you're on-line so I know you have access to google if you're too lazy to do some real research)

A gun is far more likely to be used in suicide, murder, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. According to federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1996 in a justifiable homicide, 160 lives were ended in firearm suicides, murders, and unintentional shootings.

The United States leads the industrialized world in rates of firearm death among children. In 1997 the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that of firearm deaths among children less than 15 years old, 86 percent occurred in the U.S.

Firearms were the weapons used in approximately seven out of every 10 homicides committed in the United States in 1996.

Source: Violence Policy Center

Most gun deaths aren't due to drug dealers or scum; they're due to suicides, accidents, and homicides.

Where did that number come from? World wide? I know it cant be from the US, where the 2,000,000 defensive uses comes from. You didnt just make that number up did you?
The 11 million seems very high, but as it's not your stat you can't answer me on that.
Anyway where did you get the 2 mill defensive uses from? That seems extremely high as well. How are defensive uses defined? Is America really that violent a society that every 15 seconds on average a gun is used in self-defense somewhere in America? :eek:

The 11 million seems very high, but as it's not your stat you can't answer me on that.
Anyway where did you get the 2 mill defensive uses from? That seems extremely high as well. How are defensive uses defined? Is America really that violent a society that every 15 seconds on average a gun is used in self-defense somewhere in America? :eek:
www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm
This site is fairly biased but if you follow the 1st footnote you see the statistic comes from an article written by "Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)"

I have posted that stat numerous times... it's a fairly conservative estimate, the highest estimate I've read was 3.5 million. The lowest estimate was 80,000 but that was from an anti gun opponent.

But when your talking a population of 300 million, it's not that high.

Most gun deaths aren't due to drug dealers or scum; they're due to suicides, accidents, and homicides.

Most homicides in America are drug-related.

Criminals are rarely killed in a defensive act - in most acts of self-defense, the criminal is simply scared off.

perhaps so, but over 11 million gun deaths/year.


World-wide, 250,000 people are killed by guns.

www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm
This site is fairly biased but if you follow the 1st footnote you see the statistic comes from an article written by "Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)"

Very interesting article there. But it still doesn't explain what a defensive use is or how it was calculated. It still seems pretty high, even considering the population of America.
I found one point rather ironic:
Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house.
It then goes on to say how effective this was, indicating thei support of such an act. Isn't it odd that the NRA bleats constantly about the Govt invading their personal freedom and restricting their rights, as defined in the Constitution. But they are then equally supportive of an act which takes aways a person right to choose, thereby infringing on the same Constitutional rights they seek to defend.

Look up the facts before you state things (it isn't that hard, I know you're on-line so I know you have access to google if you're too lazy to do some real research)

A gun is far more likely to be used in suicide, murder, or unintentional shooting than to kill a criminal. According to federal government figures, for every time a citizen used a firearm in 1996 in a justifiable homicide, 160 lives were ended in firearm suicides, murders, and unintentional shootings.

The United States leads the industrialized world in rates of firearm death among children. In 1997 the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that of firearm deaths among children less than 15 years old, 86 percent occurred in the U.S.

Firearms were the weapons used in approximately seven out of every 10 homicides committed in the United States in 1996.

Source: Violence Policy Center

Most gun deaths aren't due to drug dealers or scum; they're due to suicides, accidents, and homicides.
VPC is also one of the most biased, most IDIOTIC gun control groups out there. They believe that the S&W 500 Magnum revolver should be banned because it can defeat police body armor. Please. They didn't even test it. They did calculations on terminal energy and assumed (remember what they say about assumptions) that the 500 Magnum could go through vests. Rifle bullets can go through IIa and III armor easily, but shotgun slugs (which carry MUCH more energy) can't. Bullet design plays a key role - a stab will generally go deeper than a cut.

The gun is a hunting firearm. It is designed to give you a fighting chance if you face a aggressive bear or similar dangerous game in close quarters, similar to the African Express rifles. It weighs from 3 1/2 to 5 1/8 pounds. The overall length ranges from 10 1/4 to 18 inches. They're all around $1000 in price. The only holster designed for it I know of are designed to carry it across your chest, and even then it sticks out below the waist line. It is massive. It is unconcealable. It is expensive. It is not a weapon any cop would face except in extreme circumstances.

EDIT:
Link to more about the ridiculousness of VPC:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-vpc.html

It is designed to give you a fighting chance if you face a aggressive bear or similar dangerous game in close quarters, similar to the African Express rifles.
There are also signs: "Stay in the car"

There are also signs: "Stay in the car"
So I should live my life in fear whenever I go to the wilderness? I should take a dump in my car? Pee in it? Sleep in it, in the hopes that a bear will never open the car up, as they have been known to do?

So I should live my life in fear whenever I go to the wilderness? I should take a dump in my car? Pee in it? Sleep in it, in the hopes that a bear will never open the car up, as they have been known to do?
Either
a) don't be afraid in which case you won't need a gun, cause bears do not attack people lightly
b) don't go into the wilderness. There are enough places without bears

Either
a) don't be afraid in which case you won't need a gun, cause bears do not attack people lightly
b) don't go into the wilderness. There are enough places without bears
a) true. But (excuse my French) shit happens. There are places in Norway where by law you are required to carry a rifle to defend yourself from polar bears, usually in remote towns close to the Arctic circle. They don't expect to shoot the bears, but if they have to...
b) Ah, but what if my job requires me to go into bear country? Should I go in defenseless? Should I quit? Or should I bring a gun?

World-wide, 250,000 people are killed by guns.
Perhaps the other 10 750 000 he was talking about were by govt guns?

www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

That's a great site.

Hey, as Mark Twain said that Benjamin Disraeli once put it:
"There are three types of lies in this world: Lies, Damn lies, and statistics."

You take your stats, I'll take mine, and we'll both use them to beat each other over the head with until we're too tired or it's 4 in the morning.

guns don't kill people, rappers do!

(I saw it in a documentary on BBC2)

hahaha

does anyone know the name of that welsh group?

Hey Zaxon, thanks for fighting the good fight. I haven't followed this whole thread, but I like what I've read.

I encourange anyone looking for serious debate on the gun issue to at least read a little of talk.politics.guns. You'll find people who've spent years arguing with each other. Many of whom are exremely familiar with the law, and some of the most nastiest debates are between pro-gun allies. Usually it's matter of foreign policy that spark such fights. Currently, the newsgroup is being flooded with posts about Kerry's purple hearts and the forged/real memos. I don't much care about that, and can't wait for the election to be over.

Anyway, if you like have this you'd really like to say about guns and gun laws, or you have questions, tpg is good place to turn to. I should warn though, that like most political newsgroups, it's got it's share of drooling fruitcakes, and vulgar trolls. But don't worry they can only figuratively bite your head off (as long as you don't post your address or something stupid like that).

If you've never used usenet before, check out your ISP's help on how to use Outlook Express access newsgroups. If you think OE sucks, check out Xnews or Mozzilla/Thunderbird.

I call myself "gavnook"

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But monkeys kill people too, if you give them guns!

So many of you keep arguing statistics, but that's not the point. Either you believe the Right to Keep and Bear arms is in fact a right that shall not be infringed, or you feel that it's okay to restrict or ban the private possession of firearms because it might make you safer. I submit that all free adults have an intrisic right to self-defense and it is not some privilage for those who've deemed themselves worthy to serve the government. It is not up to you to decide what someone else "needs". Only those who've demonstrated criminal behavior or a blatant disregard for safety of others deserve to lose such a right, and even then restrictions need to be reasonable. Martha Stewart, for instance, should not be prohibited from owning firearms once her sentence is served.

I should also point out that the world wasn't any less violent before guns were invented. If you fantasize about a "gun-free" world, watch movies like "Braveheart" and "Gladiator". Before guns, tall strong men had quite a monopoly on violence.

So many of you keep arguing statistics, but that's not the point. Either you believe the Right to Keep and Bear arms is in fact a right that shall not be infringed, or you feel that it's okay to restrict or ban the private possession of firearms because it might make you safer. I submit that all free adults have an intrisic right to self-defense and it is not some privilage for those who've deemed themselves worthy to serve the government. It is not up to you to decide what someone else "needs". Only those who've demonstrated criminal behavior or a blatant disregard for safety of others deserve to lose such a right, and even then restrictions need to be reasonable. Martha Stewart, for instance, should not be prohibited from owning firearms once her sentence is served.

I should also point out that the world wasn't any less violent before guns were invented. If you fantasize about a "gun-free" world, watch movies like "Braveheart" and "Gladiator". Before guns, tall strong men had quite a monopoly on violence.

Rich ones, too. They're the ones that could afford the armor and weapons.