NationStates Jolt Archive

You were also "positive" only the police and military had guns a few posts back.


now that i wasnt going to bring up.

:D

Why did crime drop in the US even though ownership increased?
Why are murder rates increasing in Texas and dropping in New York?

I did include a "threatening thereof" in the first post in that arguement. Maybe you missed that. My only point was that banning a rope was exagerated and was pretty stupid. It was not an adequate example, because a rope is a much less dangerous tool than a gun.
Who woulda thought that a rope is "much less dangerous" than a gun? :rolleyes:

Why are murder rates increasing in Texas and dropping in New York?

Why is violent crime and murder 65 percent higher in Montgomery County, Maryland, where they have TWICE the police and NO civilian guns as opposed to Fairfax County, Virginia where they have FEWER police and MANY civilians carrying openly and concealed?

Why? The counties are demographically identical - racially and economically.

The only difference is the guns. And the place with more guns in civilian hands has 65 percent less murder, 65 percent less violent crime.

Statistically, a car is a much more dangerous tool than a firearm and yet we let 16 yr olds drive.
These types of arguments make zero sense. Guns are made for killing and cars are made for transportation.

A car is far more necessary than a gun.

As usual, the anti-gun crowd rants, raves, tries to use emotional manipulations, calls the other side "too much testosterone" and makes references to the NRA, and in general completely makes a fool of themselves.

I have a dear friend who had a gun, right by the bed. Her rapist used it to rape her at gun point. Yeah, that gun did her a hell of a lot of good. What, are you going to say it was her fault for not being quick enough to get the gun first? Stop it with the damn rhetoric and generalizations. :mad: :upyours:

Oh whatever. So you're saying if she didn't have that gun, she wouldn't have gotten raped? The rapist wouldn't have bothered? Yeah right.

At least she had a chance with that gun, a chance isn't a guarantee.

Maybe a young woman with a gun will die for having a gun and using against their offenders. Maybe withoput she would be raped but alive.

Anyway if you don't have weapons at home, you won't have an accident with your kid or another Columbine.

Oh right. Maybe the rapist will kill her for daring to have a gun... best not to have the gun? That kind of reasoning is like, maybe the terrorists will bomb us for having a military presence, maybe we should disarm. Let's just give in to the whims of rapists and terrorists on the offchance that we'll be on the bad side of their mercy.

As for not having an accident if only there are no weapons in the home... I assume you mean 'accidental death due to gunfire,' yes? Well guess what, you won't have an accident with your kid and guns if you're a good parent. Your kids won't be Columbine assholes if you're a good parent. I know, I know, parenting is passe... who has time?... best just to deprive everyone of their rights so that they aren't forced to be parents just by having children.


Now in between emotive shrieking and pointless sources about gun crimes, I can't help but notice the good arguments that get completely ignored by the OMG GUNS R TEH EVIL CROWD. Like this complete demolition of the "militia" based anti-gun argument.


1. The people in the First Amendment means the people;
2. The people in the Fourth Amendment means the people;
3. The people in the Ninth Amendment means, the people;
4. ...but The people in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791)
means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903)?

I guess if I wanted to try to use the Constitution to show that the 2nd Amendment supports gun ownership, I would be forced to completely ignore this bit of logic too.

I made a satirical representation of all anti-gun control arguments in a thread called "Let's Ban Guns" a while back... suffice it to say, every one of those 'arguments' has in seriousness been made here by the anti-gun crowd.

a gun is a tool, just like a hammer or a screwdriver.

the problem in the US is that from an early age people are taught to fear guns, not to use them properly.

im disgusted when i see kids with toy guns running around yelling "BANG BANG!!" at each other.

a gun does not kill a person, a person kills a person.

either intentionally or thru neglience.

a piece of plastic and steel isnt at fault, its the user.

Why is violent crime and murder 65 percent higher in Montgomery County, Maryland, where they have TWICE the police and NO civilian guns as opposed to Fairfax County, Virginia where they have FEWER police and MANY civilians carrying openly and concealed?

Why? The counties are demographically identical - racially and economically.

The only difference is the guns. And the place with more guns in civilian hands has 65 percent less murder, 65 percent less violent crime.
The old two county theory again huh WL?

Why are guns being used more and more often in murder offences in your gun happy State?

Why is it that over $2 Million worth of firearms were reported stolen in your State in 2003 alone? How many were stolen that weren't reported?

Why are murder rates higher in Virginia then in New York?

These types of arguments make zero sense. Guns are made for killing and cars are made for transportation.

A car is far more necessary than a gun.

Oh, so deaths are perfectly OK to you if it's by a product you consider 'necessary?'

Hey guess what, we Americans tend to think our rights are "necessary" too.

That cars are made for transportation doesn't mean they don't kill people, and killing people was what was supposedly so bad about guns. So the argument does make sense, you are just uncomfortable with it personally due to you seeing guns, and rights for that matter, as unnecessary.

a gun does not kill a person, a person kills a person.
Actually, it is the bullet that usually kills the person. :rolleyes:

your going by total population, not per capita.

if a town has 3 people in it and one gets shot (1/3 33%) that doesnt mean it has a higher murder rate than new york.

id love to see a link to this "$2 million stolen" as well, something from the state perhaps.

Actually, it is the bullet that usually kills the person. :rolleyes:


the bullet didnt fire itself, someone had to fire the gun.

So does a pool, or a dog. :rolleyes:

Nice analogy but the fact that there are firearms, increases the probability of your child dying period.

the bullet didnt fire itself, someone had to fire the gun.
These arguments make me shake my head.

The fact remains that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun than ANY other type of weapon (other than bombs of course).

No need to get up close and personal. Just stand back, fire and oops, another one bites the dust.

by that logic eating increases your chance of dying because you could choke.

maybe we should regulate eating.

for the children of course. :rolleyes:

These types of arguments make zero sense. Guns are made for killing and cars are made for transportation.

A car is far more necessary than a gun.
Okay then. What if you're a poor old hillbilly who can't afford to buy food, but you do have your grandfather's old rifle and you can afford ammunition to shoot food with? It's not the tool that kills, it's how you use it. You can kill people just as easily with knives, bows and arrows, broken beer bottles, hammers, screwdrivers, and even toasters (yes, toasters), but I see no rush to outlaw those.

These arguments make me shake my head.

The fact remains that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun than ANY other type of weapon (other than bombs of course).

No need to get up close and personal. Just stand back, fire and oops, another one bites the dust.


so your saying i cant throw a hammer at you and kill you with it?

or anything else for that matter?

like a rock for instance.

So does a pool, or a dog. :rolleyes:
It stands to reason that if there were less guns, there would be less children dying accidentally. There would still be the same number dying of the OTHER causes.

These arguments hold no water.

I have no idea how large these counties are, thus if they can represent the situation on a more global scale, but the same line of argument doesnt bite for pro-gunners when they compare other industrialised, western nations to the US, as there is no proof of correlation for gun-control and less violent crime. Why should it work the other way around? Proof that there is direct correlation and not, e.g., a criminal syndicate operating in Montgomery and not Fairfax.

And please, to all those that repeat lines like "But the US is bigger, thus ...", keep in mind that most statistics used for this here argumentation are per capita, thus it doesnt matter if the absolute numbers differ. Otherwise that would mean if Luxembourg has a crime rate of 1% and roughly 400k inhabitants China, with 1.3 billion people, would have a crime rate of 3250%, meaning every chinese would be victim to a crime 32.5 times per year. Which actually might be true, given the nature of their government. ;)

by that logic eating increases your chance of dying because you could choke.

maybe we should regulate eating.

for the children of course. :rolleyes:
These types of arguments are not to be considered on a serious level. Remove the number of children dying from accidental firearm deaths and you have less children dying period.

It stands to reason that if there were less guns, there would be less children dying accidentally. There would still be the same number dying of the OTHER causes.

These arguments hold no water.

It's around 200, year to year, from "accidents" happenning to "children" in the US. Certainly a tragic number, but nowhere near as many as killed by other "accidents".

By your logic, we should ban swimming pools, bathtubs, kitchen knives, and many other things. While one might argue to keep bathtubs or kitchen knives, swimming pools are non-essential, yes?

Explain to me again, why Montgomery County, Maryland has a higher child/firearm accident rate than Fairfax County, Virginia - when there are many, many more guns in Fairfax County.

These arguments make me shake my head.

The fact remains that it is far easier to kill someone with a gun than ANY other type of weapon (other than bombs of course).

No need to get up close and personal. Just stand back, fire and oops, another one bites the dust.

And? It's easier to kill someone if you have access to information like the internet. It's easier to kill someone if you are physically fit. It's easier to kill someone if you know them. It's easier to kill someone if society blames the weapon you use instead of you.

And yet I don't think you're ready to ban the internet, gyms and sports centers, or criminalize intimate or family relationships. Why not? Anything that empowers people makes it easier for them to become more efficient at killing.

Better get cracking on making people completely helpless, so they won't be tempted into becoming killers!

Firearms are simply tools, desinged to do one thing - expel a slug, usually made of lead alloys and copper, out the end of metal tube, sometimes with lands and grooves, sometimes smooth, by the action of expanding gases provided by the burning of a nitrocellulose based propellant. This action is the whole and complete action of the firearm. The direction of the slug, it's ultimate destination, or anything else regarding the firearm, is wholly up to the user, whether it be a miltary rifle, police shotgun, civilian handgun, etc. Romanticising the weapon into having some "bloodthirsty" soul is asinine. A hunk of wood and metal has no more soul, intelligance, or capactity for independant action, than the hood ornament on my Ford.
Therefore, talking about "gun violence" or "gun death rates" is as equally foolish, as what you are discussing is murder rates where the murderer was able to use a firearm in the commision of his or her crime. This has to be separate from self defense homicide rates, where the intended victim used a firearm to successfully defend himself or herself, as this usage, in most of this country, is legal, within certain legal guidelines.
Reframe the debate appropriately, and many arguments of the hysterical and illogical, disappear.

It's around 200, year to year, from "accidents" happenning to "children" in the US. Certainly a tragic number, but nowhere near as many as killed by other "accidents".

By your logic, we should ban swimming pools, bathtubs, kitchen knives, and many other things. While one might argue to keep bathtubs or kitchen knives, swimming pools are non-essential, yes?

Explain to me again, why Montgomery County, Maryland has a higher child/firearm accident rate than Fairfax County, Virginia - when there are many, many more guns in Fairfax County.
Why, I believe it is because parents in Virginia are better at disciplining their kids. (Poot, y'all keep yer hands offa that thar shotgun or I'll kick yer ass.)

I'm in the US and no such right exists, however the second amendment that DOES however grant US the right to bare arms.

Please do not say this anymore. The Consitution DOES NOT grant the right to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment says the govt CAN NOT infringe the right to own a firearm. The right already exists. The right exists at birth.

The right to own a firearm is a natural right. Just like the 1st Amendment DOES NOT grant the right to free speech. It already exists. The 1st Amendment says the govt CAN NOT infringe it.

I encourage everyone, Pro and Anti gunner to PLEASE read the Consitution. Understand that if you give the govt the ability to restrict natural rights, firearm ownership and free speech, then you WILL see the loss of BOTH.

This is the trap that anti-gunners cannot see. You are tools for the forces that want to kill both. If one natural right is destroyed, the others are not far behind.

The old two county theory again huh WL?

Why are guns being used more and more often in murder offences in your gun happy State?

Why is it that over $2 Million worth of firearms were reported stolen in your State in 2003 alone? How many were stolen that weren't reported?

Why are murder rates higher in Virginia then in New York?

Source the $2M Canuck. And why are the 5 states w/ the lowest crime CC states? What new firearm measures were put into place in NY that CAUSED the drop in crime? Why has national ownership increase while crime dropped? Etc.

Ironically, the anti-gunners are also the ones most viciously fighting for every other right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Canuck merely wants to guarantee that the women I help who were victims of domestic violence, are deprived of their ability to protect themselves, so the abusers can stalk them and kill them.

That is the logic of his position. Make the helpless women truly helpless, and the abusers can kill them.

Canuck, I now have over 200 women in my group. It's working for them. Carrying a gun and knowing how to use it - and making sure the abuser KNOWS she's ready and willing to kill him.

Not ONE domestic violence program ON EARTH can match that. Not even in Canada.

All you pro gun people claim that there is no evedence that guns are really killing more people than protecting them. Now this is because
A.You have been ignoring our links
or
B.You don't truly grasp the facts
before you leap at my throught please truly read what this site has to say. it just gives the strait facts, no biases.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

All you pro gun people claim that there is no evedence that guns are really killing more people than protecting them. Now this is because
A.You have been ignoring our links
or
B.You don't truly grasp the facts
before you leap at my throught please truly read what this site has to say. it just gives the strait facts, no biases.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm


You need to read my last post, just before yours.

I am dealing with facts first hand. And the guns are working.

All you pro gun people claim that there is no evedence that guns are really killing more people than protecting them. Now this is because
A.You have been ignoring our links
or
B.You don't truly grasp the facts
before you leap at my throught please truly read what this site has to say. it just gives the strait facts, no biases.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Yep, it's a fact.

"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts."

The source for this? "Remarks By the President And The First Lady On Gun Control Legislation." The White House, April 27, 1999. Yes, it's a fact that Hillary claims 19 of the deadliest "assault weapons" are "harder" to find on our streets.

Wow! If Hillary Clinton says it, it MUST be true!

The funny thing about the assault weapons ban is that it actually INCREASED the number of "assault weapons" in this country, and grossly stimulated gun sales - a 50 percent increase in gun ownership during the time it was in effect, mostly an increase in the sales of semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic magazine fed rifles.

"Assault weapons" that were banned were remanufactured with minor cosmetic changes to avoid the law. If anything, it stimulated ownership.

It made me go out and buy some. And I still have one.

All you pro gun people claim that there is no evedence that guns are really killing more people than protecting them. Now this is because
A.You have been ignoring our links
or
B.You don't truly grasp the facts
before you leap at my throught please truly read what this site has to say. it just gives the strait facts, no biases.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Are you demented? They have bias by the facts that they show and don't show.

The Brady campaign agreed to pay a fine for failing to disclose more than $200,000 in campaign money it spent on behalf of two campaigns. That's two campaigns in one election year. It doesn't give money to the campaigns, it spends it on their behalf. On "issues" during a campaign. Just as the NRA, GOA, and every other group odes.

Just the Facts has an agenda, but they hide it. And they get people like you to hawk their agenda, by claiming they don't have an agenda and they just post "the facts".

All you pro gun people claim that there is no evedence that guns are really killing more people than protecting them. Now this is because
A.You have been ignoring our links
or
B.You don't truly grasp the facts
before you leap at my throught please truly read what this site has to say. it just gives the strait facts, no biases.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Except for this one, there have been no links provided. And you ignore your own site:

* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (7)

* Approximately 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals. (3)

* When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. (3)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)


* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. (3)

* As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest. (3

Add in that Kennesaw, Georgia, over ten years ago, enacted a law requiring ownership of a firearm and ammunition, save those who are prohibited posessors or concientous objectors. The rate of violent crime and home invasion style crimes plummeted over 80%, and has remainind at that low level ever since. Also, the first ever Kennesaw police officer was killed in the line of duty - in a firearms accident in the academy she was attending.

As one individual said, "If guns cause crime, mine must be defective."

1)Because most shooting take place at under 2m and often miss with several rounds before hitting.
2)Youve never fired a rifle have you? It is an excersize in focus and the most Zen thing I know of, when shooting your focus is only on the target(the front sight post really but ...)
3)Not for prarie dogs farmes will spring from you to stay on their land and shoot prarie dogs.




1) Prove that criminals doesn't usually practice more.

2) I appologise for that, but I still don't see how handling a fireare produces relaxion. Explain that.

3) "better than many poisons or traps" Many? That means there are some traps and poisons that are better. See?

I rely on the police and so does everyone I know (in this country), and no-one of them have been raped, robbed and killed yet. Still it is different in the states. Again, prove that criminals don't usually practice.

Rockford Register Star, Rockford, IL, 11/19/03
Mario Cassola and his sister Lia Mercuri, co-owners of Vinny's Pizza in Rockford, Ill., are no strangers to crime. One of their deliverymen has been beaten and robbed, and their restaurant had been burglarized. When two armed men burst into the pizzeria one Monday night, the brother-sister team fought back and won. After the men entered the establishment, one man began beating Cassola about the head with a hammer while the second man aimed a rifle at him. Cassola shook off the blows and grabbed his assailant, then used him as a human shield against the man with the rifle. While her brother held the men's attention, Mercuri pulled out a gun and began firing. The two bandits fled empty-handed. Police later recovered the hammer and rifle and arrested Michael Buck and Vaughn Gulley in connection with the crime.

Zulfiqar Butts was in his Jonesboro, Ga., store when a man walked in, brandished a pistol and demanded money. Rather than comply with the robber, Butts drew a .357 Mag. and fired wounding the would-be thief. The man fled, but soon was apprehended when he sought medical treatment. (Ledger-Enquirer, Columbus, Ga., 9/21/05)

Hey canuck you can conceled carry everywhere in New York EXCEPT NYC, so Buffalo Rochester Albany etc you CAN carry a conceiled hand gun.

The old two county theory again huh WL?

Why are guns being used more and more often in murder offences in your gun happy State?

Why is it that over $2 Million worth of firearms were reported stolen in your State in 2003 alone? How many were stolen that weren't reported?

Why are murder rates higher in Virginia then in New York?

Hey canuck you can conceled carry everywhere in New York EXCEPT NYC, so Buffalo Rochester Albany etc you CAN carry a conceiled hand gun.
Dammit unspeakable, quit shattering his happy delusions.

1. So the right to free speech is a bad idea? The right to a speedy trial is a bad idea? the right to be free from illegal searches is a bad idea?

Oh wait a minute. You think any right is a bad idea if you don't agree with it. You support all the other rights I take it?



There have been so many pages since my last post I can't possibly read the lot but I couldn't let this wonderful piece of logic go past.

For those of you who didn't follow this - I stated in response to a "Anyone giving up a RIGHT is stupid" comment that just because it's in the constitution doesn't make it a good idea. So, to prove me wrong he listed the other rights in the constitution :D :D

If the poster is still around I'd just love some explenation as to why the statement 'just because something is in the constitution doesn't automatically make it a good idea' is saying that the other stuff in the constitution is idiotic.

Just because it's in there doesn't make it a good idea or a bad idea. Saying you're against guns doesn't make against free speech ffs :D :D

Rockford Register Star, Rockford, IL, 11/19/03
Mario Cassola and his sister Lia Mercuri, co-owners of Vinny's Pizza in Rockford, Ill., are no strangers to crime. One of their deliverymen has been beaten and robbed, and their restaurant had been burglarized. When two armed men burst into the pizzeria one Monday night, the brother-sister team fought back and won. After the men entered the establishment, one man began beating Cassola about the head with a hammer while the second man aimed a rifle at him. Cassola shook off the blows and grabbed his assailant, then used him as a human shield against the man with the rifle. While her brother held the men's attention, Mercuri pulled out a gun and began firing. The two bandits fled empty-handed. Police later recovered the hammer and rifle and arrested Michael Buck and Vaughn Gulley in connection with the crime.

Zulfiqar Butts was in his Jonesboro, Ga., store when a man walked in, brandished a pistol and demanded money. Rather than comply with the robber, Butts drew a .357 Mag. and fired wounding the would-be thief. The man fled, but soon was apprehended when he sought medical treatment. (Ledger-Enquirer, Columbus, Ga., 9/21/05)

Don't you see that if this was Britain or wherever these robberies would be so so so so much rarer, isn't that better?

Don't you see that if this was Britain or wherever these robberies would be so so so so much rarer, isn't that better?

Damn straight. Guns do no good.

I should have used garentees I supoose but your somatics remind we of the debates between the likes of Jefferson and Madison. You raise a good point.


Please do not say this anymore. The Consitution DOES NOT grant the right to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment says the govt CAN NOT infringe the right to own a firearm. The right already exists. The right exists at birth.

The right to own a firearm is a natural right. Just like the 1st Amendment DOES NOT grant the right to free speech. It already exists. The 1st Amendment says the govt CAN NOT infringe it.

I encourage everyone, Pro and Anti gunner to PLEASE read the Consitution. Understand that if you give the govt the ability to restrict natural rights, firearm ownership and free speech, then you WILL see the loss of BOTH.

This is the trap that anti-gunners cannot see. You are tools for the forces that want to kill both. If one natural right is destroyed, the others are not far behind.

This is only cause 911 is underfunded though lack of taxes

Please do not say this anymore. The Consitution DOES NOT grant the right to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment says the govt CAN NOT infringe the right to own a firearm. The right already exists. The right exists at birth.

The right to own a firearm is a natural right. Just like the 1st Amendment DOES NOT grant the right to free speech. It already exists. The 1st Amendment says the govt CAN NOT infringe it.

I encourage everyone, Pro and Anti gunner to PLEASE read the Consitution. Understand that if you give the govt the ability to restrict natural rights, firearm ownership and free speech, then you WILL see the loss of BOTH.

This is the trap that anti-gunners cannot see. You are tools for the forces that want to kill both. If one natural right is destroyed, the others are not far behind.


Sorry, I must have missed that bit where your average Britain lost his or her right to free speech?

Stop pretending the constitution is infallible, it did a great lot of good for blacks didn't it?

Don't you see that if this was Britain or wherever these robberies would be so so so so much rarer, isn't that better?

Um, crime in Britain is increasing.

What were the levels BEFORE the gun bans?

Howabout crimes like this:

Journal-Star, Toluca, IL, 10/27/04
I've got a gun, don't come any farther," shouted Toluca, Ill., homeowner Brad Burns. But the warnings went unheeded and Burns fired, killing the intruder who was later identified as Douglas Sullivan.The incident began that night at 2 a.m., when Sullivan began shouting and swearing outside the home loudly enough to wake the neighbors. Sullivan then used a playground slide to smash a window and enter the house. Burns sent his wife and child into a closet while he retrieved his gun. He tried to scare off the intruder, but to no avail. Marshall County State Attorney Paul Bauer declared the shooting justifiable, saying, "There is no doubt in my mind that they were in fear of their lives."


or this:
Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill., 3/2/00
An elderly man was at home in his South Side Chicago apartment when an invader broke a window and knocked in the door, according to police. When the intended victim heard the commotion, he went for his gun and warned the intruder to stay back. As the man armed with a knife kept coming, the resident stood fast. He used his .38-cal. handgun to fatally dispatch the attacker.



Does banning guns stop crimes like this?

Damn straight. Guns do no good.

Nope, no good at all:

The Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA, 08/07/04
Candy Mitchell of Waterford, California, started losing sleep after she learned that her ex-boyfriend was released from jail. He had served only two months of a six-month sentence for physically abusing her, so it did not seem like a coincidence when, night after night, she heard strange noises in her back yard and banging on her bedroom walls. Despite repeated calls to the police, no prowler was ever found. But the night Mitchell heard someone enter her home, she grabbed the gun she kept next to her bed and, when she saw a man heading for her daughter's room, fired several times. Her ex-boyfriend, John 'Bud' Russell, stumbled outside. When police arrived, they found Russell dead in his truck. Mitchell later said, "I could not imagine any reason he'd be in my house but to kill me."

Sorry, I must have missed that bit where your average Britain lost his or her right to free speech?

Ask Muslims about that one.


Stop pretending the constitution is infallible, it did a great lot of good for blacks didn't it?

Oh, it's not infallible. It also added the rights of Blacks later on. I have issues w/ people selectively choosing which rights should be deleted.

This is only cause 911 is underfunded though lack of taxes


That, and because the police have no obligation to protect you as an individual.

Um, crime in Britain is increasing.

What were the levels BEFORE the gun bans?

Howabout crimes like this:

Journal-Star, Toluca, IL, 10/27/04
I've got a gun, don't come any farther," shouted Toluca, Ill., homeowner Brad Burns. But the warnings went unheeded and Burns fired, killing the intruder who was later identified as Douglas Sullivan.The incident began that night at 2 a.m., when Sullivan began shouting and swearing outside the home loudly enough to wake the neighbors. Sullivan then used a playground slide to smash a window and enter the house. Burns sent his wife and child into a closet while he retrieved his gun. He tried to scare off the intruder, but to no avail. Marshall County State Attorney Paul Bauer declared the shooting justifiable, saying, "There is no doubt in my mind that they were in fear of their lives."


or this:
Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill., 3/2/00
An elderly man was at home in his South Side Chicago apartment when an invader broke a window and knocked in the door, according to police. When the intended victim heard the commotion, he went for his gun and warned the intruder to stay back. As the man armed with a knife kept coming, the resident stood fast. He used his .38-cal. handgun to fatally dispatch the attacker.



Does banning guns stop crimes like this?


Wow, it's almost as if there are other factors aside from guns that determine crime! Shocking really but guns being legal with low crime and guns illegal with high isn't great evidence because, as you should have learnt at 7 in science, it isn't a 'fair test'. Anyhow, increasing or otherwise it's still lower. You're picking out stories and stats that suit your argument, which was perfectly highlighted by that Un report link

Well disclinpled shooters do not allow children to access firearms without adult supervision. Stupid undiscipled shooters give the rest a bad name and a black eye.

Yes, the means to end a life is not something that should be entrusted to just anyone.
But there is no way you can judge how disciplined ,balanced or responsible a complete stranger is when he/she walks into your gun store.
So it comes down to guns for all, or guns for noone. The second one is the obvious choice.

Ask Muslims about that one.

Please go on, aside from inciting terrorism or racial hatred they have free speech. Those two conditions also apply to everyone else


Oh, it's not infallible. It also added the rights of Blacks later on. I have issues w/ people selectively choosing which rights should be deleted.

Why? Why should we treat this constitution as perfect when it has already failed? Things have changed over the past few hundred years y'know, owning guns is only a 'right' because legislators gave it to you (whatever way you want to twist it, those who creared the document decided it was a natural right and thus gave it)

Yes, the means to end a life is not something that should be entrusted to just anyone.
But there is no way you can judge how disciplined ,balanced or responsible a complete stranger is when he/she walks into your gun store.
So it comes down to guns for all, or guns for noone. The second one is the obvious choice.

Haven't you heard? Guns are great in the right conditions, therefore it's only logical we give them to everyone, most of whom don't meet those right conditions!

Wow, it's almost as if there are other factors aside from guns that determine crime! Shocking really but guns being legal with low crime and guns illegal with high isn't great evidence because, as you should have learnt at 7 in science, it isn't a 'fair test'. Anyhow, increasing or otherwise it's still lower. You're picking out stories and stats that suit your argument, which was perfectly highlighted by that Un report link

I never claimed absolute causality. I've already stated that there are many factors involved in crime. You have stated:

Don't you see that if this was Britain or wherever these robberies would be so so so so much rarer, isn't that better?

Therefore implying causality. You still have never answered the question of what were crime rates BEFORE the bans.

You, however, have made many assertions w/ no 'stories' or stats at all in comparison to the facts and real events I have presented.

Yes, the means to end a life is not something that should be entrusted to just anyone.
But there is no way you can judge how disciplined ,balanced or responsible a complete stranger is when he/she walks into your gun store.
So it comes down to guns for all, or guns for noone. The second one is the obvious choice.

And this, children, is what is called a "false dichotomy".

Why? Why should we treat this constitution as perfect when it has already failed? Things have changed over the past few hundred years y'know, owning guns is only a 'right' because legislators gave it to you (whatever way you want to twist it, those who creared the document decided it was a natural right and thus gave it)

And here is the difference between a citizen and a subject.

Why? Why should we treat this constitution as perfect when it has already failed? Things have changed over the past few hundred years y'know, owning guns is only a 'right' because legislators gave it to you (whatever way you want to twist it, those who creared the document decided it was a natural right and thus gave it)

Never said it was perfect. Show me where I did.

It has been going strong for over 200 years and you consider that "failure"?

oh yes, england has much less crime. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4347919.stm

atleast there arent too many people killed in broad daylight with hatchets in the US.

now if one of the onlookers had had a gun on them theirs a good chance that man would still be alive today.

but whats a few dead bodies when we can keep guns away from people who have the legal right to use them?

I never claimed absolute causality. I've already stated that


Therefore implying causality. You still have never answered the question of what were crime rates BEFORE the bans.

You, however, have made many assertions w/ no 'stories' or stats at all in comparison to the facts and real events I have presented.

No, I stated that armed robberies are much lower (story for you: a store worker was shot recently and it was headline news) which as it is specifically armed (not 'violent crime' which in that very dodgy UN report was basically drunken punch ups) so it's a much better comparison. You've given examples of when guns would be useful, but mostly where having strict gun laws would have prevented it in the first place.

I don't know what the crime rates were before the ban but it's safe to assume that they've risen but seeing as, generally speaking, all types of crime have increased that's not much of an argument either way.

The point is, in Britain you don't hear about people in the stories you posted being shot because they couldn't defend themselves.

oh yes, england has much less crime. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4347919.stm

atleast there arent too many people killed in broad daylight with hatchets in the US.

OOH, murders exsist outside of the US too! WHat a wonderful argument you have there. Banning guns doesn't solve all crim ffs :D

now if one of the onlookers had had a gun on them theirs a good chance that man would still be alive today.

but whats a few dead bodies when we can keep guns away from people who have the legal right to use them?

And if there were legal guns a few more people might be lying dead as a result too.

You can't use isolated incidents to argue for the policy of a nation, it's madness. I could quote all sorts of gun tradgedies but it's pointless. Ten people dead at the hands of a 12 year old isn't reason in itself to ban guns nor is a man defending his family with a gun an argument for guns.

You look at the bigger picture.

No, I stated that armed robberies are much lower (story for you: a store worker was shot recently and it was headline news) which as it is specifically armed (not 'violent crime' which in that very dodgy UN report was basically drunken punch ups) so it's a much better comparison. You've given examples of when guns would be useful, but mostly where having strict gun laws would have prevented it in the first place.

I don't know what the crime rates were before the ban but it's safe to assume that they've risen but seeing as, generally speaking, all types of crime have increased that's not much of an argument either way.

The point is, in Britain you don't hear about people in the stories you posted being shot because they couldn't defend themselves.

No, the point is is that in the US there ARE people who are shot/stabbed/raped etc because the couldn't defend themselves.

I have posted many examples of situations were strict gun laws would have allowed another rape/murder/robbery to occur.

You have stated that Gov'ts "grant" rights. If your gov't decided that freedom of speech is no longer granted, would you accept this? If, no, why not?

And if there were legal guns a few more people might be lying dead as a result too.

You can't use isolated incidents to argue for the policy of a nation, it's madness. I could quote all sorts of gun tradgedies but it's pointless. Ten people dead at the hands of a 12 year old isn't reason in itself to ban guns nor is a man defending his family with a gun an argument for guns.

You look at the bigger picture.

So you're no longer claiming causality? If more guns /= more crime, why should they be banned?

http://opticalnightmare.wm-talk.com/forum/Smileys/default/haha.jpg

You have stated that Gov'ts "grant" rights. If your gov't decided that freedom of speech is no longer granted, would you accept this? If, no, why not?

Okay, maybe I'm not making myself clear.

Do you believe that your right to own a gun is a right you were born with that can not be removed?

child saftey locks are the way to go

no safety lock is 100% safe!

Canuck merely wants to guarantee that the women I help who were victims of domestic violence, are deprived of their ability to protect themselves, so the abusers can stalk them and kill them.

That is the logic of his position. Make the helpless women truly helpless, and the abusers can kill them.
This is complete and utter bullshit and you know it. I have suggested that women, if they are fearful of being raped, should invest in tazers, and in the past you seem to ignore that and downplay the significance of a tazer. To make the statement that you made is a fixation in your mind alone.

After reading the 10 pages of this thread that appeared mysteriously while I was sleeping, I now want to go out right now and buy a gun. No, I don't have one.

I think this picture says it all:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Medarcher.jpg

And this, children, is what is called a "false dichotomy".

How so?

How so?

Also known as a "False Dilemma":

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.


Examples:
(i) Either you're for me or against me.

(ii) America: love it or leave it.

(iii) Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.

(iv) Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

Okay, maybe I'm not making myself clear.

Do you believe that your right to own a gun is a right you were born with that can not be removed?


Why are you refusing to answer my question?

Also known as a "False Dilemma":

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.


Examples:
(i) Either you're for me or against me.

(ii) America: love it or leave it.

(iii) Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.

(iv) Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

I know what it means. I'm asking what are the other options.

I thought you knew, those are supposed to kill even MORE people every year then guns. I mean seriously, doesn't it bug anyone else in here that the anti gun people are now targetting ALL weapons, including non lethal ones? While they want the government to control all of them?

Historically, that's the start of something bad indeed.

Namely Hitler and the first thing he did after his rise to power.

Okay, maybe I'm not making myself clear.

Do you believe that your right to own a gun is a right you were born with that can not be removed?

If you live in the US, yes. Because the Constitution, the founding document of the country, says so. The right cannot be removed. You can give up your guns, or the govt can take them, but you still have the right.

And I understand you don't like guns, and you don't believe anyone should have them. But that doesn't make it true. The founding fathers were quite clear about what the 2nd Amendment said, and what it meant. Their only failing was not seeing what the country would devolve into, and that people like you would ever exist in such large numbers. Let alone that anyone owuld listen to you. They were a little naive. It came from having just fought a bloody twelve year war and won independence for themselves and not expecting their decendents to be such a bunch of spineless wimps. And that those decendents would actually argue AGAINST freedom.

Second Amendment Primer (http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php)

P.S. Molon Labe! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe)

I know what it means. I'm asking what are the other options.

Preventing criminals from owning firearms
Increasing police competance in solving crimes
More safety classes for children and adults
improved education
reducing poverty rates
reducing illegal immigration
reducing illegal drugs
etc.

The list to help reduce crime goes on and on.

It's much more than "everyone" or "noone". because that is not an option. Firearms are there and will always be there.

You most certainly are.

Go into a school building with a knife or a cricket bat and see how many people you can kill before you get overpowered.

Then try it with a Kalashnikov. Or better still, according to your argument, why not just let folk have TNT, Semtex or whatever they want? After all, you're no less dead if you are stabbed. There won't be so many killed, but hey, it's the PRINCIPLE, right? You most certainly are.

ok, your suggesting that its easy to get close to someone who has a knife, or a bat.

I have a question for you. Have you ever been stabbed, hit with a blunt object, or otherwise threatened with an object that COULD kill you, or worse maim you?

I have. Let me tell you what happened. There was a group of us, I got beat with a baseball bat. the group wouldn't step toward the madman. I'm just lucky I have a hard head, otherwise the damage could have been greater, I COULD have come out of the exchange dead, instead of a few stitches, broken bones, etc... Especially since the guy had enough sense to stop before he killed me...

seems that your point is lost by someone who its happened to. Do you really think that by selling guns in a store, your more apt to be robbed?

I hate to tell you this, they don't GET the guns in the store. they get it out of the back of a truck. or out of the trunk of the car...they buy it in an alley at 3 am.

My point is simply, criminals are going to get guns. It doesn't matter whether its outlawed. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW...its one of the reasons they are called criminals. (just an fyi)

GUN laws target the other 99% of the population. you know, the law abiding citizen? yeh. the prey.

There are by far NRA nuts out there, just like the anti gun nuts. Biggest difference is, antigun nuts allow us to be further prey than what we currently are.

Truth of the matter is, no matter what the police do, they are not going to lower a crime infested community. Crime stems from poverty. As long as poverty exists, so will crime.

Preventing criminals from owning firearms
Increasing police competance in solving crimes
More safety classes for children and adults
improved education
reducing poverty rates
reducing illegal immigration
reducing illegal drugs
etc.

The list to help reduce crime goes on and on.

None of those measures prevent incompetent or untrustworthy people from walking into a shop and buying a gun.


It's much more than "everyone" or "noone". because that is not an option. Firearms are there and will always be there.

Some criminals will always be able to get guns, so what the hell, we might as well let anyone have them. Is that what your saying?

Why are you refusing to answer my question?

because I'm either a bad communicator (likely), you're very very stupid (not that likely) or something else maybe an unwillingness to see/discuss a different viewpoint? I don't know, I don't really care but to clear up whatever the cause of the confusion, we're going to break it down for both our sakes.

So, the question stands and with it, I hope to answer you :)

None of those measures prevent incompetent or untrustworthy people from walking into a shop and buying a gun.

Nor would any of your measures prevent criminals from getting a gun. They just wouldn't do it in a shop, which is, I guess, the basis of your objection.


Some criminals will always be able to get guns, so what the hell, we might as well let anyone have them. Is that what your saying?

Makes sense to me. If criminals have them, then what reason is there to prevent law-abiding citizens from having them?

None of those measures prevent incompetent or untrustworthy people from walking into a shop and buying a gun.?


Fine. Define incompetant and untrustworthy.

"Noone" being "allowed" to own a firearm also does not prevent criminals from obtaining them.



Some criminals will always be able to get guns, so what the hell, we might as well let anyone have them. Is that what your saying?

Once again, false dilemma, also a gross generalization. Find where I said that "everyone" should have a gun.

If you live in the US, yes. Because the Constitution, the founding document of the country, says so. The right cannot be removed. You can give up your guns, or the govt can take them, but you still have the right.

And I understand you don't like guns, and you don't believe anyone should have them. But that doesn't make it true. The founding fathers were quite clear about what the 2nd Amendment said, and what it meant. Their only failing was not seeing what the country would devolve into, and that people like you would ever exist in such large numbers. Let alone that anyone owuld listen to you. They were a little naive. It came from having just fought a bloody twelve year war and won independence for themselves and not expecting their decendents to be such a bunch of spineless wimps. And that those decendents would actually argue AGAINST freedom.

Second Amendment Primer (http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php)

P.S. Molon Labe! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe)

My point is that the constitution is a piece of legislation, just like something produced by a government (I know there are differences, please bear with me) I'm arguing that I personally couldn't care what these guys who put this into this document said. I'm saying that just because they have given you this right (infringe etc is only wording, if they didn't include it then it wouldn't be there, therefore its been given). This is a false dilemma situation, like the other guy was saying - it's not guns & free speech or no guns & no free speech. The constiution CAN be questioned, it CAN be wrong. I'm saying that specifically, I do not consider the ability to own a death instrument a right, I want it to be a privilege. The constitution disagrees but it's only a viewpoint (and not exactly a modern one at that).

because I'm either a bad communicator (likely), you're very very stupid (not that likely) or something else maybe an unwillingness to see/discuss a different viewpoint? I don't know, I don't really care but to clear up whatever the cause of the confusion, we're going to break it down for both our sakes.

So, the question stands and with it, I hope to answer you :)

I believe that there are inalienable rights. One of those being to defend yourself.

Now answer mine.

My point is that the constitution is a piece of legislation, just like something produced by a government (I know there are differences, please bear with me) I'm arguing that I personally couldn't care what these guys who put this into this document said. I'm saying that just because they have given you this right (infringe etc is only wording, if they didn't include it then it wouldn't be there, therefore its been given). This is a false dilemma situation, like the other guy was saying - it's not guns & free speech or no guns & no free speech. The constiution CAN be questioned, it CAN be wrong. I'm saying that specifically, I do not consider the ability to own a death instrument a right, I want it to be a privilege. The constitution disagrees but it's only a viewpoint (and not exactly a modern one at that).

And here is where your bias lies.

You're right that it's not a modern viewpoint. The ability to defend oneself even has mentions in the Bible.

Just to clear up, I'm sure I said this earlier but it's probably been forgoteen.

I'm not arguing the US should ban guns, I think that'd be unworkable. I'm arguing against those that think a state where guns are banned (in a workable situation, where guns are in a more limited number) is better than allowing mass gun ownership

And here is where your bias lies.

You're right that it's not a modern viewpoint. The ability to defend oneself even has mentions in the Bible.

It's not bias, it's a viewpoint.

I'm working on that answer btw, I've just lost what I was replying to - too much going on you see, I'm easily confused :)

Just to clear up, I'm sure I said this earlier but it's probably been forgoteen.

I'm not arguing the US should ban guns, I think that'd be unworkable. I'm arguing against those that think a state where guns are banned (in a workable situation, where guns are in a more limited number) is better than allowing mass gun ownership

So you thing mass ownership is better than bans?

So you thing mass ownership is better than bans?

No, I'm just an idiot who got the two halves of my sentance mixed up

It's not bias, it's a viewpoint.

I'm working on that answer btw, I've just lost what I was replying to - too much going on you see, I'm easily confused :)

Describing a firearm as a "death instrument" is a "biased" viewpoint.

Sure, that's how it was in the old "wild" west afterall. :rolleyes:



As for the actual topic title. 911 is MUCH better than guns by far. 911 can send an ambulance to your house if you are having a heart attack or some other medical emergency. Try saving yourself from a heart attack with a gun. ;)

Actually, the urban areas in the east during the late 1700's to 1930's usually had much higher crime rates then any place in the west. Guess what they all had in common? Number 1 was restrictive gun laws. Number 2 was a lot more stabbings in some cities then entire regions of the west often had shootings.

As a matter of fact, a rule of supposedly "gentlemanly" conduct for a good share of the east back then was that "every gentleman should carry both knife and club, and be proficient in it's use".

Guns back then were widely seen as "uncivilized, unreliable weapons" and to an extent they still are. Fact is, if you want to kill someone, a knife or old fashioned repeat blunt trauma is usually easier for an unskilled brawler to make use of with a gun. After all, with a gun you actually have to aim. Truth is, if yourjust squeezing shots off at random like in the movies, your odds of hitting anything besides air, let alone killing something aren't good at all.

No, I'm just an idiot who got the two halves of my sentance mixed up

Fair enough. I will, however, use each and every mistake like this against you though.

Here's a question. Do you think the various bans in the UK decreased crime?

"You have stated that Gov'ts "grant" rights. If your gov't decided that freedom of speech is no longer granted, would you accept this? If, no, why not?"

I don't believe in the right to be armed. I can't accept this constitution thing, if you had been born and raised in Britain, for example, would you consider being armed a right? I don't accept that this document in this one country means that it is in fact a right.

It's a good question - I wouldn't accept that freedom of speech is no longer granted because in my opinion it wouldn't be in the best intrests of the nation not because of the principle of it being a right. It's a right granted by a government and yes, they could withdraw it like with guns but on the other side of the coin - what if it was your right to take drugs and the government thought 'hang on! That's not very sensible' and banned them? Your rights would have been withdrawn but I'm sure there wouldn't be a "OMG my rights!" uproar surrounding it.

Describing a firearm as a "death instrument" is a "biased" viewpoint.

Not really, it's just a regular viewpoint. I don't accept it's other uses to be significant enough for it to be considered much else.

My point is that the constitution is a piece of legislation, just like something produced by a government (I know there are differences, please bear with me) I'm arguing that I personally couldn't care what these guys who put this into this document said. I'm saying that just because they have given you this right (infringe etc is only wording, if they didn't include it then it wouldn't be there, therefore its been given). This is a false dilemma situation, like the other guy was saying - it's not guns & free speech or no guns & no free speech. The constiution CAN be questioned, it CAN be wrong. I'm saying that specifically, I do not consider the ability to own a death instrument a right, I want it to be a privilege. The constitution disagrees but it's only a viewpoint (and not exactly a modern one at that).

This si the part I can't seem to get across to you. The Consititution DOES NOT give that right. Look it up. The right existed BEFORE the Consitution. The Constitution only says the govt CAN'T take teh right away from you.

It's not a piece of legislation that can be rescinded. It was NOT given by the Constitution.

I encourage you to look it up. It's actually quite plain. Look at what the Founding Fathers said about your natural rights. What rights you have that weren't given by the Constitution, but already have.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Nor would any of your measures prevent criminals from getting a gun. They just wouldn't do it in a shop, which is, I guess, the basis of your objection.



Makes sense to me. If criminals have them, then what reason is there to prevent law-abiding citizens from having them?

Well you're making it far easier for criminals and unstable individuals to get them. Youre making it a lot easier for an incompetent,irresponsible person to kill someone or him/herself. Youre making it far more likely that someone will be killed accidentally. Youre transforming every minor crime into a potentially deadly situation.

Yes there are cases where an armed citizen could save a life where police could not, but those few cases just arn't worth letting everyone and anyone have the power to decide life or death in their pocket.

I hate to tell you this, they don't GET the guns in the store. they get it out of the back of a truck. or out of the trunk of the car...they buy it in an alley at 3 am.
Yup, they are probably going to buy black market guns that were stolen from supposedly LAC, who were irresponsible in the storage of their weapons.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes. Those are only the ones that were reported stolen. God knows how many were not reported as stolen?

Virginia represents just over 2% of the US population, so one can only imagine how many firearms end up in the possession of criminals in the US due to the irresponsible actions of LAC?

This si the part I can't seem to get across to you. The Consititution DOES NOT give that right. Look it up. The right existed BEFORE the Consitution. The Constitution only says the govt CAN'T take teh right away from you.

It's not a piece of legislation that can be rescinded. It was NOT given by the Constitution.

I encourage you to look it up. It's actually quite plain. Look at what the Founding Fathers said about your natural rights. What rights you have that weren't given by the Constitution, but already have.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

The point is that SOMEONE somewhere has said you can use guns or hell, even if they just said you can't stop people from having arms the point is that SOMEONE has given that right. Saying that you can't stop someone is the long-way round of granting the right it's effectively saying the same thing.

Rights were not invented in America, if you grew up in a different country, say Britain, would you assume you had these rights?

"You have stated that Gov'ts "grant" rights. If your gov't decided that freedom of speech is no longer granted, would you accept this? If, no, why not?"

I don't believe in the right to be armed. I can't accept this constitution thing, if you had been born and raised in Britain, for example, would you consider being armed a right? I don't accept that this document in this one country means that it is in fact a right..

I was recently in a thread where an English fellow claimed that drinking was an English "right" and that it shouldn't be limited. I have also talked w/ other English sportsmen who feel their rights are being removed by banning firearms.

"It's a good question - I wouldn't accept that freedom of speech is no longer granted because in my opinion it wouldn't be in the best intrests of the nation not because of the principle of it being a right. It's a right granted by a government and yes, they could withdraw it like with guns but on the other side of the coin - what if it was your right to take drugs and the government thought 'hang on! That's not very sensible' and banned them? Your rights would have been withdrawn but I'm sure there wouldn't be a "OMG my rights!" uproar surrounding it.

That's how the majority of the US feels about firearms. What would you do about it?



Had there been over 250 years of a "freedom of medication" that had been documented w/ hundreds of years of philosophy, writings and tradition behind it, there would be a "furor".

Yup, they are probably going to buy black market guns that were stolen from supposedly LAC, who were irresponsible in the storage of their weapons.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes. Those are only the ones that were reported stolen. God knows how many were not reported as stolen?

Virginia represents just over 2% of the US population, so one can only imagine how many firearms end up in the possession of criminals in the US due to the irresponsible actions of LAC?

Source it Canuck. One can only 'imagine' because there are only "estimates" .

Well you're making it far easier for criminals and unstable individuals to get them. Youre making it a lot easier for an incompetent,irresponsible person to kill someone or him/herself. Youre making it far more likely that someone will be killed accidentally. Youre transforming every minor crime into a potentially deadly situation.

Yes there are cases where an armed citizen could save a life where police could not, but those few cases just arn't worth letting everyone and anyone have the power to decide life or death in their pocket.

Those FEW cases? You mean the 1 million to 2.5 million cases per year that occur?

The majority of crimes are not committed w/ a weapon. The majority of VIOLENT crimes are not committed w/ a weapon.

The 20,000+ firearm laws on the books aren't enough?

Why is it then that ownership has increased while crime has decreased? More guns /= more crime.

[QUOTE=Pitshanger]The point is that SOMEONE somewhere has said you can use guns or hell, even if they just said you can't stop people from having arms the point is that SOMEONE has given that right. Saying that you can't stop someone is the long-way round of granting the right it's effectively saying the same thing.[QUOTE]

I'm not exaclty sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or what.

I've only said this 4 seperate time. Noone gives you that right. It is NOT granted in the Constitution. It is NOT a piece of Legislation. The framers of the Constitution said that firearm ownership was a natural right, not given by ANYONE.

They put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to tell the govt that it COULDN'T infringe that right. A right you have just by existing. A right given to you by your Creator. A right that exisits naturally.

GAHHHHHHH!

The 2nd Amendment grants NOTHING. It only says the govt CANNOT infringe a right you already have.

Major Victory For Firearms Owners And Freedom In Louisiana

Friday, September 23, 2005


(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

I was recently in a thread where an English fellow claimed that drinking was an English "right" and that it shouldn't be limited. I have also talked w/ other English sportsmen who feel their rights are being removed by banning firearms.



That's how the majority of the US feels about firearms. What would you do about it?



Had there been over 250 years of a "freedom of medication" that had been documented w/ hundreds of years of philosophy, writings and tradition behind it, there would be a "furor".


The point being, it wouldn't be because it's a "right" which was exactly what was being argued a second ago. And those English guys are mongs, they're very, very much in the minority as well.


Anyway, the drug thing still stands, rights are worth more consideration than philosiphy or tradition being reasons for them.

Well you're making it far easier for criminals and unstable individuals to get them. Youre making it a lot easier for an incompetent,irresponsible person to kill someone or him/herself. Youre making it far more likely that someone will be killed accidentally. Youre transforming every minor crime into a potentially deadly situation.

Yes there are cases where an armed citizen could save a life where police could not, but those few cases just arn't worth letting everyone and anyone have the power to decide life or death in their pocket.

Oh *I* am, am I? What exactly have I done? It's not like anyone asked me to vote on this issue. It's all in the hands of our "representatives."

But nowhere do I advocate "the power to decide life or death in their pocket." And even if I did, is not carrying a knife in your pocket, having that same power? Or are you arguing that only guns equate to the power of life and death? Frankly, this is a matter of carry conceal laws, not whether guns should be legal for citizens to purchase.

I can make generalizations too. You're saying I'm making it easier for suicide? Okay, you're making it easier for genocide (http://armaworld.com/images/gun_control_works.gif). See.

[QUOTE=Pitshanger]The point is that SOMEONE somewhere has said you can use guns or hell, even if they just said you can't stop people from having arms the point is that SOMEONE has given that right. Saying that you can't stop someone is the long-way round of granting the right it's effectively saying the same thing.[QUOTE]

I'm not exaclty sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or what.

I've only said this 4 seperate time. Noone gives you that right. It is NOT granted in the Constitution. It is NOT a piece of Legislation. The framers of the Constitution said that firearm ownership was a natural right, not given by ANYONE.

They put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution to tell the govt that it COULDN'T infringe that right. A right you have just by existing. A right given to you by your Creator. A right that exisits naturally.

GAHHHHHHH!

The 2nd Amendment grants NOTHING. It only says the govt CANNOT infringe a right you already have.


But it's only considered a right because SOMEONE SAID SO, can't you see that? "The framers of the Constitution ****said**** that firearm ownership was a natural right, not given by ANYONE." I've hiighlighted the key word there. There, although they claimed differently, that is the right being established (i.e given) then legislation/whatever RECOGNISES (thus gives) it by saying you can't infringe it.

The point is, if no one had said anything about it, it wouldn't exsist as a right. Therefore, it has been given, even if those who gave it thought it was a right given by your creator. They were the ones, in practice who gave it. Whatever they claim, however you twist it, if you establish it, you've given it.

If you don't believe that America was created by God with the right to arms already in place then you've got to believe that someone somewhere gave that right. That's not a false dilemma either - it's got to come from somewhere.

The point being, it wouldn't be because it's a "right" which was exactly what was being argued a second ago. And those English guys are mongs, they're very, very much in the minority as well..


Ironically, the "drinking" guy also was a hard-core anti-gunner and used many of the same arguements against ownership.


Anyway, the drug thing still stands, rights are worth more consideration than philosiphy or tradition being reasons for them.

Sure, but those were the generic reasons I had in my head. It includes centuries of writings, debates, etc. that came to the justifications for them, speech, defense, liberty, etc. Had "drugs" been included in them, there would be a "furor".

I'll ask again though. You're right to free speech is no longer granted. You disagree w/ it because you feel it isn't in the best interests of your nation. What are you going to do about it?

Those FEW cases? You mean the 1 million to 2.5 million cases per year that occur?

The majority of crimes are not committed w/ a weapon. The majority of VIOLENT crimes are not committed w/ a weapon.


Alright first of all "a case where an armed citzen would have been more effective than police officers" is not easily identified. 1 to 2 and a half million sounds like a biast estimate at best.

And whatever the real figures are ,Im sure those cases ARE few in comparison with deaths caused by abuse of legally aquired weapons.

If the majority of violent crimes are not armed as you say, then why do civilians need guns so badly?!



Fine. Define incompetant and untrustworthy.

"Noone" being "allowed" to own a firearm also does not prevent criminals from obtaining them.
I have not said outlawing guns will magically make them dissappear. But it will work against them. Should drugs be legalised since criminals will always be able to get them?
Incompetent or untrustworthy? Someone who will misuse a weapon. Leave it lying around, use it without being sure who they are shooting at etc etc
.The owner of a gun store does not know,nor is he required to know, if a customer can be trusted with such a responsibility.

Once again, false dilemma, also a gross generalization. Find where I said that "everyone" should have a gun.

You're arguing that everyone (besides the obvious-children etc)should have the right to carry a weapon,are you not?

We should just train everyone to use guns like in switzerland and then the rate would go down. Also God gives rights not the government, if government gives rights then they can take them away. How would you like the government to take away your right to life? :sniper: :headbang:

The point is, if no one had said anything about it, it wouldn't exsist as a right. Therefore, it has been given, even if those who gave it thought it was a right given by your creator. They were the ones, in practice who gave it. Whatever they claim, however you twist it, if you establish it, you've given it.


Nope. Do you have the right to breed? Because nowhere in the Consitution does it say you can. So in your logic, noone can breed.

BECAUSE NOONE SAID IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST. Noone in the USA has the right to breed.

If you think the RIGHT of self defense and the RIGHT of revolution (the 2nd amendment is the "do over" amendment as it provides for violent overthrow of government if need be.) should be a priviledge not a RIGHT may God help you for you have voluntarily put you neck in the yolk. You are sheep, no, a lemming lead by others to certain doom. You are not a citizen YOU ARE A SUBJECT and you have a subject's mentality. The government serves me, not I it. You seem to perfer that role reveresed.


My point is that the constitution is a piece of legislation, just like something produced by a government (I know there are differences, please bear with me) I'm arguing that I personally couldn't care what these guys who put this into this document said. I'm saying that just because they have given you this right (infringe etc is only wording, if they didn't include it then it wouldn't be there, therefore its been given). This is a false dilemma situation, like the other guy was saying - it's not guns & free speech or no guns & no free speech. The constiution CAN be questioned, it CAN be wrong. I'm saying that specifically, I do not consider the ability to own a death instrument a right, I want it to be a privilege. The constitution disagrees but it's only a viewpoint (and not exactly a modern one at that).

Alright first of all "a case where an armed citzen would have been more effective than police officers" is not easily identified. 1 to 2 and a half million sounds like a biast estimate at best.?

The DOJ (under Clinton no less) had it a 1.5 million but stated that 2.5 could be reached and was not unreasonable. Do you consider it "biased" because you don't like it?


If the majority of violent crimes are not armed as you say, then why do civilians need guns so badly?!?
Because a 100lb woman is less able to defend herself from a 250lb man w/ her bare hands or against multiple attackers.

And Im sure those cases ARE few in comparison with deaths caused by abuse of legally aquired weapons.?
If you're so sure, find a source and prove it. 75% of murders committed w/ firearms are illegally acquired.


I have not said outlawing guns will magically make them dissappear. But it will work against them.
Incompetent or untrustworthy? Someone who will misuse a weapon. Leave it lying around, use it without being sure who they are shooting at etc etc
.The owner of a gun store does not know,nor is he required to know, if a customer can be trusted with such a responsibility.?


If these are your suppositions, prove them. There has already been dozens of links and posts supporting the capabilities of law abiding citizens armed to defend themselves.
Do you support pre-emptive policing?


You're arguing that anyone (besides the obvious-children etc)should have the right to carry a weapon,are you not?

Anyone that is not a convicted criminal (hence Law Abiding Citizen) and doesn't have a history of mental illness, should have the right to own a firearm.

By your logic there should no illegel drugs.


Alright first of all "a case where an armed citzen would have been more effective than police officers" is not easily identified. 1 to 2 and a half million sounds like a biast estimate at best.

And whatever the real figures are ,Im sure those cases ARE few in comparison with deaths caused by abuse of legally aquired weapons.

If the majority of violent crimes are not armed as you say, then why do civilians need guns so badly?!




I have not said outlawing guns will magically make them dissappear. But it will work against them. Should drugs be legalised since criminals will always be able to get them?
Incompetent or untrustworthy? Someone who will misuse a weapon. Leave it lying around, use it without being sure who they are shooting at etc etc
.The owner of a gun store does not know,nor is he required to know, if a customer can be trusted with such a responsibility.


You're arguing that everyone (besides the obvious-children etc)should have the right to carry a weapon,are you not?

In these many pages following my first post, have there been any suggestions about what Christine should have done to protect herself, besides use a gun? Didn't she do exactly what the advocates of a gun-free population say should be done?

I'm curious -- what should this poor girl have done to defend herself between the time that she called 911 and the time the police arrived to find her dead body?

Anyone?

Money doesn't mean crap one Imperial Japanese rifle WITH the Crysantimum on it is 100K retail price? wholesale price? collector value? black market? Who's #'s are you using? How many units were stolen?


Yup, they are probably going to buy black market guns that were stolen from supposedly LAC, who were irresponsible in the storage of their weapons.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes. Those are only the ones that were reported stolen. God knows how many were not reported as stolen?

Virginia represents just over 2% of the US population, so one can only imagine how many firearms end up in the possession of criminals in the US due to the irresponsible actions of LAC?

The DOJ (under Clinton no less) had it a 1.5 million but stated that 2.5 could be reached and was not unreasonable. Do you consider it "biased" because you don't like it?
I call it biased because to me it sounds biased. Whether an armed civilian would have handled a situation better is often a matter of opinion, so when you throw out a figure as big as you did, it sounds biased.
Even if what you've said is accurate, it dosn't prove arming more people won't do more harm than good.
Because a 100lb woman is less able to defend herself from a 250lb man w/ her bare hands or against multiple attackers.
As someone said already,what's wrong with tasers, pepperspray etc?

75% of murders committed w/ firearms are illegally acquired.

So a quarter of them are legally aquired? Don't you think that's a lot? Enough to justify banning guns?


Anyone that is not a convicted criminal (hence Law Abiding Citizen) and doesn't have a history of mental illness, should have the right to own a firearm.
There's no history of anything untill it happens.

I call it biased because to me it sounds biased. Whether an armed civilian would have handled a situation better is often a matter of opinion, so when you throw out a figure as big as you did, it sounds biased.
Even if what you've said is accurate, it dosn't prove arming more people won't do more harm than good.

Of course, every figure that you don't agree with is biased. Got it.

As someone said already,what's wrong with tasers, pepperspray etc?

They don't work as well. My brother's an idiot, and dared one of his friends to tazer him. It didn't work, at all. Of course, he's a big guy. The fact remains, a bullet would level him.

EDIT: To clarify, he felt the shock. It just didn't knock him down or anything. He said that "felt interesting."

So a quarter of them are legally aquired? Don't you think that's a lot? Enough to justify banning guns?

No, not really.

There's no history of anything untill it happens.

There's actually a gem of truth to that, and is worthy of consideration. Of course, I'm not sure exactly what the best thing to do about that would be.

This article proves nothing except that the police were late and a woman was killed. It is a single case. You're the person who has stated it is symbolic of a general trend. But you haven't backed that up with any facts such as 'average policed response times', 'number of burglaries/murders/rapes against houses with guns compared to those against' etc.

Simpleton.

This article proves nothing except that the police were late and a woman was killed. It is a single case. You're the person who has stated it is symbolic of a general trend. But you haven't backed that up with any facts such as 'average policed response times', 'number of burglaries/murders/rapes against houses with guns compared to those against' etc.

Simpleton.

Well, I'm not sure for national statistics. Where I live, average police response time is 3 minutes, but if you go into Springfield, MO, the average response time in a dire emergency is 27 minutes. As far as national trends? No clue.

I call it biased because to me it sounds biased. Whether an armed civilian would have handled a situation better is often a matter of opinion, so when you throw out a figure as big as you did, it sounds biased.
Even if what you've said is accurate, it dosn't prove arming more people won't do more harm than good..

And yet I've provided sources for it. And whether a LAC handles it "better" is not the issue. It's that they handle it BEFORE the police arrive.

What you promote has no evidence it will reduce crime at all.

As someone said already,what's wrong with tasers, pepperspray etc?.

and, once again, they are restricted in many of the places that heavily restrict firearms. They are also less effective.



So a quarter of them are legally aquired? Don't you think that's a lot? Enough to justify banning guns?.

A fraction of 1% used in an illegal manner? No I don't think that justifies banning them. Do you have any idea how many legal firearms there are in the US?


There's no history of anything untill it happens.

So you do support pre-emptive policing.

That's just what the world really needs! Everyone carrying a gun would make the world a much safer place to be in!
This is true, after all, look at the crime rates in Switzerland and apart from the homicide bomber figures look at Israel.

Well, I'm not sure for national statistics. Where I live, average police response time is 3 minutes, but if you go into Springfield, MO, the average response time in a dire emergency is 27 minutes. As far as national trends? No clue.

So how does that prove that Guns are more effective than ringing 911?

This article proves nothing except that the police were late and a woman was killed. It is a single case. You're the person who has stated it is symbolic of a general trend. But you haven't backed that up with any facts such as 'average policed response times', 'number of burglaries/murders/rapes against houses with guns compared to those against' etc.

Simpleton.

There have been facts throughout this thread supporting the trends. And you call M a 'simpleton"?

Howabout a few of these:

OVERALL 911 RESPONSE TIMES
Cobb County
18.4 minutes

Fulton County
18.6 minutes

City of Atlanta
21.9 minutes

DeKalb County
23.6 minutes



Then we looked at Priority 1 response times. Each police chief told us they wanted to be there in anywhere from 3 to 8 minutes. We found none of the departments met their own goals. Cobb County was again the fastest.


PRIORITY ONE RESPONSE TIMES
Cobb County
9 minutes

Fulton County
10.2 minutes

City of Atlanta
10.5 minutes

DeKalb County
14.7 minutes

http://www.fox5atlanta.com/iteam/911.html

You're right. I bet all those Rawandan men, women, and children that were murdered were damn glad they didn't have a gun to protect themselves. And the 70,000 in Darfur.
Actually, the real figure at the time that one began floating around was at least 300,000. 70,000 was the amount of pepole that had died in the "refugee" camps. By now the number is probably near a million since absolutely nothing has been done about the situation.

Source it Canuck. One can only 'imagine' because there are only "estimates" .
You ask for a source, so I went back and found the statistics for Virginia for 2004 (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia_2004.pdf), so I hope these will do? Page 65.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

In 2004, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

Seems like criminals have a consistent thirst for guns?

Looks like the murder rate with firearms in Virginia in 2004 is holding steady at 72%.

Had the Jews been armed, would they have been able to stop the Nazis? Of course not!
Two words, Warsaw Ghetto. Sure they wouldn't have stopped the Nazi's in the end, but they damned well would have made them pay for it.

There have been facts throughout this thread supporting the trends. And you call M a 'simpleton"?

Yes, hence why I said 'this article' in reference to the article posted in the original thread. Please read what I actually type not what you think I have typed, my friend.

Of course, every figure that you don't agree with is biased. Got it.
Ive just explained why I thought it sounded biast. If it's true I won't be too surprised - good can come from arming civilians. My point is it does more harm than good.


They don't work as well. My brother's an idiot, and dared one of his friends to tazer him. It didn't work, at all. Of course, he's a big guy. The fact remains, a bullet would level him.

EDIT: To clarify, he felt the shock. It just didn't knock him down or anything. He said that "felt interesting."

Tazers are being improved on all the time. Older versions can be resisted by a strongly built or well focused person as you've said, but these problems have been eliminated by the latest models.

No, not really.
In a big country like the US, a quarter of all armed attacks is as LOT of armed attacks.I don't know how you can brush it off like that.

There's actually a gem of truth to that, and is worthy of consideration. Of course, I'm not sure exactly what the best thing to do about that would be.
You can never be sure what kind of person you're selling a weapon to, so I honestly believe the only solution is to sell guns to noone.

You ask for a source, so I went back and found the statistics for Virginia for 2004 (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia_2004.pdf), so I hope these will do? Page 65.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

In 2004, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

Seems like criminals have a consistent thirst for guns?

Looks like the murder rate with firearms in Virginia in 2004 is holding steady at 72%.

I love statistics. According to page 77, 75% of people arrested for crimes are men. It isn't a hard leap to say that roughly 75% of crimes are committed by men. By that logic, we should lock all men up as a danger to society, and have women run the thing.

For murder, the ratio is M/F 270/36, or 88% committed by men. Negligent manslaughter was 90% men.

Start nailing the cause guys, not the instrument.

However, I find that too many people want guns for all the wrong reasons. Too many seem to see guns as these cool toys. During my army service, I've stumbled upon a moron who used to point his rifle at people and pull the trigger. "What's the big deal"? he asked. "It's not loaded". Luckily, I did my service in the Central military court, so I jailed the idiot. As my dad used to say, even unloaded guns shoot once a year. And if he cannot be trusted with a weapon while in the military, under control of his superiors- how can he be trusted with a gun in his civilian life?

Another story: a girl once told me that her brother bought an airsoft gun and was planning on buying a real one. She had nothing against guns, but the idea of her brother having one terrified her- because her brother used his airsoft gun to target practice inside his room, shooting at the door. Every time she knocked on his door, she feared she'd get shot.

Switzerland is often mentioned as an example of society where guns are plentiful but crime is low. However, consider that all Swiss males go through an army service and receive exceptional training as riflemen. And the Swiss civil liberties situation would have been regarded by Americans as a catastrophe and a police state.

I live in Israel. Plenty of guns in the hands of the citizenry here, and crime is moderate, perhaps even low compared to US. However, just like in Switzerland, most Israeli males and about half the females do army service and receive thorough training on how to handle firearms. I remember they drilled, and drilled, and drilled us for months until it became something of an instinct to ALWAYS make sure our rifles are unloaded every time when entering a building, or a vehicle, or on every other conceivable occasion. And there STILL were accidental discharges here and there. Civilian gun ownership here is strictly conditional on past army service or profession, and the number of guns to own is restricted. You can't have a whole arsenal.

Perhaps ownership of guns should be conditional on thorough training in handling firearms, whether military or civilian, and frequent re-examination of those with the permit?
You're confusing accidental shootings with intentional ones. Considering that there are probably over 300 million civilian guns in the US there are very, very, very few accidental shootings. As for a training course that would be fine as long as it was cheap, say $50 at the most.

Sure, that's how it was in the old "wild" west afterall. :rolleyes:


Ironically, Dodge City's crime rate was much lower than that of current day New York.

Ive just explained why I thought it sounded biast. If it's true I won't be too surprised - good can come from arming civilians. My point is it does more harm than good.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.

Tazers are being improved on all the time. Older versions can be resisted by a strongly built or well focused person as you've said, but these problems have been eliminated by the latest models.

Well it was 2 or 3 years ago, but it was a brand new model then. I'm not sure when these "improvements" supposedly took place.

In a big country like the US, a quarter of all armed attacks is as LOT of armed attacks.I don't know how you can brush it off like that.

Because, it is my belief (note, not a substantiated fact) that most of these criminals would simply use another avenue of attack if guns weren't available, with the same or similar results. It's impossible to get figures like this. When a person is arrested, they aren't fed 100 hypothetical situations to see how they answer.

You can never be sure what kind of person you're selling a weapon to, so I honestly believe the only solution is to sell guns to noone.

In that case there should be alot of things illegal. You never know if the guy you're selling a car to is a drunkard, or if a person you sell a rope to has a history of depression, or that a guy you sell TNT to is a terrorist.

You ask for a source, so I went back and found the statistics for Virginia for 2004 (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia_2004.pdf), so I hope these will do? Page 65.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

In 2004, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

Seems like criminals have a consistent thirst for guns?

Looks like the murder rate with firearms in Virginia in 2004 is holding steady at 72%.

That's a little better. Now, how many were there? What was the estimated value based on?

Read page three "Crime Factors" Nowhere does it mention firearm ownership.

Seems like they also have a "thirst" for TV's, stereos, jewelry, cars, and computers.

You may also murder is down from 5.6 to 5.26.

Ive just explained why I thought it sounded biast. If it's true I won't be too surprised - good can come from arming civilians. My point is it does more harm than good..

Yet you have yet to show in any way it "does more harm than good". aAt least Canuck's got sources.




Tazers are being improved on all the time. Older versions can be resisted by a strongly built or well focused person as you've said, but these problems have been eliminated by the latest models...

Prove it. And once again. Tazers are banned or heavily restricted in the same places as firearms.

In a big country like the US, a quarter of all armed attacks is as LOT of armed attacks.I don't know how you can brush it off like that...

No, not a quarter of armed attacks. A quarter of armed attacks w/ firearms. There is a huge difference.

You can never be sure what kind of person you're selling a weapon to, so I honestly believe the only solution is to sell guns to noone.

So only the criminals will have them. Good call.

But isn't it more efficent to lower the povetry rates, and eliminate many of the other factors than giving the private person a gun?
The poverty rate in the US was declining from the early 1900's until Johnson's "Great Society" was implemented. I would have absolutely no problem removing all vestiges of it but somehow I'm betting you wouldn't like that.

I was just thinking. If England had used gun control in the 1700's America would still be a part of them. I suppose alot of people think the colonies had a well trained high tech military, and it wasn't an armed militia of civilians. That's what the Government had in mind when they wrote the 2nd admendment.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

In 2004, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

Looks like the murder rate with firearms in Virginia in 2004 is holding steady at 72%.

So guns in civilian homes not only didn't prevent the robberies, they were actually an incentive for the crime.

Which you have yet to demonstrate.
I don't have a link, and Im not going to look for one. This only takes common sense. Compared with Europe, Canada, Japan, or Austrailia, the US is a dangerous place to live. Are you going to deny that? The evidence is in the papers,on the television,there for everyone to see.
The difference between the US and the rest? Gun laws.

Well it was 2 or 3 years ago, but it was a brand new model then. I'm not sure when these "improvements" supposedly took place.

Look up the company website, read all about it.

Because, it is my belief (note, not a substantiated fact) that most of these criminals would simply use another avenue of attack if guns weren't available, with the same or similar results. It's impossible to get figures like this. When a person is arrested, they aren't fed 100 hypothetical situations to see how they answer.

Well, as you've just said,that is pure speculation.


In that case there should be alot of things illegal. You never know if the guy you're selling a car to is a drunkard, or if a person you sell a rope to has a history of depression, or that a guy you sell TNT to is a terrorist.

Those are very different things. Cars ,ropes and TNT are made for purposes other than killing people.Would you ban pens? Because you could probably stab someone with one. A gun is a weapon, designed to kill, and so it's legality is a different matter completely.

Again, totally misleading information.

Firearms are used in almost 70% of all US murders.

In Virginia in 2003, 72.6% of murders were comitted with firearms. In 1999, the percentage was 66.5%.

Firearms were used in 52% of robberies in Virginia in 2003.

A firearm was used in 57.9% of family and intimate partner homicides. In 1999, the percentage was 50.6%.

In 2003, 21 of 23 (91.3%) of murder/homicides in Virginia were comitted with a firearm.

Paints a slightly different picture?
Not really, as the murder rate in Virginia was lower in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 than it was in 1999. I'm not yet sure of 2004 as I don't have M$ Excel and so can't access 2004's UCR. The composition is largely irrelevant. The rate is the most important part. Especially since it makes sense that the majority of successful murders would have to have guns to succeed at all if those defending themselves also had guns.

Yet you have yet to show in any way it "does more harm than good". aAt least Canuck's got sources.

I am not going to bother.Ive already said it's common sense.The problems with American gun laws are pretty obvious.
Tazers are banned or heavily restricted in the same places as firearms.
Well Im with you there,laws against non lethal defensive weapons should be removed immediately.

No, not a quarter of armed attacks. A quarter of armed attacks w/ firearms. There is a huge difference..
Well sorry I forgot to write with firearms. The point remains the same.

So only the criminals will have them. Good call.

Do you really believe the best defence against criminals is to give everyone a gun? Ive already given reasons why this is a terrible idea,Im not going to repeat myself.

So guns in civilian homes not only didn't prevent the robberies, they were actually an incentive for the crime..
Once again, no proof. Crime keeps dropping.


I don't have a link, and Im not going to look for one. This only takes common sense. Compared with Europe, Canada, Japan, or Austrailia, the US is a dangerous place to live. Are you going to deny that? The evidence is in the papers,on the television,there for everyone to see.
The difference between the US and the rest? Gun laws..


So this basically says you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA" to any proof or evidence to the contrary.

If you honestly believe the only difference between all those countries and the US is firearm laws, you are beyond ignorant.


Look up the company website, read all about it..
Which company? There's quite a few.


Well, as you've just said,that is pure speculation..

Just like every one of your posts.




Those are very different things. Cars ,ropes and TNT are made for purposes other than killing people.Would you ban pens? Because you could probably stab someone with one. A gun is a weapon, designed to kill, and so it's legality is a different matter completely.

and yet cars and pools kill more people each year than firearms.
Most firearms aren't designed to kill people. If one is used for such in a civilian environment, it is most likely a crime or defending against a crime

I was just thinking. If England had used gun control in the 1700's America would still be a part of them. I suppose alot of people think the colonies had a well trained high tech military, and it wasn't an armed militia of civilians. That's what the Government had in mind when they wrote the 2nd admendment.
Actually IIRC the first real fight of the US Revolution was fought because the British were on the march to seize a powder store at Lexington - i.e. gun control.

So guns in civilian homes not only didn't prevent the robberies, they were actually an incentive for the crime.

Obviously, some logic leap was taken there that I didn't follow.

I don't have a link, and Im not going to look for one. This only takes common sense. Compared with Europe, Canada, Japan, or Austrailia, the US is a dangerous place to live. Are you going to deny that? The evidence is in the papers,on the television,there for everyone to see.
The difference between the US and the rest? Gun laws.

It could also be that the US is mostly capitalist, with a significant amount of poverty, while those other countries are all socialist or "nanny" states. Don't feed me bullshit and expect me to eat it. There's plenty of differences between Europe, Canada, Japan, Austrailia, and the US besides gun laws.

Those are very different things. Cars ,ropes and TNT are made for purposes other than killing people.Would you ban pens? Because you could probably stab someone with one. A gun is a weapon, designed to kill, and so it's legality is a different matter completely.

Things that have no other uses besides killing:

Longbows
Crossbows
Rat poison
Raid
Animal traps

Shall we ban those too? In any case, there is at least 1 other use of a gun that I can think of, off the top of my head, that isn't for killing. When attempting to escape a burning or collapsing building, a gun can be used to weaken a section of the structure so that you can escape through it.

EDIT: Corrected a transposition.

It stands to reason that if there were less guns, there would be less children dying accidentally. There would still be the same number dying of the OTHER causes.

These arguments hold no water.
If something kills accidentally both a hell of a lot less than and at a much much smaller ratio than something else, how does your argument hold water? After all, we don't really need pools for anything. They have no use other than recreation, so why not get rid of them?

I am not going to bother.Ive already said it's common sense.The problems with American gun laws are pretty obvious..
in you unsubstantiated opinion. Once again the equivalent of "LALALALALALA"

Well Im with you there,laws against non lethal defensive weapons should be removed immediately..
They won't be until the Antiselfdefense movement is stopped.


Well sorry I forgot to write with firearms. The point remains the same..

No it doesn't. It changes the numbers drastically.


Do you really believe the best defence against criminals is to give everyone a gun? Ive already given reasons why this is a terrible idea,Im not going to repeat myself.

I never said that. You've asked this question before and I've answered it. Do you not read the thread or just ignore what you don't like?

You've stated your "belief" on why you believe it " is a terrible idea" and I've shown actual evidence to the contrary.

This article proves nothing except that the police were late and a woman was killed. It is a single case. You're the person who has stated it is symbolic of a general trend. But you haven't backed that up with any facts such as 'average policed response times', 'number of burglaries/murders/rapes against houses with guns compared to those against' etc.

Simpleton.
Well Slick, you've got me there. My post was intended to be pretty much throw-away. I didn't expect it to generate much interest. It was just a sad repeat of an incident that was alluded to earlier in the thread.

I don't know how many of these gun control discussions you have read, but they don't exist in a vacuum. There is a lot of history that is carried around. The pertinent history in this thread is that the US Court of Appeals and, more recently, the US Supreme Court have decided that police don't really have the responsibility to protect each and every one of us Citizens.

Now, I'm willing to believe that you just fell off the broccoli truck and don't know anything about this, but I think you are finding fault where there is none.

One last thing. Many of the points that have been argued don't really need statistics to make or break them. A lot of the ideas discussed here are really just common sense and applications of logic. That isn't as satisfying as saying 90 percent of all families with kids and guns in the same house have kids killed by accidental discharges, but that's the way it is.

I'd still like to know what Christine _should_ have done. Something more than a throw-away response, if you please. Or am I to assume by the fact that you refer to this as a "single case", that you just consider it to be "too bad" but unfortunately necessary in a gun-free society?

How many friggin units, it could be a single 2 million dollar gun ?(ok not likely but still my point is made)


You ask for a source, so I went back and found the statistics for Virginia for 2004 (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia_2004.pdf), so I hope these will do? Page 65.

In 2003, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

In 2004, over $2 Million worth of firearms were stolen from Virginia homes.

Seems like criminals have a consistent thirst for guns?

Looks like the murder rate with firearms in Virginia in 2004 is holding steady at 72%.

All you pro gun people claim that there is no evedence that guns are really killing more people than protecting them. Now this is because
A.You have been ignoring our links
or
B.You don't truly grasp the facts
before you leap at my throught please truly read what this site has to say. it just gives the strait facts, no biases.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Warren v. District of Columbia


courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.


Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales

Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory.

Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement “mandatory,” that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement.

So this basically says you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA" to any proof or evidence to the contrary.

I don't think so.You havnt proved anything.

If you honestly believe the only difference between all those countries and the US is firearm laws, you are beyond ignorant.
That's not what I said. I live in Ireland. Driveby shootings and school massacres are unheard of here. If there is one simple difference between here and the US responsible,yep you guessed it,gun laws.

Which company? There's quite a few.
Any of them.



Just like every one of your posts.
I don't have stats and pie charts, and I don't think they'd be any use if I went and got them. If anyones sticking their fingers in their ears it's you.You havnt said much more than "youre wrong".



and yet cars and pools kill more people each year than firearms.
Most firearms aren't designed to kill people. If one is used for such in a civilian environment, it is most likely a crime or defending against a crime
Firearms arnt deseigned to kill people? Maybe the owners don't intend to kill anyone with them, but a gun is a lethal weapon. That's it's purpose,what its designed for. A car is a transport which is dangerous id misused.

That's not what I said. I live in Ireland. Driveby shootings and school massacres are unheard of here. If there is one simple difference between here and the US responsible,yep you guessed it,gun laws.

*blinks*...*blinks again* According to this logic LA, Gary Indiana, Chicago, New York, and DC don't have very low gun crime.

I don't think so.You havnt proved anything..
Then you must not have read anything in this thread.

That's not what I said. I live in Ireland. Driveby shootings and school massacres are unheard of here. If there is one simple difference between here and the US responsible,yep you guessed it,gun laws..

Repeating "The only difference is the gun laws " doesn't make it any less fantasy.


Any of them..
And most are still unreliable



I don't have stats and pie charts, and I don't think they'd be any use if I went and got them. If anyones sticking their fingers in their ears it's you.You havnt said much more than "youre wrong"..

You don't have anything except unsubstantiated rhetoric. I've posted pages of information. You just ignore it.



Firearms arnt deseigned to kill people? Maybe the owners don't intend to kill anyone with them, but a gun is a lethal weapon. That's it's purpose,what its designed for. A car is a transport which is dangerous id misused.

Which shows how little you actually know about firearms.

And yet once again, more people are killed w/ cars than firearms. Maybe you should go on a crusade to ban them.

I live in Ireland. Driveby shootings and school massacres are unheard of here. If there is one simple difference between here and the US responsible,yep you guessed it,gun laws.

Wasn't Ireland akin to a war zone until fairly recently? I seem to recall something about an IRA and bombings and shootings. Not quite the picture of tranquility that you are painting.

Then you must not have read anything in this thread. Well I can't find anything.If you'll post up a link again I'll be happy to read it.

Repeating "The only difference is the gun laws " doesn't make it any less fantasy.
It is the main difference. Guns readily available vs guns nowhere. Even organised gangs have to make do with knives here.


You don't have anything except unsubstantiated rhetoric. I've posted pages of information. You just ignore it.
Im genuinely sorry if Ive overlooked something.If you don't mind reposting,I will have a look.Youve got me on the stats front, but from the beginning Ive argued based on common sense and what I can see in front of me.


Which shows how little you actually know about firearms. Im no expert, but Im pretty confident guns are lethal weapons.

And yet once again, more people are killed w/ cars than firearms. Maybe you should go on a crusade to ban them.
Maybe I should.I suppose the two are similar in a way.Driving licenses should be more difficult to get,because not everyone is able to handle the responsibility.Even less people are fit to own a lethal weapon, so why make it so easy to get one?
Obviously, some logic leap was taken there that I didn't follow.
obviously

It could also be that the US is mostly capitalist, with a significant amount of poverty, while those other countries are all socialist or "nanny" states. Don't feed me bullshit and expect me to eat it. There's plenty of differences between Europe, Canada, Japan, Austrailia, and the US besides gun laws
It's the main difference. That's not bullshit.


Things that have no other uses besides killing:

Longbows
Crossbows
Rat poison
Raid
Animal traps

Shall we ban those too? In any case, there is at least 1 other use of a gun that I can think of, off the top of my head, that isn't for killing. When attempting to escape a burning or collapsing building, a gun can be used to weaken a section of the structure so that you can escape through it.
Yea, longbows and crossbows not used for the sport of archery should be restricted. Traps and poisons for animals arnt meant to kill people,so I dont see any problems there. In the case youve described the use of the gun was fine. It could be used by fire brigades,in the same way as an axe is employed.

Wasn't Ireland akin to a war zone until fairly recently? I seem to recall something about an IRA and bombings and shootings. Not quite the picture of tranquility that you are painting.

I wouldnt say a warzone,no.The "troubles" were in the north,so technically it's a different country - the UK. The IRA were a well organised terrorist faction, this country is quiet when it comes to "ordinary" crime.

It's the main difference. That's not bullshit.

You use that word the. You honestly believe that between the United States and all these other countries, the biggest difference in policy, law, and culture is the United States doesn't ban guns? You kidding me?


Yea, longbows and crossbows not used for the sport of archery should be restricted. Traps and poisons for animals arnt meant to kill people,so I dont see any problems there. In the case youve described the use of the gun was fine. It could be used by fire brigades,in the same way as an axe is employed.

Some people like the sport of shooting. They shouldn't be restricted then.

Rat poison can kill people easily, and has been done countless times. Traps may not be used very often to kill people, but it could still be done.

Fire Brigades are usually not trying to escape a burning building. It is usually the occupant. Your point is moot.

If something kills accidentally both a hell of a lot less than and at a much much smaller ratio than something else, how does your argument hold water? After all, we don't really need pools for anything. They have no use other than recreation, so why not get rid of them?
Why do gun enthusiasts come up with the most lame arguments? The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are firearms.

Why do gun enthusiasts come up with the most lame arguments? The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are firearms.

Why do hoplophobes come up w/ the most lame arguements?

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are pools.

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are cars.

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are drugs.

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are household chemicals.

Why do gun enthusiasts come up with the most lame arguments? The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are firearms.
As they will with swimmingpools. Steven Levitt (author of Freakonomics and no "gun enthusiast") shows that if a home has both a firearm and a pool, a child in that home is 100 times more likely to die in the pool than be killed with the firearm. So I would hardly call the argument lame.

A firearm is a machine. It has no will of its own. It only becomes dangerous in the hands of a person. If some one has murder on their mind, not having a gun is not going to stop them.

Firearms accidents are more common were guns are viewed as taboo than they are when they are a common part of the local culture. If you educate people about how to store them, and how to use them properly, and this includes children, accidents with firearms will decline.

Statisticly, you have a far better chance of dieing in your bath tub than you do of being killed by an accidental discharge of a firearm.

Why do hoplophobes come up w/ the most lame arguements?

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are pools.

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are cars.

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are drugs.

The fact remains that more children are going to die accidentally because there are household chemicals.
One shot at the spin cycle is not enough? Too much spinning and not enough looking at the destructive nature of guns:

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)

One shot at the spin cycle is not enough? Too much spinning and not enough looking at the destructive nature of guns:

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)

You keep repeating it, why can't I?

Give me a source link canuck. WHere did you cutnpaste this from? Does the "Adolescents" include gang wars again?

and also from the CDC:

Deaths from firearm injuries among adolescents declined between 1995 and 2002,
and yet there were more guns in the hands of LAC's.

You use that word the. You honestly believe that between the United States and all these other countries, the biggest difference in policy, law, and culture is the United States doesn't ban guns? You kidding me?
You couldnt possibly misunderstand me so badly, you must be taking the piss. The main reason Ireland has very little gun crime while the US has plenty is gun control legislation. That is what I am saying.


Some people like the sport of shooting. They shouldn't be restricted then.?Rat poison can kill people easily, and has been done countless times. Traps may not be used very often to kill people, but it could still be done..?

Shooting and hunting sports should be allowed, but carefully regulated so that the weapons are used for that purpose only.Anyone involved should be well trained, and lethal weapons used only by an accomplished hunter.
In a sporting environment, humans are never the targets so it's a different matter.The same goes for animal traps and poisons - potentially lethal "tools" that should be used carefully. Guns (used outside of sport)are not the same.Their targets are human.

Fire Brigades are usually not trying to escape a burning building. It is usually the occupant. Your point is moot.
Do you really think people buy guns in case they are stuck in a burning building and need to weaken a wall to escape?

You couldnt possibly misunderstand me so badly, you must be taking the piss. The main reason Ireland has very little gun crime while the US has plenty is gun control legislation. That is what I am saying.?

What were the gun crime levels before the legislation? You probably won't bother to look that up either.



Shooting and hunting sports should be allowed, but carefully regulated so that the weapons are used for that purpose only.Anyone involved should be well trained, and lethal weapons used only by an accomplished hunter.
In a sporting environment, humans are never the targets so it's a different matter.The same goes for animal traps and poisons - potentially lethal "tools" that should be used carefully. Guns (used outside of sport)are not the same.Their targets are human.?

Define "regulated". How can you become "accomplished" if you can't hunt in the first place? Define what is a "sporting environment"?

You keep repeating it, why can't I?

Give me a source link canuck. WHere did you cutnpaste this from? Does the "Adolescents" include gang wars again?
I got it from The Internet Pathology Laboratory for Medical Education

Also from the same source:

The table below indicates mode of death for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000


http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR114.gif

and also from the CDC:

Deaths from firearm injuries among adolescents declined between 1995 and 2002, and yet there were more guns in the hands of LAC's.
Probably due to stricter gun laws due to the Brady Bill that was enacted in 1994?

Probably due to stricter gun laws due to the Brady Bill that was enacted in 1994?

Not good enough. You'll have to point out which provision(s) are relevant, and how they reduced fatalities. Back up with real evidence.

One shot at the spin cycle is not enough? Too much spinning and not enough looking at the destructive nature of guns

Firearms don't have nature, they are tools.

The main reason Ireland has very little gun crime while the US has plenty is gun control legislation. That is what I am saying.

A supposition for which you've provided no evidence, nor have you shown any inclination to ask and of the hard questions concerning culture, quality of education, parenting, values, and welfare dependency. You simply shriek "BAN THE GUN!"

Please, show some causal link between taking away the right to keep and bear arms, and overall reductions in violent crime.

Since you don't approve of people defending themselves, and their loved ones, I can only assume you would prefer they be the victims of crime, since the state doesn't have to protect any individual (unless he's an anti-gun politician, who all invariably have sub-machine toting bodyguards)

I got it from The Internet Pathology Laboratory for Medical Education

Also from the same source:

The table below indicates mode of death for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000


http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR114.gif


Probably due to stricter gun laws due to the Brady Bill that was enacted in 1994?


Strange, that chart has no listed title and says nothing about #2. Why don't you actually link to the data. The CDC website doesn't have that info.

Ahh, the Brady Bill. You mean that bill that wasn't in effect in the states w/ the highest crime and that even the CDC couldn't find an effect on crime. How could it have dropped after '98 then when the BB expired in favor of the NICS which you have said is less effective?

Maybe it has more to do w/ programs like this:

http://www.thejournalnet.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=113&ArticleID=52378

Earlier posts have had data showing less than 300 actual children / year due to firearms. CNN has listed over 1000/year drowning in pools , about 300 under age five.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/CC/00045.html

Deaths in car accidents is betweein 1000 and 2000 annually w/ over 150 just being killed by being backed over.

http://www.kidsandcars.org/

Also by the CDC:

"Previous studies have reported on the associations between rates of violent childhood death and low funding for social programs, economic stress related to participation of women in the labor force, divorce, ethnic-linguistic heterogeneity (including racial tensions), and social acceptability of violence,"


Hmmm, nothing about firearm ownership.

Strange, that chart has no listed title and says nothing about #2. Why don't you actually link to the data. The CDC website doesn't have that info.

Ahh, the Brady Bill. You mean that bill that wasn't in effect in the states w/ the highest crime and that even the CDC couldn't find an effect on crime. How could it have dropped after '98 then when the BB expired in favor of the NICS which you have said is less effective?

I think the fact that the Brady Bill started in 1994 and the results on this chart are rather significant.

Handgun Other Gun Total guns Knife Blunt Obj. Other Total % Firearm
1976 8,651 3,328 11979 3,343 912 2,546 18780 64
1977 8,563 3,391 11954 3,648 900 2,618 19120 63
1978 8,879 3,569 12448 3,685 937 2,490 19560 64
1979 9,858 3,732 13590 4,121 1,039 2,710 21460 63
1980 10,552 3,834 14386 4,439 1,153 3,061 23039 62
1981 10,324 3,740 14064 4,364 1,166 2,927 22521 62
1982 9,137 3,501 12638 4,383 1,032 2,957 21010 60
1983 8,472 2,794 11266 4,214 1,098 2,731 19309 58
1984 8,183 2,835 11018 3,956 1,090 2,626 18690 59
1985 8,165 2,973 11138 3,996 1,051 2,794 18979 59
1986 9,054 3,126 12180 4,235 1,176 3,018 20609 59
1987 8,781 3,094 11875 4,076 1,169 2,980 20100 59
1988 9,375 3,162 12537 3,978 1,296 2,869 20680 61
1989 10,225 3,197 13422 3,923 1,279 2,877 21501 62
1990 11,677 3,395 15072 4,077 1,254 3,037 23440 64
1991 13,101 3,277 16378 3,909 1,252 3,161 24700 66
1992 13,158 3,043 16201 3,447 1,088 3,024 23760 68
1993 13,981 3,094 17075 3,140 1,082 3,233 24530 70
1994 13,496 2,840 16336 2,960 963 3,071 23330 70
1995 12,050 2,679 14729 2,731 981 3,169 21610 68
1996 10,731 2,533 13264 2,691 917 2,777 19649 68
1997 9,705 2,631 12336 2,363 833 2,678 18210 68
1998 8,844 2,168 11012 2,257 896 2,805 16970 65
1999 7,943 2,174 10117 2,042 902 2,461 15522 65
2000 7,985 2,218 10203 2,099 727 2,556 15585 65
2001 7,900 2,239 10139 2,090 776 3,032 16037 63
2002 8,286 2,538 10824 2,018 773 2,588 16203 67

Correlation does not equal Causation. Didn't we all learn that in Kindergarten?

The results are entirely insignificant.

The (p)assing of the Brady Bill wasn't the only crime related event that happened in 1994. Rudolph Giuliani was elected Mayor of New York in 1994.

In fact, according to your stats, the decline in fatalities started in 1993.

I think the fact that the Brady Bill started in 1994 and the results on this chart are rather significant.

Snip cutnpaste chart

That's nice Canuck. We've been over this before. Crime trends started dropping before the BB, quite a few states introduced CC, and overall ownership increased by almost 40 million people.

The FACT that the BB didn't apply in the states(18 of them) w/ the highest crime is also significant (along w/ the 10 additional states that became exempt over the course of 4 years). A piece of data you like to ignore.

The JAMA seems to agree w/ me.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258

Brady Law Fails to Reduce Murders
UPI
Tuesday, August 2, 2000 NEW YORK ? The most comprehensive study of the Brady Act finds the law has not cut handgun killings, researchers reported Tuesday. In fact, the law's main result is increased violence against women, another researcher has found.

"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday...

...The two scientists compared gun crime and death rates in the 32 states in which the Brady gun-buying restrictions apply and compared them with the 18 states that already had laws equivalent to or stricter than Brady.

I just want to point out that guns are not the only weapons out there. You could die from being stabbed in the heart with a #2 pencil, so shouldn't they be banned too? And what about yarn? Wrap, pull, choke, die. Should yarn be banned? Not having a gun isn't going to stop murderers. Even if you took away any thing that could possibly ever be concieved as being a murder weapon, hasn't enyone else here heard of hands and knuckles?

I just want to point out that guns are not the only weapons out there. You could die from being stabbed in the heart with a #2 pencil, so shouldn't they be banned too? And what about yarn? Wrap, pull, choke, die. Should yarn be banned? Not having a gun isn't going to stop murderers. Even if you took away any thing that could possibly ever be concieved as being a murder weapon, hasn't enyone else here heard of hands and knuckles? There are some pretty dangerous body parts out there...

[QUOTE=


Shooting and hunting sports should be allowed, but carefully regulated so that the weapons are used for that purpose only.Anyone involved should be well trained, and lethal weapons used only by an accomplished hunter.
In a sporting environment, humans are never the targets so it's a different matter.The same goes for animal traps and poisons - potentially lethal "tools" that should be used carefully. Guns (used outside of sport)are not the same.Their targets are human.
QUOTE]
So, how do you keep the hunters you mention from becoming human-hunters?

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/054226.gif
Cause of Death/count/% of children
Motor Vehicle/4550/46.2%
Drowning/2102/17.4%
fire-burn/482/10.6%
Suffocation/25/5.5%
Pedestrian, other/145/3.2%
Other land transport/144/3.2%
Fall/98/2.2%
poisoning/81/1.8%
Natural, environmental/73/1.6%
firearm/72/1.6%
Other transport/68/1.5%
Struck by or against/67/1.5%
Other Spec., classifiable/62/1.1%

Center for Disease Control, 20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury/Deaths, United States, 2001, all races, both sexes, ages 1-14.

Canuck heaven, ahev your own countrymen followed your law? Not according to David Ljunggren, in his article "Ottowa under Pressure over gun registry fiasco", Reuters, December 4th, 2002, where we learn more than 20,000 Canadian gun owners have refused to register thier firearms, and you own provincal governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba dumped both administration AND enforcement of this law in the Candian governmanet's lap, all at a cost more than 43,000% higher than initally sold to you. Al Koenig, President of the Calgary Police, said, "The gun registry....does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street, or to increase any type of penalty for anyone that violates any part of the legislation." Calgary Herald, September 1, 2000.
For other countries, the following...
Switzerland has extremely lenient gun laws, even more so than most of the US, and has the third lowest homicide rate of the top[ nine major European countries. Source - Carol kalish, International Crime Rates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, (Washington : department of Justice, May 1998.
The 2001 Dutch Ministry of Justice report, Criminal Victimization In in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, shows the countries with the highest contact crime rate are actully, in order of ranking...
Australia
England and Wales
Scotland
Canada
Finland
Poland
Northen Ireland
Denmark
France
Sweden
Switzerland
Netherlands
USA
Belgium
Spain
Portugal
Japan

There are some facts and figures, plus the sources, if you wish to check them, unlike those who spout with nothing but emotion.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/054226.gif
Cause of Death/count/% of children
Motor Vehicle/4550/46.2%
Drowning/2102/17.4%
fire-burn/482/10.6%
Suffocation/25/5.5%
Pedestrian, other/145/3.2%
Other land transport/144/3.2%
Fall/98/2.2%
poisoning/81/1.8%
Natural, environmental/73/1.6%
firearm/72/1.6%
Other transport/68/1.5%
Struck by or against/67/1.5%
Other Spec., classifiable/62/1.1%

Center for Disease Control, 20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury/Deaths, United States, 2001, all races, both sexes, ages 1-14.



Here's the rub, Anti-gunners like to add in the 15-19 category to jack up the numbers and then claim the increased numbers (mostly from 18 & 19 year old suicides and gang/drug related incidents ) are "children".

A few studies had "children" defined up into the mid 20's.

You couldnt possibly misunderstand me so badly, you must be taking the piss. The main reason Ireland has very little gun crime while the US has plenty is gun control legislation. That is what I am saying.

You stated that the "biggest difference" between the United States and these other countries was that guns were banned in these other countries. Tell me what I misunderstood.

In addition, places with higher gun control legislation (or have banned guns) here in the US have higher crime rates than those who let anyone have one. This is a closer comparison than comparing the United States to other countries.

Shooting and hunting sports should be allowed, but carefully regulated so that the weapons are used for that purpose only.Anyone involved should be well trained, and lethal weapons used only by an accomplished hunter.
In a sporting environment, humans are never the targets so it's a different matter.The same goes for animal traps and poisons - potentially lethal "tools" that should be used carefully. Guns (used outside of sport)are not the same.Their targets are human.

And? I could say the same for the baseball bat I keep by my bed. It sure as hell isn't to play baseball. I haven't played baseball in years.

Do you really think people buy guns in case they are stuck in a burning building and need to weaken a wall to escape?

Not for a second. However, you said that guns "have no other use" other than to kill. I am demonstrating another use. It is conceivable that I could use a firearm in my home to weaken a wall/door/window to escape. Therefore, it now has another use.

One shot at the spin cycle is not enough? Too much spinning and not enough looking at the destructive nature of guns:

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)
Of course, if you look at children 13 and under, firearm deaths drop so fucking fast it ain't funny. Oddly enough, prime gang age is 14-26. What a coincidence.

Here's the rub, Anti-gunners like to add in the 15-19 category to jack up the numbers and then claim the increased numbers (mostly from 18 & 19 year old suicides and gang/drug related incidents ) are "children".

A few studies had "children" defined up into the mid 20's.
Can you provide sources for these claims above?

That's nice Canuck. We've been over this before. Crime trends started dropping before the BB, quite a few states introduced CC, and overall ownership increased by almost 40 million people.
Actually, murder rates started dropping in 1994, and so did the percentage of guns used in murders:

Handgun Other Gun Total guns Knife Blunt Obj. Other Total % Firearm

1992 13,158 3,043 16201 3,447 1,088 3,024 23760 68
1993 13,981 3,094 17075 3,140 1,082 3,233 24530 70
1994 13,496 2,840 16336 2,960 963 3,071 23330 70
1995 12,050 2,679 14729 2,731 981 3,169 21610 68
1996 10,731 2,533 13264 2,691 917 2,777 19649 68
1997 9,705 2,631 12336 2,363 833 2,678 18210 68
1998 8,844 2,168 11012 2,257 896 2,805 16970 65
1999 7,943 2,174 10117 2,042 902 2,461 15522 65
2000 7,985 2,218 10203 2,099 727 2,556 15585 65
2001 7,900 2,239 10139 2,090 776 3,032 16037 63

1994 sure looks like a watershed year in US crime history.


The JAMA seems to agree w/ me.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258
NewsMax, Robert Lott? Give me a break. Try a better resource than pro gun, pro conservative sites?


"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday...
Look at gun related murders plummeting from 1994 onward.

Actually, murder rates started dropping in 1994, and so did the percentage of guns used in murders:

Handgun Other Gun Total guns Knife Blunt Obj. Other Total % Firearm

1992 13,158 3,043 16201 3,447 1,088 3,024 23760 68
1993 13,981 3,094 17075 3,140 1,082 3,233 24530 70
1994 13,496 2,840 16336 2,960 963 3,071 23330 70
1995 12,050 2,679 14729 2,731 981 3,169 21610 68
1996 10,731 2,533 13264 2,691 917 2,777 19649 68
1997 9,705 2,631 12336 2,363 833 2,678 18210 68
1998 8,844 2,168 11012 2,257 896 2,805 16970 65
1999 7,943 2,174 10117 2,042 902 2,461 15522 65
2000 7,985 2,218 10203 2,099 727 2,556 15585 65
2001 7,900 2,239 10139 2,090 776 3,032 16037 63

1994 sure looks like a watershed year in US crime history.



NewsMax, Robert Lott? Give me a break. Try a better resource than pro gun, pro conservative sites?



Look at gun related murders plummeting from 1994 onward.
You guys dismiss sources way to hastily. All newmax did was quote another source, much like we do here. I can't link in, or excerpt from the JAMA article because they want me to buy it, but here is a pertinent part of the abstract (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5/585?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Cook&author2=Ludwig&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1127562528042_557&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/2000&tdate=9/30/2000&journalcode=jama).

Conclusions Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates. However, the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets.


The CDC issued a report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) a couple years back that said pretty much the same thing; that the effects of the gun control were negligible on the reduction in shootings, etc.

I haven't see John Lott discredited in the same way that Michael Bellesiles, a professor at the school and the author of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. He was shown to have engaged in deliberate deception in skewing his data to fit his thesis in his 2000 book. He was later fired by Emory. So my conclusion is that Lott's research is still valid.

Actually, murder rates started dropping in 1994, and so did the percentage of guns used in murders:

1994 sure looks like a watershed year in US crime history.

and this is where canuck starts being disingenous and changing the terms. Crime(note that crime) started dropping almost two years before this. Not every use of a firearm is a murder.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm



NewsMax, Robert Lott? Give me a break. Try a better resource than pro gun, pro conservative sites?

Did I mention Lott Canuck? No I did not. Did you actually read the article, there are two sections of it. I purposely avoided Lott because even I agree there are issues w/ his research. I mentioned and quoted excerpts from the authors article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Do you want to dismiss that as well?



Look at gun related murders plummeting from 1994 onward.

And look at how many states were not affected by the BB(18-28), how many states became Concealed carry(over a dozen), how many more police there were(thousands), how many more private owners there were(millions), how poverty levels changed(dropped), etc.

Maybe people should read the stories of how neighbors defended themselves against predatory armed looters during the collapse of the New Orleans police department.

People who were armed didn't get looted, didn't get raped, didn't get their houses burned, and didn't get killed. An interesting, but fatal surprise for looters.

Next time the government says that you should be prepared for several days of "being on your own", and says to stock up on food, water, and medical supplies for such an emergency, remember that the police are NOT going to show up to protect you during those times. At those times, if you don't have the ability to defend yourself, and are not situated with people who are like minded, you stand a very good chance of being dead.
EGGG-XACTLY! [ cheers! ] :)

Can you provide sources for these claims above?

Try the CDC website. It can show year by year. Or you can just offhand dismiss this:

Classification of Fatalities among Fatalities among juveniles Fatalities among
firearm-related fatality children (ages 0-14) & young adults (ages 15-19) persons ages 0-19

Assault 227 1,549 1,776

Suicide 110 897 1,007

Accident 86 107 193

Unexplained 10 26 36

Total 433 2,579 3,012

Average daily number 1.2 7.1 8.3

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000


or these quotes:

Then-President Bill Clinton tried to build public support for so-called "Triggerlock" and "smart" gun laws by claiming that 13 children are killed with guns every day. (NBC "Today Show," 3/2/00) Hillary Clinton said, "Every day in America we lose 13 precious children to gun-related violence." ("Remarks by the President and the First Lady on Gun Control Legislation," 4/27/99) HCI/Brady Campaign Chair Sarah Brady claimed the figure was 14 per day. (3/99). The HELP Network recently claimed the figure at nine per day. (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan, Help Network News, "Firearm Injury and Fatality Among Children and Adolescents.") Sometimes the figures are expressed as "5,000 per year" or "one every 90 seconds."

and this is where canuck starts being disingenous and changing the terms. Crime(note that crime) started dropping almost two years before this. Not every use of a firearm is a murder.
IF anyone is being dishonest, that would be YOU. I didn't change the terms at all, but it appears that is what you want to do so? We weren't talking about the "crime" rate specifically, and as a matter of fact, it was YOUR post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9691337&postcount=418) that specifically talked about the murder rate, or did you forget that fact?

Originally Posted by Kecibukia
"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday...

When you posted that, I replied with the fact that the murder rate started to drop in 1994, which coincides with the enactment of the Brady Bill.

And, while not "every use of a firearm is a murder", murder is the number one consideration when talking about use of firearms in crime?

IF anyone is being dishonest, that would be YOU. I didn't change the terms at all, but it appears that is what you want to do so? We weren't talking about the "crime" rate specifically, and as a matter of fact, it was YOUR post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9691337&postcount=418) that specifically talked about the murder rate, or did you forget that fact?

Originally Posted by Kecibukia
"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday...

When you posted that, I replied with the fact that the murder rate started to drop in 1994, which coincides with the enactment of the Brady Bill.

And, while not "every use of a firearm is a murder", murder is the number one consideration when talking about use of firearms in crime?

Get a grip Canuck.

Me: "that even the CDC couldn't find an effect on crime","Crime trends started dropping before the BB"

You:"Actually, murder rates started dropping in 1994.

After I linked to the article, you cutnpasted some stats and stated "I think the fact that the Brady Bill started in 1994 and the results on this chart are rather significant."

NOTHING about murder in your statement at all.
later: "1994 sure looks like a watershed year in US crime history.



I've shown you real studies stating that the BB didn't effect crime rates or homicide rates. You cutnpaste a few stats and claim that makes your case. You still refuse to accept the the BB was not even in effect in the majorty of states w/ the highest crime.

And as for "murder is the number one consideration when talking about use of firearms in crime"

According to whom? or is this just your opinion?

And as for "murder is the number one consideration when talking about use of firearms in crime"

According to whom? or is this just your opinion?

Murder is the ultimate crime, is it not?

Odd....
"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence." Source - "An Updated Assesment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban : Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003" National Institute of Justice, June 2004

" The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident, or multiple gunshot wound victims." Source - "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, 1994-96" National Insitute of Justice, March 1999

Murder is the ultimate crime, is it not?

Not necessarily. I've met women who had been raped that stated they'ld rather have been killed. There's also quite a bit of liturature arguing that slavery and/or involuntary loss of freedoms is worse than being murdered.

That being as it may, the majority of firearms used in crime are not associated w/ a murder. Canuck is just trying to take one part of a large statistic to make a claim of absolute causality.

When you posted that, I replied with the fact that the murder rate started to drop in 1994, which coincides with the enactment of the Brady Bill.

And, while not "every use of a firearm is a murder", murder is the number one consideration when talking about use of firearms in crime?

(emphasis mine)

Coincides is the key term here. You refuse to consider that there are any other factors involved, which is fundamentally dishonest.

No crime can ever be a consideration in looking at the ownership of firearms by law-abiding civilians.

Murder is totally irrelevant to this discussion, your introduction of it is another dishonest ploy.

Or this in relation to the BB:

**Under the Act, states are exempt from the five-day waiting period if their laws require law enforcement officials to conduct records checks to verify that prospective handgun purchasers are eligible to possess handguns. [18 U.S.C. §922(s)(1)(C)(ii)] When President Clinton signed the Act into law in 1993, 18 states and D.C. were automatically "Brady-exempt."


**The 18 states and D.C. that have always been "Brady-exempt" accounted for 63% of violent crimes, including 57% of murders, in the U.S. in 1993. Thus, the Brady Act had no effect on states where the majority of violent crimes were occurring. (Note: Less than 30% of violent crimes are committed with firearms.)

** California had more murders and other violent crimes than any state in 1993. Despite a 15- day waiting period on all firearm sales (retail and private; rifle, pistol and shotgun) its violent crime and murder rates were, respectively, 54% and 46% higher than the rates for the rest of the country. Among U.S. cities, Los Angeles had the the third highest number of violent crimes (83,701), including the second highest number of murders (1,076).

** New York had the second highest number of murders and other violent crimes among the states. Among cities, N.Y.C., which has its own licensing system on top of the state requirement, had the most violent crimes (153,543), including the most murders (1,946). California and New York, just two of the original 18 "Brady-exempt" states, together had more violent crimes than the total of 29, and more murders than the total of 28, of the 32 states originally subject to the five-day wait.

Or these:

** "Brady may not directly result in measurable reductions of gun-related crimes." (General Accounting Office,"Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO/GGD-96-22 Gun Control, January 1996, p. 8)

** "It is hard to see the Brady law, heralded by many politicians, the media, and Handgun Control, Inc. as an important step toward keeping handguns out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible persons, as anything more than a sop to the widespread fear of crime....There is little reason to accept the claim that Brady is preventing 40,000 dangerous and irresponsible persons per year from obtaining handguns." (New York University professors James B. Jacobs and Kimberley A. Potter, "Keeping Guns Out Of The `Wrong` Hands: The Brady Law And The Limits Of Regulation," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Vol. 86, No. 1, Fall 1995)

** Only 7% of armed career criminals obtain firearms from licensed gun shops. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms "Protecting America: The Effectiveness of the Federal Armed Career Criminal Statute," 1992, p. 28)

** 85% of police chiefs believe that the Brady Act has not stoppedcriminals from obtaining handguns. (Membership poll, National Association of Chiefs of Police, May 1997)

** Brady`s 5-day wait "does not cut off to prohibited purchasers all avenues to handguns." ("Denying Handguns To Prohibited Purchasers: Quantifying The Impact Of The Brady Law," Douglas Weil, Handgun Control, Inc.`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, August 26, 1996)

Of course, if you look at children 13 and under, firearm deaths drop so fucking fast it ain't funny. Oddly enough, prime gang age is 14-26. What a coincidence.

Right, so the lives of over-13s don't matter?

Right, so the lives of over-13s don't matter?

You're missing the point, the advocates of civilian disarmament (who's past members have included the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge) have continually lied to advance their 'cause'. No one in their right mind (unless a gun control advocate) would say that a 26 year old was a child.

Ravenshrike was simply exposing the lies of the anti-gun lobby.

Right, so the lives of over-13s don't matter?

That was never said. It's when anti-gunners claim late teens and early twenties as "children" and use the criminal activities of gangs and associate them w/ "children in the home' etc. in order to push their agenda is when the numbers given are dismissed.

You're missing the point, the advocates of civilian disarmament (who's past members have included the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge) have continually lied to advance their 'cause'. No one in their right mind (unless a gun control advocate) would say that a 26 year old was a child.

Ravenshrike was simply exposing the lies of the anti-gun lobby.

He's not missing the point at all. It's just the standard tactic of moving the goalposts in order to make those who support the right of self-defense seem like they don't care about the lives of others.

You're missing the point, the advocates of civilian disarmament (who's past members have included the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge) have continually lied to advance their 'cause'. No one in their right mind (unless a gun control advocate) would say that a 26 year old was a child.

Ravenshrike was simply exposing the lies of the anti-gun lobby.

Just because someone arguing from one side of an argument lies doesn't render that argument invalid. I fail to see the point.

He's not missing the point at all. It's just the standard tactic of moving the goalposts in order to make those who support the right of self-defense seem like they don't care about the lives of others.

You are the last person in the world, on the basis of this thread, to complain about moving the goalposts.

You are the last person in the world, on the basis of this thread, to complain about moving the goalposts.

So you deny that you were attempting to redirect the arguement?

So you deny that you were attempting to redirect the arguement?

Yes, I assumed that nobody would make the illogical jump between a report or campaigner lying or misleading and the argument being represented being invalidated and thought, particularly with the gang reference that there was some form of 'their lives are worth less' implication there.

Just because someone arguing from one side of an argument lies doesn't render that argument invalid. I fail to see the point.

An argument is valid where the evidence supporting it is valid. The evidence regarding firearms deaths among children defined children as being up to 26 years of age. Meaning that someone who is a child can:

a) Vote
b) Drink legally
c) Legally purchase a firearm
d) Drive
e) Be tried as an adult for any offence
f) Can sign for himself, rather than asking his parents
g) Do jury duty
h) Join the Armed Forces
i) Marry

Most people would tell you that someone who can do all that is an adult, not a child. Yet, the gun-grabbers call him a child. Why? Because it makes their figures look better.

CanuckHeaven said that "Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence". He cited the CDC report as 'proof'. Ravenshrike exposed that 'proof' as false, thereby invalidating the point, and reducing the credibility of CanuckHeaven, and his supporters to nil.

You are the last person in the world, on the basis of this thread, to complain about moving the goalposts.

Prove that allegation. The allegation that you are shifting the goalposts is proven, you distorted the exposure of a disarmament advocate's lie into an accusation of heartlessness, when anyone could see it clearly was not.

No, you showed that one person was misleading (or being mislead?), you through out one piece of evidence but seeked to dismiss everything else through that. Sort of like 'you're an idiot so anyone who agrees with you must be wrong', it's not a logical step.

Just out of my own curiosity - if you moved to Britain, would you be in favour of relaxing the gun laws?

CanuckHeaven's argument was "won't someone think of the children, and ban gun ownership by law-abiding people", and his evidence was CDC reports, which showed a high rate of firearms related deaths among children where the term 'children' meant between 0-26. The stupidity of such a definition is self-evident, what Ravenshrike exposed was the reality behind the figures, i.e. the vast majority were between 14-26, where you find most of the gang-bangers, etc.

This was no counting error, this was lying. The fact that CanuckHeaven's evidence has been shown up for the lie it is invalidates his argument.

No one else has produced evidence supporting CanuckHeaven's argument.

Just out of my own curiosity - if you moved to Britain, would you be in favour of relaxing the gun laws?

Yes.

Yes, you can dismiss that particular evidence if you wish but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument

Yes.

Why?

Why?

They are not effective in Britain, similar laws in other jurisdictions have proven ineffective, and in general, no one has shown (or even bothered to try to show) that restricting the liberties of the law-abiding will reduce crime.

Yes, you can dismiss that particular evidence if you wish but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument

What other evidence is there to validate the argument. CanuckHeaven must validate his arguments with evidence. He has failed to do so. Therefore his arguments are invalid. Are you suggesting that I should humour someone who uses a lie as proof?

They are not effective in Britain, similar laws in other jurisdictions have proven ineffective, and in general, no one has shown (or even bothered to try to show) that restricting the liberties of the law-abiding will reduce crime.



Crime is a hell of a jump from guns, I don't see what vandilism etc etc has got to do with guns. In Britain atm we don't have much of a gun problem at all, as I said when someone was shot in a store recently it was headline news. I can't see how you can argue that handing out guns to the population is progressive.

Crime is a hell of a jump from guns, I don't see what vandilism etc etc has got to do with guns.

Nice red-herring. You know very well what I mean by crime in a debate on civilian firearms ownership.

There are genrally two excuses given for a firearms ban.

The one least often used is that only the state needs them, and the state will protect the people. That argument was refuted in this thread by citing legal precedents that ruled that the state had no obligation to protect an individual/s.

The one most often used is the reduction in violent crime committed with firearms. This argument is unproven, and has been rejected by the organisations whose role is to measure these things. Only the politicians, and the anti-gun activists stick to the lie.

In Britain atm we don't have much of a gun problem at all, as I said when someone was shot in a store recently it was headline news.

Cute story, totally irrelevant.

I can't see how you can argue that handing out guns to the population is progressive.

Don't put words into my mouth.

Right, so that cute story had no relevance to whether Britain should have gun ownership or not? And Britain doesn't have those precedents either, does that change your position at all?

Right, so that cute story had no relevance to whether Britain should have gun ownership or not? And Britain doesn't have those precedents either, does that change your position at all?

I've posted many incidents of individuals prtecting themselves w/ firearms. You dismissed them as "biased". A single incident that you mention has no relevance. I've asked repeatedly what were crime rates BEFORE the various gun bans.

So in Britain, the police have a legal obligation to protect the individual from crime?

Right, so that cute story had no relevance to whether Britain should have gun ownership or not?

No. Why would it?

Where does that little story mention law-abiding Britains using firearms?

I'll spell it out for you: what criminals do is irrelevant to a discussion of the ownership of firearms by law-abiding people.

If I was writing a paper on the social and political views of people who work in car factories, I'd hardly spend my time and energy prattling about marshmallow makers.

And Britain doesn't have those precedents either, does that change your position at all?

Are the British police specifically required to protect all individuals in the UK? Can the Government be held liable for failing to provide such protection? Has the Government ever been sued successfully for failing to provide such protection?

I've posted many incidents of individuals prtecting themselves w/ firearms. You dismissed them as "biased". A single incident that you mention has no relevance. I've asked repeatedly what were crime rates BEFORE the various gun bans.

So in Britain, the police have a legal obligation to protect the individual from crime?

The relevance wasn't to do with guns being good/bad it was to do with the reaction, will illustrates how rare it is. I've already answered your question with "I don't know but I think ALL types of crimes have increased, vandalism to rape to fraud to murder".

In Britain I'm not sure of the exact legal standpoint but if the Police were judged to have failed to provide protection where they should have they could be sued.

No. Why would it?

Where does that little story mention law-abiding Britains using firearms?

I'll spell it out for you: what criminals do is irrelevant to a discussion of the ownership of firearms by law-abiding people.

If I was writing a paper on the social and political views of people who work in car factories, I'd hardly spend my time and energy prattling about marshmallow makers.


You don't see a link between illegal use of guns and guns laws? :confused: :eek:

The relevance wasn't to do with guns being good/bad it was to do with the reaction, will illustrates how rare it is. I've already answered your question with "I don't know but I think ALL types of crimes have increased, vandalism to rape to fraud to murder"..

So the gun bans have had little to no effect on reducing crime. Wasn't that the entire reason given that they were put into place? Wouldn't the reaction then have been the same BEFORE the bans?

In Britain I'm not sure of the exact legal standpoint but if the Police were judged to have failed to provide protection where they should have they could be sued.

So before you stated AS FACT that the British police had a legal obligation to protect the individual, now you're "not sure ". Do you have sources to back up you allegation? Some treaties on UK law? I've shown the US legal precedents.

You don't see a link between illegal use of guns and guns laws? :confused: :eek:

Not when the only people who are effected by the laws are those who follow them (ie Law Abiding Citizens). You've already stated the the UK gun bans did not effect crime rates or the use of firearms.

No.

Gun laws can be enforced in two ways.

One is essentially voluntary compliance, possibly with bribery playing a part (buy-back schemes).

The other is something Clinton attempted to push through Congress. He tried to get a bill passed that would permit the police, in public housing projects, to go where they pleased, ransacking apartments looking for firearms.

The first way is the only reasonable way, but it only affects those who are inclined to obey the law. Those who would break the law (criminals) aren't affected. Indeed, many gun crimes are committed with weapons that were already illegal.

The closest thing there is to a link between illegal use of guns and gun laws is gun laws arbitarily classifying otherwise law-abiding people as criminals.

* In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. (15)

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?" (15)

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992. (7)
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually. (16)

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

How interesting.....

read on....
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)


you know its amaizing how the anti-gunners in this forum still havent brought up any credible evidence against legally owning and concealing guns. I suppose the idea that if the everyone in the city is sompletely unarmed and totally defenseless, the criminal's job will be much harder than in a city that allows people to legally carry concealed weapons, beacuse an armed citizen is much easier to overpower than an unarmed one. I guess the only people the anti-concealed weapons people are for protecting are those poor rapists, muggers, murdurers, and gang bangers who will have a tougher time preying on the well protected citizens, and therefore makeing their jobs harder to do.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.


LOOK OUT EVERYONE!!!
THOMAS JEFFERSON HAS A GUN AND
IS GOING TO
GO ON A SHOOTING RAMPAGE!!!
Oh, wait, no he didnt.
;)

Murder is the ultimate crime, is it not?
This has always been my understanding but it appears that Kecibukia has different thoughts?

(emphasis mine)

Coincides is the key term here. You refuse to consider that there are any other factors involved, which is fundamentally dishonest.
Yes coincides is the key word. Did I say that there were NO other factors involved? No I didn't, and if you want to debate other factors, then bring them forward. You can take your dishonesty tag back, and you should be careful how you use it next time.

No crime can ever be a consideration in looking at the ownership of firearms by law-abiding civilians.
I believe that you are dead wrong on that one.

Murder is totally irrelevant to this discussion,
Murder is totally relevant to this discussion, and if you had read the first post in this thread then you wouldn't have made such a statement.

your introduction of it is another dishonest ploy.
Two tags in one post. :eek: Perhaps you should save those tags for yourself?

Yes coincides is the key word. Did I say that there were NO other factors involved? No I didn't, and if you want to debate other factors, then bring them forward. You can take your dishonesty tag back, and you should be careful how you use it next time.


I believe that you are dead wrong on that one.


Murder is totally relevant to this discussion, and if you had read the first post in this thread then you wouldn't have made such a statement.


Two tags in one post. :eek: Perhaps you should save those tags for yourself?
Canuck, can I assume you ascribe to a utilitarianistic moral philosophy?

Yes coincides is the key word. Did I say that there were NO other factors involved? No I didn't, and if you want to debate other factors, then bring them forward. You can take your dishonesty tag back, and you should be careful how you use it next time.


Probably due to stricter gun laws due to the Brady Bill that was enacted in 1994



I think the fact that the Brady Bill started in 1994 and the results on this chart are rather significant.

Look at gun related murders plummeting from 1994 onward.

I replied with the fact that the murder rate started to drop in 1994, which coincides with the enactment of the Brady Bill.

All that, even after multiple discussions in past threads as to the usefullness of the BB and the listing several times in this thread of other factors involved

Sure sounds like you believe it is the only factor involved.

Howabout these: (again)

14 states becoming CC from 94-96
18-31 states being exempt from the BB
increase of ownership from 40 to 60 million
hundreds more police hired nationwide
drop in poverty levels and unemployment
increase in prosecution of crimes and penalties

ooo, check and mate!
Kecibukia wins!

Yes coincides is the key word. Did I say that there were NO other factors involved? No I didn't, and if you want to debate other factors, then bring them forward. You can take your dishonesty tag back, and you should be careful how you use it next time.

Don't keep us in suspense. Tell us what other factors involved. You've certainly shown no inclination to so far.

Kecibukia has introduced some other factors for you to discuss.

You've missed the point of my emphasising "coincides". Coincidence simply isn't proof, you need to show a causal link between restricting the right of good, law abiding citizens to own firearms with reductions in their criminal use.

I believe that you are dead wrong on that one.

Whoop-de-f***ing Doo. You believe that a child is someone who is up to 26 years old.

Murder is totally relevant to this discussion, and if you had read the first post in this thread then you wouldn't have made such a statement..

You are suggesting that law-abiding people should not be allowed to own firearms. Murder is irrelevant to such a discussion. Murder is against the law, therefore the people who commit murder are not law-abiding, they're law-breaking.


Two tags in one post. :eek: Perhaps you should save those tags for yourself?

Nope. I've not trying to mislead people by using stats for firearms deaths among children that define children as being up to 26 years of age.

or if you look from 1976 through 2000 you will see peak death rates tie to peak years of gang and crack cocaine crime and we are returning to pre cocaine levels ??



I think the fact that the Brady Bill started in 1994 and the results on this chart are rather significant.

Handgun Other Gun Total guns Knife Blunt Obj. Other Total % Firearm
1976 8,651 3,328 11979 3,343 912 2,546 18780 64
1977 8,563 3,391 11954 3,648 900 2,618 19120 63
1978 8,879 3,569 12448 3,685 937 2,490 19560 64
1979 9,858 3,732 13590 4,121 1,039 2,710 21460 63
1980 10,552 3,834 14386 4,439 1,153 3,061 23039 62
1981 10,324 3,740 14064 4,364 1,166 2,927 22521 62
1982 9,137 3,501 12638 4,383 1,032 2,957 21010 60
1983 8,472 2,794 11266 4,214 1,098 2,731 19309 58
1984 8,183 2,835 11018 3,956 1,090 2,626 18690 59
1985 8,165 2,973 11138 3,996 1,051 2,794 18979 59
1986 9,054 3,126 12180 4,235 1,176 3,018 20609 59
1987 8,781 3,094 11875 4,076 1,169 2,980 20100 59
1988 9,375 3,162 12537 3,978 1,296 2,869 20680 61
1989 10,225 3,197 13422 3,923 1,279 2,877 21501 62
1990 11,677 3,395 15072 4,077 1,254 3,037 23440 64
1991 13,101 3,277 16378 3,909 1,252 3,161 24700 66
1992 13,158 3,043 16201 3,447 1,088 3,024 23760 68
1993 13,981 3,094 17075 3,140 1,082 3,233 24530 70
1994 13,496 2,840 16336 2,960 963 3,071 23330 70
1995 12,050 2,679 14729 2,731 981 3,169 21610 68
1996 10,731 2,533 13264 2,691 917 2,777 19649 68
1997 9,705 2,631 12336 2,363 833 2,678 18210 68
1998 8,844 2,168 11012 2,257 896 2,805 16970 65
1999 7,943 2,174 10117 2,042 902 2,461 15522 65
2000 7,985 2,218 10203 2,099 727 2,556 15585 65
2001 7,900 2,239 10139 2,090 776 3,032 16037 63
2002 8,286 2,538 10824 2,018 773 2,588 16203 67

All that, even after multiple discussions in past threads as to the usefullness of the BB and the listing several times in this thread of other factors involved

Sure sounds like you believe it is the only factor involved.
Don't put words in my mouth. I am not naive and I do realize that other factors do come into play. The fact remains that stricter gun laws were enacted in 1994 and that coincides with a lower crime rate.

Howabout these:(again)

14 states becoming CC from 94-96
Which States were they?
Did their crime rate go up or down after intoducing CC?
Did their crime rate mirror the national trend or did they buck the trend?

18-31 states being exempt from the BB
Which is it, 18 or 31?
What was their crime rate trend before 1994?
What was their crime rate trend after 1994?

increase of ownership from 40 to 60 million
From what I understand, gun ownership decreased between 1994 and 1998 from 41% down to 35%. (CDC). However, gun purchases increased. Therefore, one would assume that gun owners simply increased their stock of weaopons.

How does this relate to decreasing crime rates?

hundreds more police hired nationwide
Hundreds more in a country as big as the US would only be a minimal factor, unless it was concentrated in higher crime areas? Do you have a source?

drop in poverty levels and unemployment
This would certainly be a factor. Do you have an source that would detail the impact that decreasing poverty levels and unemployment had on the crime rates?

increase in prosecution of crimes and penalties
Again, these would certainly have an affect on decreasing the crime rate. Again do you have any source that would detail the affects of such actions?

Interesting, I think it has been mentioed eariler in the thread that a lot of the firearms related crime is in fact drug related. Particularly among the 14-26 age group.

CanuckHeaven, you are being hypocritical.

It is OK for you to hang your argument that gun laws reduce crime on coincidence, but Kecibukia has to provide causal links?

Don't keep us in suspense. Tell us what other factors involved. You've certainly shown no inclination to so far.

Kecibukia has introduced some other factors for you to discuss.

You've missed the point of my emphasising "coincides". Coincidence simply isn't proof, you need to show a causal link between restricting the right of good, law abiding citizens to own firearms with reductions in their criminal use.

Whoop-de-f***ing Doo. You believe that a child is someone who is up to 26 years old.

You are suggesting that law-abiding people should not be allowed to own firearms. Murder is irrelevant to such a discussion. Murder is against the law, therefore the people who commit murder are not law-abiding, they're law-breaking.

Nope. I've not trying to mislead people by using stats for firearms deaths among children that define children as being up to 26 years of age.
I truly think that you do not understand the discussion in this thread. This is a thread about guns you know?

You are certainly confused as to what I have stated and certainly have misrepresented what I have stated.

BTW, a LAC is no longer a LAC when they take the family gun and murder their spouse.

Now I suggest that you go back through the thread and perhaps you will understand that I haven't said anything that you have accused me of.

Hint: show me where I stated "that law-abiding people should not be allowed to own firearms".

Hint # 2: you won't find that for the simple reason that I have never made that statement. :eek:

Hint # 3: quit putting words in my mouth. :eek:

or if you look from 1976 through 2000 you will see peak death rates tie to peak years of gang and crack cocaine crime and we are returning to pre cocaine levels ??
Got a source for your statement?

Don't put words in my mouth. I am not naive and I do realize that other factors do come into play. The fact remains that stricter gun laws were enacted in 1994 and that coincides with a lower crime rate.

The only "words" I've put into your mouth were direct quotes taken from your previous posts.

The FACT remains that "tougher" laws were established in some states and that the majority of them had lower crime than the ones that ALREADY had "tougher" laws.

The lower crime rate (as has been shown multiple times ) started nearly TWO YEARS before the BB. Now you ARE just being dishonest.


Which States were they?
Did their crime rate go up or down after intoducing CC?
Did their crime rate mirror the national trend or did they buck the trend?

I've already posted some links and stats.


Which is it, 18 or 31?
What was their crime rate trend before 1994?
What was their crime rate trend after 1994?

It started out as 18 (including DC ) and went up to 31 over the course of the 4 years. I've already mentioned that as well.

How in the world can you claim that the BB reduced crime when you know absolutely nothing about it except that it started in 1994?


From what I understand, gun ownership decreased between 1994 and 1998 from 41% down to 35%. (CDC). However, gun purchases increased. Therefore, one would assume that gun owners simply increased their stock of weaopons.


How does this relate to decreasing crime rates?

Source it. The BATF has the level of ownership increasing from 40 million to over 80 million w/ amounts going from 200 million to 250 million.



Hundreds more in a country as big as the US would only be a minimal factor, unless it was concentrated in higher crime areas? Do you have a source?

Read the papers. I've provided more sources than you so far.


This would certainly be a factor. Do you have an source that would detail the impact that decreasing poverty levels and unemployment had on the crime rates?

Do you have a source that relates the BB to an impact on crime? I've provided many that oppose it.
You posted the VA crime report several pages ago. I told you to read page three. It listed various things that effect crime. I take it you didn't even read your own link.


Again, these would certainly have an affect on decreasing the crime rate. Again do you have any source that would detail the affects of such actions?

Once again, your own link to VA crime provided a source. You didn't read it at all except for your one page did you?

Here's the thing Canuck. As all of our debates boil down to. I don't claim absolute causality. You do. You have claimed that the BB was responsible for drops in crime. You have claimed the CAWB has caused drops in crime. You have claimed that less guns = less crime.

Except for ONE CUTNPASTE chart that you have as yet refused to source, you have NO evidence the BB effected crime at all. I have posted over half-dozen reports from various agencies stating the opposite.

In 1996, Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School published the results of a crime study conducted using FBI data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992. (15)

* The study sought to answer the question, "What happens to crime when states adopt right-to-carry laws?" (15)

* Between 1977 and 1992, 10 states adopted right-to-carry laws. Dr. Lott's study found that the implementation of these laws created:
-- no change in suicide rates,
-- a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths,
-- a 5% decline in rapes,
-- a 7% decline in aggravated assaults,
-- and an 8% decline in murder

for the 10 states that adopted these laws between 1977 and 1992. (7)
* Using 1995 numbers, this amounts to:

-- 1 more accidental gun death,
-- 316 less murders,
-- 939 less rapes,
-- and 14,702 less aggravated assaults

in these 10 states annually. (16)

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

How interesting.....

read on....
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

A little different info I posted earlier but this goes to show how well the conceal and carry laws have helped. Still no real evidence from the anti guns side though!

I truly think that you do not understand the discussion in this thread. This is a thread about guns you know?

You are certainly confused as to what I have stated and certainly have misrepresented what I have stated.

BTW, a LAC is no longer a LAC when they take the family gun and murder their spouse.

Now I suggest that you go back through the thread and perhaps you will understand that I haven't said anything that you have accused me of.

Hint: show me where I stated "that law-abiding people should not be allowed to own firearms".

Hint # 2: you won't find that for the simple reason that I have never made that statement. :eek:

Hint # 3: quit putting words in my mouth. :eek:

You have stated that "less children would die if there were no guns". When it was shown that there are more children dieing from non-firearm accidents, you then included "adolescents" into your figures to include gang/drug crime.

When it was shown that "adolescent" murder is decreasing even though ownership is increasing, you stated it was "probably due to the BB" even though under 21 can't purchase handguns anyway(1968 GCA) and it didn't even take effect in the 18 states w/ highest crime (later 31) including Wash DC. You still defended it after multiple posts of agencies that disagree.

BTW , unless you believe in "pre-crime", ALL people are law-abiding until the break the law.

To those who swear the Brady Law caused firearm homicides to decrease... Both gun and non-gun murders rates fell during the same period, 1992 to 1997. In 1991 68% of US murders were committed with guns; in 1997, it was still 68%.(FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1992 and 1997) Thus, the decreased gun homicide rate was part of an overall declining crime rate, not an effect of the Brady Law. In fact, gun possession by criminals has risen in the Brady years - 18% of state prisoners (was 16% before Brady), and 15% of federal prisoners, (was 12% before Brady), were caught with firearms. This from The Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Firearm Use by Offenders", November 2001.
BTW, to those who wondered about Britains crime rates? Street crime rocketed up 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes up 14% - British Home Office, reported in BBC News, July 12th, 2002. Besides, British law enforcement officials have been exposed for falsifying criminal repotrts to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism - "Crime Figures a Sham", The Guardian, September 3, 2000. Add in the fact that British police don't record a crime until a final disposition, aka conviction. All unsolved gun crimes in Britian are NOT reported as gun related crimes, grossly undercounting the amount a firearm involved crime there - Gallant Hill Kopel, "Fear in Britain", Independance Institute, July 18, 2000.

There, facts, figures, and sources. Same as the last three posts. Gonna be ignored again - truth is soooo unpopular.

You have stated that "less children would die if there were no guns".
That was a theoretical statement, and in no way does it equate to a belief that guns should be banned. You should know better, as we have discussed this issue (banning of guns) many times in the past.

When it was shown that there are more children dieing from non-firearm accidents, you then included "adolescents" into your figures to include gang/drug crime.
Where did I knowingly include ""adolescents" into my?? figures to include gang/drug crime"?

When it was shown that "adolescent" murder is decreasing even though ownership is increasing, you stated it was "probably due to the BB" even though under 21 can't purchase handguns anyway(1968 GCA) and it didn't even take effect in the 18 states w/ highest crime (later 31) including Wash DC. You still defended it after multiple posts of agencies that disagree.
Can you point me to the specific post number because I think you are confused? BTW, it is my understanding that gun ownership decreased from 41% in 1994 to 35% in 1998 (CDC).

BTW , unless you believe in "pre-crime", ALL people are law-abiding until the break the law.
Duh!! My previous response was to an unbelieveable statement by another poster.

and also from the CDC:

Deaths from firearm injuries among adolescents declined between 1995 and 2002,
and yet there were more guns in the hands of LAC's.
Also from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm):

Another survey (2) found that 41% of adult respondents reported having a firearm in their home in 1994, and 35% did so in 1998.

That is a decrease of 6% between 1994 and 1998, which runs counter to your point, although I do note the years you stated are between 1995 and 2002. Do you have a link to that specific reference?

That was a theoretical statement, and in no way does it equate to a belief that guns should be banned. You should know better, as we have discussed this issue (banning of guns) many times in the past.

I never said you wanted to ban guns.

You're right, we have debated this many times. And yet you still claim the BB reduced crime w/o any real evidence and still make claims on it based on incorrect information even after having been shown otherwise (with details and links) multiple times. You also keep asking which states are CC and when even though the information has been put out in almost every gun debate we've had.


Where did I knowingly include ""adolescents" into my?? figures to include gang/drug crime"?
You went from "children" to "children and adolescents". If you didn't know the data behind your "facts" then you are posting w/o any knowledge of your subject.


Can you point me to the specific post number because I think you are confused? BTW, it is my understanding that gun ownership decreased from 41% in 1994 to 35% in 1998 (CDC).
Post #409 and I think you're being blatantly disingenous.

Your "understanding" is incorrect. See below.

To those who swear the Brady Law caused firearm homicides to decrease... Both gun and non-gun murders rates fell during the same period, 1992 to 1997. In 1991 68% of US murders were committed with guns; in 1997, it was still 68%.(FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1992 and 1997)
In 1983, the percentage of murders commited with a gun was 58% and the percentage climbed year after year to its peak in 1993-94 of 70%. In 1995-96-97, the gun murder rate was 68%. In 1998-99, 2000, it was 65%, and it bottomed out in 2001 at 63%, before going up to 67% in 2002.

Thus, the decreased gun homicide rate was part of an overall declining crime rate, not an effect of the Brady Law.
looking at the figures, your point is certainly debatable.

In fact, gun possession by criminals has risen in the Brady years - 18% of state prisoners (was 16% before Brady), and 15% of federal prisoners, (was 12% before Brady), were caught with firearms. This from The Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Firearm Use by Offenders", November 2001.
What year? The Brady Bill sunlighted at the end of 1999.

In 1983, the percentage of murders commited with a gun was 58% and the percentage climbed year after year to its peak in 1993-94 of 70%. In 1995-96-97, the gun murder rate was 68%. In 1998-99, 2000, it was 65%, and it bottomed out in 2001 at 63%, before going up to 67% in 2002.


looking at the figures, your point is certainly debatable.


What year? The Brady Bill sunlighted at the end of 1999.

No it didn't. It "sunsetted" in '98 when the NICS came into use. You still know nothing about the BB and still think its value is "debatable".

Also from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm):

Another survey (2) found that 41% of adult respondents reported having a firearm in their home in 1994, and 35% did so in 1998.

That is a decrease of 6% between 1994 and 1998, which runs counter to your point, although I do note the years you stated are between 1995 and 2002. Do you have a link to that specific reference?

Also from your link:

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed.

Notice that it just said "respondents". That does not indicate reliable figures on national ownership levels.

Guns. The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 30.7 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 2000 2003
BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2003" (www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/abstract/bcft03.htm).

Gun Owners. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (about 294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have indicated that just under half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents' concerns about "gun control," due perhaps to the policies of the Clinton Administration.
. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).

The very best reason EVER to be against guns: "The future of the shooting sports in this country is in the hands of tomorrow's Outdoorsmen and women. The youth of America must be educated to the Wholesome and valued world of hunting and conservation. Because rock 'n roll plays such a pivotal role in a young person's life, I will share my wonderful lifestyle and experiences with them."
--Ted Nugent

http://www.tnugent.com/tnbio/index.shtml

Freaks the fuck out.

Interesting, I think it has been mentioed eariler in the thread that a lot of the firearms related crime is in fact drug related. Particularly among the 14-26 age group.
It's mainly gang related but because gangs are largely as big as they are because of the illegality and subsequent black market for drugs, You could argue that it is drug-related.

In 1983, the percentage of murders commited with a gun was 58% and the percentage climbed year after year to its peak in 1993-94 of 70%. In 1995-96-97, the gun murder rate was 68%. In 1998-99, 2000, it was 65%, and it bottomed out in 2001 at 63%, before going up to 67% in 2002.
Sir, I posted my source, the FBI.


looking at the figures, your point is certainly debatable.
If you say so.


What year? The Brady Bill sunlighted at the end of 1999.
You did read the quote? It stated "during the Brady years" .So, I would have to assume the originators of the article meant the years during the Brady Law.
Sir, the word is "sunset" Such as the assault weapons ban, which has been dead for over a year, without the corresponding blood in the streets that the hysterical predicted.
Firearms ownership has killed far less people than governments have, of thier own disarmed citizens...

The very best reason EVER to be against guns: "The future of the shooting sports in this country is in the hands of tomorrow's Outdoorsmen and women. The youth of America must be educated to the Wholesome and valued world of hunting and conservation. Because rock 'n roll plays such a pivotal role in a young person's life, I will share my wonderful lifestyle and experiences with them."
--Ted Nugent

http://www.tnugent.com/tnbio/index.shtml

Freaks the fuck out.

Why? Ted Nugent lives a very wholesome life compared to 99% of "entertainers" today, the drugged up, drunk freaks who scream, rant, rage, and mutter wordlessly,(thankfully, the words would send some into catatonia), into microphones while three guys beat the shit out of a garbage can behind them. Terrible Teddie, AKA The Motor City Madman, doesn't do drugs, doesn't get plowed, and lives an outdoorsy style life. Plus he runs a camp for troubled kids, helping them get straightend out - what is so freaky about that? Just because he is pro hunting and pro gun? Gah.

Whatever happened to the chaos that was supposed to occur after the AWB expired? It hasn't shown up in Atlanta. Nor anywhere else that I recall reading about.

Sir, I posted my source, the FBI.
If you say so.
You did read the quote? It stated "during the Brady years" .So, I would have to assume the originators of the article meant the years during the Brady Law.
Sir, the word is "sunset" Such as the assault weapons ban, which has been dead for over a year, without the corresponding blood in the streets that the hysterical predicted.
Firearms ownership has killed far less people than governments have, of thier own disarmed citizens...
It's interesting to see that not every state was included in the Brady bill waiting period provision. Not every city in states that were included was subject to the waiting period, either. That's going to cause a big problem in generalizing nationwide data to fit a narrow claim, isn't it?

From an NRA fact sheet on the Brady bill, we find that these exempted areas account for the majority of violent crime.

I. The Act`s five-day waiting period has never applied to many high-crime states

**Under the Act, states are exempt from the five-day waiting period if their laws require law enforcement officials to conduct records checks to verify that prospective handgun purchasers are eligible to possess handguns. [18 U.S.C. §922(s)(1)(C)(ii)] When President Clinton signed the Act into law in 1993, 18 states and D.C. were automatically "Brady-exempt."

**The 18 states and D.C. that have always been "Brady-exempt" accounted for 63% of violent crimes, including 57% of murders, in the U.S. in 1993. Thus, the Brady Act had no effect on states where the majority of violent crimes were occurring. (Note: Less than 30% of violent crimes are committed with firearms.)

** California had more murders and other violent crimes than any state in 1993. Despite a 15- day waiting period on all firearm sales (retail and private; rifle, pistol and shotgun) its violent crime and murder rates were, respectively, 54% and 46% higher than the rates for the rest of the country. Among U.S. cities, Los Angeles had the the third highest number of violent crimes (83,701), including the second highest number of murders (1,076).

** New York had the second highest number of murders and other violent crimes among the states. Among cities, N.Y.C., which has its own licensing system on top of the state requirement, had the most violent crimes (153,543), including the most murders (1,946). California and New York, just two of the original 18 "Brady-exempt" states, together had more violent crimes than the total of 29, and more murders than the total of 28, of the 32 states originally subject to the five-day wait.

** Other "Brady-exempt" cities and their murder numbers in 1993 included Chicago (handguns banned since 1982), 845; Detroit, 579; Baltimore, 353; St. Louis, 267; Kansas City, 153; Milwaukee, 157; and Oakland, 154. Six of the 10 U.S. cities with the most murders, and 17 of the 30 cities with 100+ murders, in 1993 were "Brady-exempt."

** Today, 31 states and D.C. are "Brady-exempt." Thirteen became exempt since the law took effect 2/28/94, by adopting Instant Check or modifying purchase permit or waiting period laws.

From what I can tell, the Brady bill has been a failure on a few fronts. Most significantly, it has failed because states are acting to become exempt from it. Possibly that may be the causation that we see at work with the reduced rates that Canuck likes to point out. States opting out...

From what I can tell, the Brady bill has been a failure on a few fronts. Most significantly, it has failed because states are acting to become exempt from it. Possibly that may be the causation that we see at work with the reduced rates that Canuck likes to point out. States opting out...
Some interesting facts have come to light and when I get a chance, I will respond to the points raised by the NRA. I think the NRA arguments are superficially attractive but are in reality a super con job.

Do you have a link for the NRA points that you highlighted in your post?

Some interesting facts have come to light and when I get a chance, I will respond to the points raised by the NRA. I think the NRA arguments are superficially attractive but are in reality a super con job.

Do you have a link for the NRA points that you highlighted in your post?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=73

Is this a "con job" in the same way you claimed that under 21's(adolescents) were stopped from buying handguns by the BB even though they haven't been able to since 1968? Or a "con job" in they way you claimed that "crime" levels dropped in coincidence (same year)w/ the passage of the Brady Bill even though it started two years earlier?

Do you have a link for the NRA points that you highlighted in your post?
Sorry about that. That's what happens when I do things before coffee. Thanks to Kecibukia for correcting that error. For kicks, go to www.nraila.org/ and search for Brady. I turned up seven pages in the con-job to discredit the Brady bill.

Sorry about that. That's what happens when I do things before coffee. Thanks to Kecibukia for correcting that error. For kicks, go to www.nraila.org/ and search for Brady. I turned up seven pages in the con-job to discredit the Brady bill.
Okay, I went to the NRA Fact Sheet for the Brady Bill (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=73), and first off, I was unimpressed by their inability to make a proper table. The numbers are out of whack and it is difficult to read the data when presented in such a deplorable fashion. Is it that way on purpose? Even if it is not on purpose, it makes it extremely difficult to make comparisons, and personally, I believe it is part of the con job.

More later.....

Okay, I went to the NRA Fact Sheet for the Brady Bill, and first off, I was unimpressed by their inability to make a proper table. The numbers are out of whack and it is difficult to read the data when presented in such a deplorable fashion. Is it that way on purpose? Even if it is not on purpose, it makes it extremely difficult to make comparisons, and personally, I believe it is part of the con job.

Style over substance fallacy.

If you were really concerned to read it, cut and paste the numbers into Excel, or if you've not got Excel DL OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org), nad use its spreadsheet function.

It doesn't appear to be the blatant con-job like those CDC figures you posted.

Can anyone think of a gun controll measure that actually keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals ? I have been giving alot of thought to it but cant come up with any .What I think reasonable like training and testing for those that wish to carry concealed would not effect criminal access to weapons .
Can anyone think of a law that has been passed or should be passed that would actually keep wearons from the hands of criminals ? Until you can , all the " statistics" are next to worthless .

Okay, I went to the NRA Fact Sheet for the Brady Bill (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=73), and first off, I was unimpressed by their inability to make a proper table. The numbers are out of whack and it is difficult to read the data when presented in such a deplorable fashion. Is it that way on purpose? Even if it is not on purpose, it makes it extremely difficult to make comparisons, and personally, I believe it is part of the con job.

More later.....
I had a hard time making sense of the table until I imported it into Excel. They should be able to do a better job.

On the other hand, I've never been able to make a table that didn't look like crap when I post it here. How does one make a nice, orderly table in NS?