NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Here's the perfect example of how those who want to ban guns think. It doesn't matter if criminals have weapons, only that law-abiding citizens don't have them. In this classic case of poetic justice, one of the primary gun-ban advocates is robbed at gunpoint! :D

NOTE: I got this in an emal, so asking for a link is an exercise in futility! :p


THE KIDS SET HIM UP

Marion Barry Inadvertently Exposes the Fallacy of D.C.'s Gun Ban


Washington, D.C. has a gun ban, and gun bans stop crime. That's the ruse the gun ban lobby and their cronies would have you believe. That's what Washington, D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D) would have you believe. But, in an ironic twist of fate, Barry's anti-gun premise has been challenged by circumstances involving none other than Barry himself.

This week, the ex-mayor was the victim of a violent crime in "gun-free" Washington, D.C. He was robbed at gunpoint by two young men who entered his apartment, held a gun to his head, and robbed him of his wallet, cash, and credit cards. The nearly three-decades-old ban did nothing to protect Barry. Despite the ban, Barry admitted that "guns are everywhere." What he didn't say is that those guns are in the hands of criminals, while the District's law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing them. Clearly, the ban has done nothing to stem the tide of armed criminals carrying out violent crimes.

While not suffering any physical injuries during the ordeal, Barry did indicate that his feelings were hurt. "There is a sort of an unwritten code in Washington, among the underworld and the hustlers and these other guys, that I am their friend....I was a little hurt that this betrayal did happen."

Councilman Barry, himself a convicted felon, says he does not want to prosecute the perpetrators (if they are ever caught), but also says that he will push the city council to pass a bill he introduced that would increase penalties for carrying a gun in the District! Such is the contradictory logic of the ex-mayor. Pass more gun laws, and don't enforce existing ones.

Of course, violent crime in D.C. is nothing new. Homicide had been declining in D.C. before the 1976 ban, but increased after the ban was imposed. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200%. By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate rose only 12% during the same period. Since then, the District has ranked at, or near, the top of the list for highest per capita murder rate of major cities in the nation. If gun bans work, how can this tragic and shameful distinction possibly be?

In the wake of his most recent ordeal, Barry called for a summit of the city's leaders to address the "pandemic" of gun violence in the District. Clearly, he and the law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia would be better served by a summit convened to call for the enactment of S. 1082 and H.R. 1288--the Senate and House versions of the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

As we continually note, this legislation seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia. It would allow these citizens to lawfully defend themselves and their families from violent crime. It is time to pass this critically important and obviously necessary law.

All the poor man wanted to do was smoke his crack in peace. :(

This is going to turn into the same old, Euro vs. American gun debate anyway, so I might as well jump in.

To me, it's unconceivable how anyone would think that more guns are the solution to the situation described above. That is such a quintessentially American point of view I can't even wrap my head around it all.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to 1)apply the existing anti-gun laws and focus on getting guns out of the hands of criminals, or even 2) if it turns out that the existing laws are too lenient, up the penalties for possession of a gun, than to have even more guns in the city? Argh.

All the poor man wanted to do was smoke his crack in peace. :(
ROFLMAO!!! Leave it to you! :D

This is going to turn into the same old, Euro vs. American gun debate anyway, so I might as well jump in.

To me, it's unconceivable how anyone would think that more guns are the solution to the situation described above. That is such a quintessentially American point of view I can't even wrap my head around it all.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to 1)apply the existing anti-gun laws and focus on getting guns out of the hands of criminals, or even 2) if it turns out that the existing laws are too lenient, up the penalties for possession of a gun, than to have even more guns in the city? Argh.
Uh ... no. You need to learn to think like a criminal. "I can get me a gun easy, and none of the sheeple are allowed to have one. Hmm. I can rob anyone I want to!"

Compare to North Carolina, for example: "I can get me a gun, but there's all these sheeple with them concealed carry permits. Man, it would really suck to be shot by some lil ole lady in tennis shoes! Guess I'll just get hgh."

Uh ... no. You need to learn to think like a criminal. "I can get me a gun easy, and none of the sheeple are allowed to have one. Hmm. I can rob anyone I want to!"

Compare to North Carolina, for example: "I can get me a gun, but there's all these sheeple with them concealed carry permits. Man, it would really suck to be shot by some lil ole lady in tennis shoes! Guess I'll just get hgh."

Heh, you made me laugh.:)

But, um, no. See, we have criminals here, too, and whoever is going to break into your apartment to rob you, will certainly not do so at gun point! Not because we're all armed, but because we have really strict gun laws.

ETA: oh, should add that hence, breaking in to rob you isn't too common really. They'll wait till you're not home and break in & rob you then. Much safer for everybody involved.;)

This is going to turn into the same old, Euro vs. American gun debate anyway, so I might as well jump in.

To me, it's unconceivable how anyone would think that more guns are the solution to the situation described above. That is such a quintessentially American point of view I can't even wrap my head around it all.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to 1)apply the existing anti-gun laws and focus on getting guns out of the hands of criminals, or even 2) if it turns out that the existing laws are too lenient, up the penalties for possession of a gun, than to have even more guns in the city? Argh.
Well obviously, if there are more guns, more people will shoot each other and there will be less people, thus less problems.
Duh.

Well obviously, if there are more guns, more people will shoot each other and there will be less people, thus less problems.
Duh.

*slaps head*

Thanks! I finally got it!

Gun bans DO make sense, however several other initiatives must be taken on by the government as well. D C, remember, has been horrible at controlling crime. Here in New York City we have fairly good gun laws (which the mayor is pushing to be made stricter) and crime continues to lower, making us the safest big city in the US. It's not that bans are bad, it's that cities must improve overall. Also, a major problem are loose gun laws in many other parts of the country. Several violent crimes here in the last few months, including the murder of two cops, were done with OUT OF STATE guns. If the rest of the country improved gun laws, crimes in cities would drop with a lack of a source to buy them easily from.

I think we just have to look towards Switzerland. Almost every single person has a gun, legally, and because of that not only is there almost no crime, but they actually made the Nazis think twice about invading their country (and they didnt end up invading)!!!

I mean come on, if it works for Switzerland, it should work for America.

I think we just have to look towards Switzerland. Almost every single person has a gun, legally, and because of that not only is there almost no crime, but they actually made the Nazis think twice about invading their country (and they didnt end up invading)!!!

I mean come on, if it works for Switzerland, it should work for America.
I doubt the Blietzkrieg was afraid of a few armed Swiss. Didn't stop them from invading everyone else.

I doubt the Blietzkrieg was afraid of a few armed Swiss. Didn't stop them from invading everyone else.
The problem was, Switzerland is mountainous (meaning they couldn't use their tanks very effectively), and because of that, well suited for a defensive guerrilla campaign.

"Where there is mutal fear, men think twice before they make agression upon an other"-Plato

When people are able to defend them selfs, then they are also not going to attack..

In much as the same way, what is most likley, a buffed up guy fighting with a weak guy, or two buffed up guys fighting each other?
When both can get hurt, noen want to start..

But I think that they ought to enforce the lows not make more of them.
Take away all guns

Also, the Swiss helped the nazis anyway by giving them access to bank accounts without the owner's permission, so they basically kept them happy.

What they need to do is not ban ALL guns, but go after the ones that are most commonly used with crimes. They need to go after guns that are readily available on the blackmarket, such as the TEC-DC9 and AK-47. Seriously, no criminal is going to rob you with a flint-action musket, a WW2 bolt action rifle, or an M-16 for that matter.

I want to preface this statement by saying that I think gun bans don't work, but that more gun control, especially in urban areas, is generally a good idea.

The basis of the story Eutrusca posted is accurate--I read the story myself in another paper. Marion Barry was robbed at gunpoint, and he was a gun ban activist in the past, and may well continue to be. Eutrusca's article sets up a number of straw men (the gun ban lobby believes gun bans stop crime, for instance) that betrays a severe bias toward less gun control, and Eutrusca's opposite assumption--that had the mayor been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed--also has serious problems.

It's very possible that had Barry been armed and tried to resist that he'd have wound up dead instead of just shy a few bucks and some credit cards.

There's a legitimate debate to be had here, but you're not going to get there by making ludicrous assumptions about the opinions of those who disagree with you.

What they need to do is not ban ALL guns, but go after the ones that are most commonly used with crimes. They need to go after guns that are readily available on the blackmarket, such as the TEC-DC9 and AK-47. Seriously, no criminal is going to rob you with a flint-action musket, a WW2 bolt action rifle, or an M-16 for that matter.

Ban the AK but not the M16? wtf they're both Assault Rifles. And for the reccord why the fuck would anyone need an automatic weapon to defend themselves? or an Assault rifle?

I want to preface this statement by saying that I think gun bans don't work, but that more gun control, especially in urban areas, is generally a good idea.

The basis of the story Eutrusca posted is accurate--I read the story myself in another paper. Marion Barry was robbed at gunpoint, and he was a gun ban activist in the past, and may well continue to be. Eutrusca's article sets up a number of straw men (the gun ban lobby believes gun bans stop crime, for instance) that betrays a severe bias toward less gun control, and Eutrusca's opposite assumption--that had the mayor been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed--also has serious problems.

It's very possible that had Barry been armed and tried to resist that he'd have wound up dead instead of just shy a few bucks and some credit cards.

There's a legitimate debate to be had here, but you're not going to get there by making ludicrous assumptions about the opinions of those who disagree with you.

Tells it like it is.

I want to preface this statement by saying that I think gun bans don't work, but that more gun control, especially in urban areas, is generally a good idea.

The basis of the story Eutrusca posted is accurate--I read the story myself in another paper. Marion Barry was robbed at gunpoint, and he was a gun ban activist in the past, and may well continue to be. Eutrusca's article sets up a number of straw men (the gun ban lobby believes gun bans stop crime, for instance) that betrays a severe bias toward less gun control, and Eutrusca's opposite assumption--that had the mayor been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed--also has serious problems.

It's very possible that had Barry been armed and tried to resist that he'd have wound up dead instead of just shy a few bucks and some credit cards.

There's a legitimate debate to be had here, but you're not going to get there by making ludicrous assumptions about the opinions of those who disagree with you.
That there is logic, don't let them here you say it. It drives them crazy; they will tear you apart.

Right on Nazz!

In Finland there are over two million licensed firearms and an estimated quarter of a million unlicensed firearms. Firearms are present in approximately one-quarter of Finnish homes, with most firearms licensed for hunting. Firearm statistics include signalling pistols, which are very common as boating and yachting are popular sports in the country.

Sound suppressors, a firearm accessory strictly regulated in many other jurisdictions, are also available in Finland. Their use is not regulated. Their use can be considered to reduce the noise pollution that firearms otherwise produce, although this is not a serious problem, since most ranges are located in remote locations. They also remove the need to use hearing protection while shooting. Silencers are not a major topic in Finnish gun control debates as they are almost never used in crimes.

Private ownership of Tear gas or Pepper spray is licensed for the purposes of personal protection, collection, training, or education. It must be noted, however that "personal protection", education or training are not valid reasons to get a licence for a private person but apply only to security companies. Any usual need for professional use of guns should be covered with incapacitating agents, but for high risk facilities such as nuclear plants, security guards may get a firearm license.

Black powder firearms manufactured prior to 1890 are free to be possessed without regulation, but for firing them one must possess a firearms license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland


And yet Finland is not a violent country.

What they need to do is not ban ALL guns, but go after the ones that are most commonly used with crimes. They need to go after guns that are readily available on the blackmarket, such as the TEC-DC9 and AK-47. Seriously, no criminal is going to rob you with a flint-action musket, a WW2 bolt action rifle, or an M-16 for that matter.
I've been a half-ass criminal and most of the guns I've seen on the street and carried myself have been pistols, not AKs and Tec 9s.

Uh ... no. You need to learn to think like a criminal. "I can get me a gun easy, and none of the sheeple are allowed to have one. Hmm. I can rob anyone I want to!"

Compare to North Carolina, for example: "I can get me a gun, but there's all these sheeple with them concealed carry permits. Man, it would really suck to be shot by some lil ole lady in tennis shoes! Guess I'll just get hgh."
the thing is not to ban guns only in DC, but in the whole country. it is a lot harder to get a gun across the border then it is to get one into DC.

In Finland there are over two million licensed firearms and an estimated quarter of a million unlicensed firearms. Firearms are present in approximately one-quarter of Finnish homes, with most firearms licensed for hunting. Firearm statistics include signalling pistols, which are very common as boating and yachting are popular sports in the country.

Sound suppressors, a firearm accessory strictly regulated in many other jurisdictions, are also available in Finland. Their use is not regulated. Their use can be considered to reduce the noise pollution that firearms otherwise produce, although this is not a serious problem, since most ranges are located in remote locations. They also remove the need to use hearing protection while shooting. Silencers are not a major topic in Finnish gun control debates as they are almost never used in crimes.

Private ownership of Tear gas or Pepper spray is licensed for the purposes of personal protection, collection, training, or education. It must be noted, however that "personal protection", education or training are not valid reasons to get a licence for a private person but apply only to security companies. Any usual need for professional use of guns should be covered with incapacitating agents, but for high risk facilities such as nuclear plants, security guards may get a firearm license.

Black powder firearms manufactured prior to 1890 are free to be possessed without regulation, but for firing them one must possess a firearms license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland


And yet Finland is not a violent country.

What's 'the average' Finn like? What's Finland like? Many big cities? Many folk of wildy different races and cultural heritage living side by side? Densely populated? Heavily populated? To what extent is the economic disparagy between Finns?

I don't think it's always useful to directly compare conditions of xyz across countries without bearing in mind the different contexts that xyz takes place in in the 2 countries.

the thing is not to ban guns only in DC, but in the whole country. it is a lot harder to get a gun across the border then it is to get one into DC.
I think we should start convicting people in surrounding areas who sell guns to people who live in the DC area.

the thing is not to ban guns only in DC, but in the whole country. it is a lot harder to get a gun across the border then it is to get one into DC.

(Ok, I'm un-lurking for this one.)

ER.. you are aware the the US-Canadian boarder is almost entirely unguarded, and the US-Mexican boarder is porous enough to allow in thousands of illegals a month?

Banning guns is like banning alcohol or drugs. Its an exercise in futility.

There's a legitimate debate to be had here, but you're not going to get there by making ludicrous assumptions about the opinions of those who disagree with you.

Umm, it's an article cut&paste thread by Eut. There never was an interest in this becoming a debate, at all.

What they need to do is not ban ALL guns, but go after the ones that are most commonly used with crimes. They need to go after guns that are readily available on the blackmarket, such as the TEC-DC9 and AK-47. Seriously, no criminal is going to rob you with a flint-action musket, a WW2 bolt action rifle, or an M-16 for that matter.

That was done already during the Clinton Administration, the wholly worthless Assault Weapons ban. Not only did crime not go up when it lapsed, but it continued to go DOWN. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

Also, assault weapons, sub machines guns and the like are used in less than 2% of all violent crime. Far and away, the most common weapon is (an illegally acquired) semi-automatic pistol.

Also, since when does banning something stop it? How easy is it to get Marajuana where you are? Or beer when you were underaged?

Now why is it that if there's a shooting, people start screaming about banning guns, whereas if there is a drunk driver, no one demands banning alcohol or cars??

In the U.S. criminals obtain firearms by robbing the houses of the people who have (legally) purchased over 500,000,000 firearms ... that's half a billion guns !

Do you honestly think crack addicts walk into a firearm dealership and buy them ? No, they break in to John Suburban's house and steal them, then go shoot someone John Suburban knows, so he goes and buys another gun so he can feel "protected" ... and so on.

In the U.S. criminals obtain firearms by robbing the houses of the people who have (legally) purchased over 500,000,000 firearms ... that's half a billion guns !

Do you honestly think crack addicts walk into a firearm dealership and buy them ? No, they break in to John Suburban's house and steal them, then go shoot someone John Suburban knows, so he goes and buys another gun so he can feel "protected" ... and so on.
Crackheads don't carry guns. I know several of them. Crackheads are more likely to sell or trade any guns they have than to use them. See, they need to get money quick for that next hit, and the dealer will usually take a gun in trade.

Crackheads also don't usually make it out to the suburbs. They don't have cars and clean licenses.

Clearly, not enough guns are being banned. If DC didn't import them from Virginia and Maryland, then gun crime would vanish. Geez, I don't see any problems with that logic.

Crackheads don't carry guns. I know several of them. Crackheads are more likely to sell or trade any guns they have than to use them. See, they need to get money quick for that next hit, and the dealer will usually take a gun in trade.

Crackheads also don't usually make it out to the suburbs. They don't have cars and clean licenses.
Indeed.

Most violent crime is not committed with a firearm. 89 percent of rapes, for instance, are committed with no weapon whatsoever.

That, and our gun violence rates have plummeted over the past 10 years, while gun ownership has skyrocketed (increased by 50 percent) and the number of states that allow concealed carry grew from 12 to 35 states.

It's not the guns causing crime - it's other social conditions.

As an example, blacks experience just over half the firearm violence and firearm murder, and there's a 98 percent chance that the attacker is also black.

Black on black violence. If guns were the cause of crime, then whites would be affected at the same rate as blacks - but they most certainly are not. Neither are Hispanics or Asians.

Generally speaking, you usually hear proposals for gun bans coming from the mouths of people who have no idea what causes crime, what causes violence, or what social problems actually exist in their cities. They only want to pass feel-good legislation.

So, if you make guns illegal, criminals will stop geting them?

How has that worked with drug trafficing?

When you outlaw an item, you make it more desirable. Forbidden fruit always tastes the best.

I'd much rather see people deal with the issues of why some feel the need to rob others or attack them in the first place. You know, treat the disease rather than the symptom.

So, if you make guns illegal, criminals will stop geting them?

How has that worked with drug trafficing?
Most illegal drugs are less dangerous than legal ones, but drugs are another debate entirely, even in your context.

Umm, it's an article cut&paste thread by Eut. There never was an interest in this becoming a debate, at all.
Yeah, I know, but I always have hopes that the threads can turn into a substantive debate in spite of the intentions of the original poster.

Yeah, I know, but I always have hopes that the threads can turn into a substantive debate in spite of the intentions of the original poster.
Dream on, Mr. Wonka, dream on.

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy where surrounded by people with guns and still managed to get shot.

The American West was riddled with guns and all kinds of people got shot.

It seems like a logical leap to say that more guns would mean less people being shot.

I would argue that actually it's not the guns so much as the above attitude about guns that is one of the key problems. Everytime I see someone saying guns enforce a 'polite' society, implying that a gun would be pulled for simply rude behavior, that attitude about guns seems to be more the problem than anything.

Ban the AK but not the M16? wtf they're both Assault Rifles. And for the reccord why the fuck would anyone need an automatic weapon to defend themselves? or an Assault rifle?
There's no such thing as "too much" firepower! :D

I want to preface this statement by saying that I think gun bans don't work, but that more gun control, especially in urban areas, is generally a good idea.

The basis of the story Eutrusca posted is accurate--I read the story myself in another paper. Marion Barry was robbed at gunpoint, and he was a gun ban activist in the past, and may well continue to be. Eutrusca's article sets up a number of straw men (the gun ban lobby believes gun bans stop crime, for instance) that betrays a severe bias toward less gun control, and Eutrusca's opposite assumption--that had the mayor been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed--also has serious problems.

It's very possible that had Barry been armed and tried to resist that he'd have wound up dead instead of just shy a few bucks and some credit cards.

There's a legitimate debate to be had here, but you're not going to get there by making ludicrous assumptions about the opinions of those who disagree with you.
You ... you ... you can reason! [ faints! ] :D

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy where surrounded by people with guns and still managed to get shot.

The American West was riddled with guns and all kinds of people got shot.

It seems like a logical leap to say that more guns would mean less people being shot.

I would argue that actually it's not the guns so much as the above attitude about guns that is one of the key problems. Everytime I see someone saying guns enforce a 'polite' society, implying that a gun would be pulled for simply rude behavior, that attitude about guns seems to be more the problem than anything.


It's not a logical leap to say that more guns means less people being shot.

It's true in the US.

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif
Nonfatal firearm-related violent victimization rate has also fallen.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.gif
The proportion of nonfatal incidents involving a firearm have declined.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.gif

From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined 36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms.

All of this at a time when the number of firearms actively owned by Americans rose from 200 million firearms to 300 million firearms.

More guns - and falling violent crime, falling use of firearms in crime, falling murder rate...

You were saying?

You were saying?
I was saying I'd need more of a causality connection as there are numerous things that would influence those statistics, especially since the statistics imply that all but 50 million people in the US owns a gun.

Well obviously, if there are more guns, more people will shoot each other and there will be less people, thus less problems.
Duh.
Exactly!

Guns don't kill people, people kill people! So what makes more sense is to have lots and lots of guns and ban people.

Basically, what we really need to get violence down is a civil, guerilla war. We can all kill each other, and there will be no more gun-related crimes. Furthurmore, since most people will have guns, and most people with guns will die when fighting, there will be more guns than people, and the peaceful guns will rule the land in harmony.

All of this at a time when the number of firearms actively owned by Americans rose from 200 million firearms to 300 million firearms.

More guns - and falling violent crime, falling use of firearms in crime, falling murder rate...

You were saying?
Are you saying, then, that the extra 100 million firearms introduced into the country created those dramatic effects on crime rates? Unreasonable. The change in firearms would be far too small in comparison with the change in crime rates. However, violent crimes with firearms is only relatively proportional. Maybe, just maybe, did you consider the change could be because of changes in attitude?

You have a weapon. Your victim carries a gun and is trained to use it. Question: do you attack/mug/rob him anyway?

Oh yeah, and also for the purpose of this question, you have a practical interest in self preservation.

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy where surrounded by people with guns and still managed to get shot.

The American West was riddled with guns and all kinds of people got shot.

It seems like a logical leap to say that more guns would mean less people being shot.

I would argue that actually it's not the guns so much as the above attitude about guns that is one of the key problems. Everytime I see someone saying guns enforce a 'polite' society, implying that a gun would be pulled for simply rude behavior, that attitude about guns seems to be more the problem than anything.
You were once called "Chess Squares," weren't you!

Those who legally own guns contribute a miniscule percentage to the total number of crimes comitted with guns. For one thing, it's almost ridiculously easy to prove that a fatal bullet came from a registered gun. And in North Carolina, for example, you have to jump through an incredible number of hoops to qualify for a concealed handgun permit.

I was saying I'd need more of a causality connection as there are numerous things that would influence those statistics, especially since the statistics imply that all but 50 million people in the US owns a gun.

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.
So much for the theory that the majority of criminals are running around with guns.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.
Interesting, eh?

Males, blacks and Hispanics, the young, and those with the
lowest annual household income were more vulnerable to
weapon violence in general and firearm violence in
particular than their respective counterparts.
So guns don't seem to be the risk factor - there seems to be a set of social problems that drive it.

For the 9-year period beginning with 1993, 23% of white
victims of violence and 36% of black victims were victims
of violence involving an offender armed with a weapon.
About 7% of white victims and 17% of black victims were
involved in incidents in which an offender was armed with
a gun.

Forty-five percent of all violence with a weapon involved
victims between ages 25 and 49, and 38% involved victims
between ages 15 and 24.

Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
victims of gun-related homicides (25 per 100,000 blacks
age 12 or older versus 3 per 100,000 whites.)

Age, race, and gender seem to have more to do with violence. Of course, it's not politically correct to say so, even if the statistics bear it out. Like this:

From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

While victimizations involving knives comprised 6% of all
violent crimes resulting in an injury, these victimizations
accounted for about 24% of all serious injuries experienced
by crime victims.
Oooh... sounds like knives are weapons, too...

The most common locales for armed violence and gun violence
were the streets: those away from the victim' home (30% of
violence with a weapon and 35% of gun violence) and those at
or near the victim's home (27% of armed violence and 25% of
gun violence).

Most violence involving a weapon and most firearm violence
occurred while the victims were engaged in leisure activities
away from home (27% and 27%)and commuting to work (23% and 25%,
respectively).
So much for the idea that you're shot at home with your own weapon, or shot at home by your relatives. Looks like most people went outside and were shot by someone else.

Are you saying, then, that the extra 100 million firearms introduced into the country created those dramatic effects on crime rates? Unreasonable. The change in firearms would be far too small in comparison with the change in crime rates. However, violent crimes with firearms is only relatively proportional. Maybe, just maybe, did you consider the change could be because of changes in attitude?

I think Kimchi's point was more that an increase in firearms did not result in an increase in firearm related violence - not that the increase in firearms drove crime down...

course, I may be wrong about Kimchi's intent but that is the more likely conclusion to be drawn from the statistics presented...

What they need to do is not ban ALL guns, but go after the ones that are most commonly used with crimes. They need to go after guns that are readily available on the blackmarket, such as the TEC-DC9 and AK-47. Seriously, no criminal is going to rob you with a flint-action musket, a WW2 bolt action rifle, or an M-16 for that matter.

i would bet the vast majority of crimes committed with guns are handguns.

the ak-47 is no different then a m-16,it is a semi auto rifle,no different then any semi auto hunting rifle(caliber wise) with the exception of a large capacity magazine.
and if pressed,i could make a large cap mag for a hunting rifle with some basic tools,as i could make a gun with not much effort.

i ahve one of those "evil" guns,and firstly,i would never shoot at someone with it, except in self defense,and even then it would be my last choice.

i have it because 1.it is my right 2. i love military type weapons 3.it is fun as hell to target shoot with.

if i were so inclined to be a crimminal or just wanted to defend myself from a crimminal,i would use a large caliber handgun or a shotgun for defense.

if i wanted to be a crimminal then i would probably have a sawed off shotgun and say the hell with the law...because you know..i am a crimminal,i don;t obey laws,as the point of the post indicates.

i do love the irony that the idiot mayor was robbed at gunpoint in his gun banned city!

also love the part where he basically brags about how he knows all sorts of lowlifes and is "hurt" that they robbed him,guess crack smoking,whore chasing corrupt politicos should get a free pass,whilst the honest disarmed citizens deserve it.
that dude is a complete twit:mp5:

I think Kimchi's point was more that an increase in firearms did not result in an increase in firearm related violence - not that the increase in firearms drove crime down...

course, I may be wrong about Kimchi's intent but that is the more likely conclusion to be drawn from the statistics presented...

50 percent increase in the number of guns - 63 percent decrease in firearm violence.

If we remove black on black violence, the number of gun crimes drops even further - while barely making a dent in the rate of firearms ownership (legal ownership).

While I can't assert to a gold standard that more guns = less crime, I can say that there is NO such thing as more guns = more crime in the United States. In fact, one could say that there are economic and social issues of far, far greater import than the mere existence of guns that have far more to do with firearm violence and firearm murder.

50 percent increase in the number of guns - 63 percent decrease in firearm violence.

If we remove black on black violence, the number of gun crimes drops even further - while barely making a dent in the rate of firearms ownership (legal ownership).

While I can't assert to a gold standard that more guns = less crime, I can say that there is NO such thing as more guns = more crime in the United States. In fact, one could say that there are economic and social issues of far, far greater import than the mere existence of guns that have far more to do with firearm violence and firearm murder.
So, do you plan to actually respond to my post, or are you going to take potshots at other people continuing to make the same theory I question?

Are you saying, then, that the extra 100 million firearms introduced into the country created those dramatic effects on crime rates?
I feel they were a part of it. The most dramatic changes have occurred in states that have liberalized concealed carry permits.
The change in firearms would be far too small in comparison with the change in crime rates.
50 percent increase in firearms, 63 percent decrease in firearms violence.

Answer your question?

So much for the theory that the majority of criminals are running around with guns.


Interesting, eh?


So guns don't seem to be the risk factor - there seems to be a set of social problems that drive it.



Age, race, and gender seem to have more to do with violence. Of course, it's not politically correct to say so, even if the statistics bear it out. Like this:




Oooh... sounds like knives are weapons, too...


So much for the idea that you're shot at home with your own weapon, or shot at home by your relatives. Looks like most people went outside and were shot by someone else.
None of this really addresses what I said, I think you quoted the wrong person.

I feel they were a part of it. The most dramatic changes have occurred in states that have liberalized concealed carry permits.

50 percent increase in firearms, 63 percent decrease in firearms violence.

Answer your question?
Over an 8 to 11 year period? In a nation with 200 million guns already, 100 million more guns made an extreme dramatic difference? Nigh impossible. It makes less sense than saying there was a change in attitude.

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy where surrounded by people with guns and still managed to get shot.

Reagan was fluke. And do you really want to bring the conspiracy nuts out with the JFK assassination?

The American West was riddled with guns and all kinds of people got shot.

Actually, it wasn't nearly as bad as the movies lead us to believe. There weren't shoot outs in the middle of twon every day at noon.

Several towns were over all violent places, but thats because of incompetent or just plain criminal people being in charge of law enforcement.

It seems like a logical leap to say that more guns would mean less people being shot.

No, it means you're more likely to get shot when you try and violate the rights of another. Which means you are going to be less likely to do so.

I would argue that actually it's not the guns so much as the above attitude about guns that is one of the key problems. Everytime I see someone saying guns enforce a 'polite' society, implying that a gun would be pulled for simply rude behavior, that attitude about guns seems to be more the problem than anything.

I agree its the attitude about guns. But also, our attitudes towards each other in general.

No one is advocating the we walk around like Billy the Kid with a six shooter strapped to our hips. Just a tool to help protect our families and homes.

Over an 8 to 11 year period? In a nation with 200 million guns already, 100 million more guns made an extreme dramatic difference? Nigh impossible. It makes less sense than saying there was a change in attitude.
It does, however, eliminate the argument that more guns equals more violent crime.

Permanently.

Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy where surrounded by people with guns and still managed to get shot.

The American West was riddled with guns and all kinds of people got shot.

It seems like a logical leap to say that more guns would mean less people being shot.

I would argue that actually it's not the guns so much as the above attitude about guns that is one of the key problems. Everytime I see someone saying guns enforce a 'polite' society, implying that a gun would be pulled for simply rude behavior, that attitude about guns seems to be more the problem than anything.

So... the other 41 "unshot" Presidents means that guns have kept our Chief Executive safe 95.34% of the time over the last 230 years, or an incident averaging once every 115 years. :D

BTW: Ever been to Dallas? No way Oswald made that shot. Definitely multiple gunmen.

It does, however, eliminate the argument that more guns equals more violent crime.

Permanently.

No it doesn't. It could be that more guns lead to more violent crime but this was more than cancelled out by a change of attitude. For all you know if the number of guns had decreased then the levels of vilent crime might have decreased even further.

That eliminates your argument.

Permanently.

the america idea against gun control, is not only defense against criminals, but defense against soveriegn criminals (aka the govenrment).

that is the very purpose of the 2nd ammendmant of the constitution. the second we allow our military and police to become better armed then the genearl people, the more powerful they become, and the more often shit like waco and ruby ridge happen.

No it doesn't. It could be that more guns lead to more violent crime but this was more than cancelled out by a change of attitude. For all you know if the number of guns had decreased then the levels of vilent crime might have decreased even further.

That eliminates your argument.

Permanently.

I guess that's why violent crime in the UK has gone up in the last ten years then?

An actual arguement (even though there are more legally owned firearms, crime has decreased) is superior to a potential arguement ( crime 'might' have decreased more if there were less legally owned firearms) BTW.

No it doesn't. It could be that more guns lead to more violent crime but this was more than cancelled out by a change of attitude. For all you know if the number of guns had decreased then the levels of vilent crime might have decreased even further.

That eliminates your argument.

Permanently.

Oh, it certainly does eliminate the "more guns = more crime" - there's no way around it.

You're engaged in wishful thinking.

Reagan was fluke. And do you really want to bring the conspiracy nuts out with the JFK assassination?

It's kinda weird that the minute something is a "conspiracy" it's automatically untrue.

Gun bans DO make sense, however several other initiatives must be taken on by the government as well. D C, remember, has been horrible at controlling crime. Here in New York City we have fairly good gun laws (which the mayor is pushing to be made stricter) and crime continues to lower, making us the safest big city in the US. It's not that bans are bad, it's that cities must improve overall. Also, a major problem are loose gun laws in many other parts of the country. Several violent crimes here in the last few months, including the murder of two cops, were done with OUT OF STATE guns. If the rest of the country improved gun laws, crimes in cities would drop with a lack of a source to buy them easily from.
Haven't seen the latest, have you. Some interesting goings on with NYC's record keeping. Seems things like stolen property reports keep getting misfiled into the lost category. I wonder why that would be. Besides which the only real reason for your decrease in crime beyond the national average is because you have the most police per capita of any medium to major city in the US.

It's kinda weird that the minute something is a "conspiracy" it's automatically untrue.
Here's the only problem I have with the Warren Commission report.

The first problem was to see whether Oswald could have fired three shots in 5.6 seconds. This time was determined from the film of the assassination. Because the assassin's view of the President was blocked by the oak tree until film frame 207, this was assumed to be the earliest point at which the President could have been shot. On film frame 313, the last shot is clearly discernable. Using frame 210 as the earliest point, as the Report does, a maximum of 103 film frames elapsed between the first and last shot, and, since the camera speed was 18.3 frames per second, the maximum times that elapsed was 5.6 seconds. Thus it remained to be seen whether Oswals was capable of accurately firing the rifle three times in 5.6 seconds.

The rifle tests held by the FBI and Army were an important part of the evidence. The first tests with Oswald's rifle were conducted on Nov 27, 1963, by the FBI. Each of three rifle experts fired three shots at a stationary target fifteen yards away (not a moving target up to 85 yards away). All the shots were high and to the right of the aiming point. The first shooter's firing time was 9 seconds. The second's was 8 seconds, and the last was 6 seconds. Thus none of the FBI experts equaled Oswald's time despite the fact that their target was stationary and only fifteen yards away, whereas Oswald's was moving and changing range from 60 to 85 yards.

Later the same day, the FBI experts fired two more series of shots to determine how fast the weapon could be fired without aiming. The first series of three shots was fired in 4.8 seconds, and the second in 4.6 seconds. They testified that firing in 4.6 seconds is "firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated".

The final FBI tests were held at Quantico, Virginia, on March 16, 1964. The FBI fired three series of shots at a target 100 yards away. The time for the first series was 5.9 seconds; for the second series 6.2 seconds, and for the third 6.5 seconds. Not only did the FBI fail to equal the time, but all of the shots missed. The FBI explained in testimony that the inaccuracy was due to an uncorrectable mechanical deficiency in the scope sights - that is, the weapon could not be aimed accurately by anyone.

The Warren Commission was not happy with this answer, and so it arranged for the Army Ballistic Research Lab to conduct further tests on March 27, 1964. Three rifle experts, all of whom held Master rifle ratings from the National Rifle Association (about as good as it gets) fired at three silhouette targets located at distances matching the distances of the Presidential limousine from the source of the shots during the assassination.

Hendrix fired his first series of three shots in 8.25 seconds and missed the second target. He fired his second series in 7.0 seconds and missed the third target. Staley fired his first series in 6.75 seconds and his second series in 6.45 seconds - both times he missed the second target. Miller was the only expert to equal Oswald's time - he fired his first series in 4.6 seconds and his second series in 5.5 seconds, although he missed the second target both times. Miller later fired a third series, using the standard iron sights after removing the telescopic sights - he fired three shots in 4.45 seconds, but the third shot went wild.

Although the Army tests demonstrated that it was at least possible to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds, three factors must be taken into account in evaluating these tests - factors that were NEVER addressed by the Warren Commission.

1. Experts were timed only from the sound of the first shot to the sound of the last shot. This meant that they had unlimited time to aim at the first target and pull the trigger before they were timed. The assassin, however, only had 5.6 seconds for all three shots from the moment the car first became visible, and thus his aiming time has to be included in the total. This is a significant factor. For example, if it is assumed that it took the assassin one second to react, aim, and pull the trigger, he only had 4.6 seconds, not 5.6 seconds, to fire. Thus, in order to make comparisons, this aiming factor must be added to the expert's time.

2. The experts were firing at stationary targets, while the assassin was firing at a moving target. All experts testified that a moving target would have slowed down the shooting - at least 1 second per shot. This testimony was later dropped from the Warren Commission report for reasons unknown.

3. When the Army experts found that the sights on the rifle could not be accurately used or adjusted to get the rifle on target, they repaired the scope mounts by placing shims on the mount in order to get the rifle on target. That is, the rifle was completely inaccurate before testing, and only after major repairs was the rifle capable of hitting anything at all. Thus, the experts fired the rifles with accurate sights, whereas, so far as is known, the user of the rifle fired with inaccurate sights.

To date, no examination of the shooting, no recreation of the shooting, and no computer simulation of the shooting has addressed these issues: firing a inaccurately sighted rifle with the skill superior to most Master marksmen in less time than has been demonstrated.

Heck in the past 2 years ARF has accumulated 5 firearms. Wonder if violent crime increased......Naw......

To me, it's unconceivable how anyone would think that more guns are the solution to the situation described above. That is such a quintessentially American point of view I can't even wrap my head around it all.

Indeed. I always find it a little surprising that many Americans seem to think everyone having guns is a good thing. One would think that, at best, they could argue along the following lines: Allowing everyone to have guns in the first place has created a violent and dangerous situation, which, arguably, should be addressed by allowing people to have guns to defend themselves. But few Americans seem willing to acknowledge that they got themselves into this mess by allowing everyone to carry guns in the first place.

The US has the highest gun crime rate per capita in the Western world. Over here in France, people don't carry guns... and, guess what, there's no gun crime!

Heck in the past 2 years ARF has accumulated 5 firearms. Wonder if violent crime increased......Naw......

*Commends ARF *

I've had firearms since before I could drive, that said:

Allowing everyone to have guns in the first place has created a violent and dangerous situation

iAdmit and Concur.


Over here in France, people don't carry guns... and, guess what, there's no gun crime!

Good for France, we have about 100 or so years of gun violence under our belts. Nothings going to change, and frankly it would feel eerie if the gun violence stopped within the next year.

>I support gun rights, but I encourage strict concealed carry laws & easy access to permits for civil self-defense.
> I would support PR campaigns to show the advantages of using knifes in defense over something as powerful as a firearm.
Thorough background checks, and a max of 10 allowed firearms, with the exception collectors permits are common logic.

Meh.

Never touched one, never want to, never want to have to.
Here you go, three reasons why I would never consider moving to the US.

Apart from that, I found that Americans tick differently than Europeans. If their idea of a safe country is one where every idiot can have a gun without even having to prove that he knows how to handle it safely and not accidentally shoot his kids instead of the assumed criminal, that's fine by me. I neither have to live there nor do I ever have to visit.

The US has the highest gun crime rate per capita in the Western world. Over here in France, people don't carry guns... and, guess what, there's no gun crime![/QUOTE]


Gonna wish you had some when the Muslim population decides to quit burning cars and start burning Frenchmen.

@Cabra: No one would just pull out a pistol and say " Seee! Touch it! Shoot it! " In all my years, the only time I've seen guns are when I was:

> At a range.
> Hunting.
> Buying a gun.
> On a Cops belt.

every idiot can have a gun without even having to prove that he knows how to handle it safely and not accidentally shoot his kids instead of the assumed criminal, that's fine by me.

Heh, you make it sound like a good thing! Idiots shoot Idiots Offspring, and then get sentenced to death = Less Idiots. Leaving more respondsible owners.

I neither have to live there nor do I ever have to visit.

Nicest thing I've heard out of a European on this topic. *hands Cabra a cookie*

@Cabra: No one would just pull out a pistol and say " Seee! Touch it! Shoot it! " In all my years, the only time I've seen guns are when I was:

> At a range.
> Hunting.
> Buying a gun.
> On a Cops belt.


No ranges here.
Don't know any hunters.
Can't and won't buy a gun... and I've never seen any place selling them here, anyway.
Police don't carry firearms here :D


Heh, you make it sound like a good thing! Idiots shoot Idiots Offspring, and then get sentenced to death = Less Idiots. Leaving more respondsible owners.

True, but who says he doesn't accidentally shoot the intellctual neighbour's offspring? ;)


Nicest thing I've heard out of a European on this topic. *hands Cabra a cookie*

*eats cookie
Thanks. :)

Gonna wish you had some when the Muslim population decides to quit burning cars and start burning Frenchmen.

In that case the Muslims would be armed too, so it all cancels out.

No ranges here.
Don't know any hunters.
Can't and won't buy a gun... and I've never seen any place selling them here, anyway.
Police don't carry firearms here :D


Was just trying to make the point that everytime I've seen a firearm, its been out of choice - otherwise they were out of sight.

True, but who says he doesn't accidentally shoot the intellctual neighbour's offspring? ;)



Intellectual should know better to move in next to crazed-stupid gun owner.

Criminals exist and thrive because of the over-endulgence of society as a whole. Bans on guns, death penalty or anything else will all be issues that criminals use and abuse to their advantage.

Some countries feel better about themselves because they take a high a moral ground on some of these subjects, but in the end banning guns or such does nothing to curtail gun related crime.

So then lets turn to the other side of the coin. Does having more legal guns in a society cut down on crime? Yes it does. But it does so at an expense. More legal guns equals more gun related accidents. So if a country chooses this option, the criminal thinks twice about robbing the grand mother from Texas who probably has a compact 9mm in her purse. But there is that risk that the grandkids will find the gun this weekend when they visit and we have a tragic accident.

Bottom Line:
- I respect every country's right to pursue the course they think is right for them based on the situation they are trying to deal with.
- As for me and my country (United States) and especially my state (Texas), we choose to have guns legal. For the place we live and the lifestyle that we have, this is what we think works best for us.
- And above all, I wish those who don't live where I do would just STFU about our gun laws. You run your corner of the world your way, and we shall do likewise.

- And above all, I wish those who don't live where I do would just STFU about our gun laws. You run your corner of the world your way, and we shall do likewise.

No. I will continue to critique your country and debate it's laws. As is my right.

Criminals exist and thrive because of the over-endulgence of society as a whole. Bans on guns, death penalty or anything else will all be issues that criminals use and abuse to their advantage.

Some countries feel better about themselves because they take a high a moral ground on some of these subjects, but in the end banning guns or such does nothing to curtail gun related crime.

So then lets turn to the other side of the coin. Does having more legal guns in a society cut down on crime? Yes it does. But it does so at an expense. More legal guns equals more gun related accidents. So if a country chooses this option, the criminal thinks twice about robbing the grand mother from Texas who probably has a compact 9mm in her purse. But there is that risk that the grandkids will find the gun this weekend when they visit and we have a tragic accident.

Bottom Line:
- I respect every country's right to pursue the course they think is right for them based on the situation they are trying to deal with.
- As for me and my country (United States) and especially my state (Texas), we choose to have guns legal. For the place we live and the lifestyle that we have, this is what we think works best for us.
- And above all, I wish those who don't live where I do would just STFU about our gun laws. You run your corner of the world your way, and we shall do likewise.

You can choose your laws as you please, but you can't chosse not to be criticised for them. The world doesn't work that way.

To answer to your assumption about society:
If it were true that more guns in a society will lower the crime rate, one would think that Europe would be a crime-ridden swamp of violence and agression, with stagering figures in murders and gun-point robbery, right?
The USA, on the other hand, would be a safe haven, peaceful with barely any wiolent crime at all to register in the statistcs.

Doesn't it strike you as somewhat odd that it's actually the other way round?

And yet Finland is not a violent country.

I'd say the reason is not the number of firearms in itself, but the overall mentality towards firearms by the general population. In Finland a gun is pure and simple something that's used for hunting or sport, or maybe collecting. Not too many Finns want to buy a gun for "home defense", and not in a million years, would anyone in Finland get a permit for a gun if he stated that as his reason to own one.

Turning a gun on another person is such a big thing to Finn that it just doesn't happen. Robberies are far more often committed with a knife instead of a gun, and even drunken brawls are likely to be settled with fists or edged weapons even if there are firearms present.

No. I will continue to critique your country and debate it's laws. As is my right.

Not to mention the fact that the debate wasn't started by those who support gun-control, it was started by Eutrusca, who is strongly pro-gun.

Oh, it certainly does eliminate the "more guns = more crime" - there's no way around it.

You're engaged in wishful thinking.

Did you even read my post? I repeat:

It could be that more guns do equal slightly more crime but a change in attitudes has more than compensated for that. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case but it is a definite possiblity which eliminates your claim.

I'd say the reason is not the number of firearms in itself, but the overall mentality towards firearms by the general population. In Finland a gun is pure and simple something that's used for hunting or sport, or maybe collecting. Not too many Finns want to buy a gun for "home defense", and not in a million years, would anyone in Finland get a permit for a gun if he stated that as his reason to own one.

Turning a gun on another person is such a big thing to Finn that it just doesn't happen. Robberies are far more often committed with a knife instead of a gun, and even drunken brawls are likely to be settled with fists or edged weapons even if there are firearms present.
Finnland is homogenous. America is not. End of story.

Not to mention the fact that the debate wasn't started by those who support gun-control, it was started by Eutrusca, who is strongly pro-gun.
Frakkin' "A" right! Mess wid da best, die like the rest! Mwahahahaha! :D

Finnland is homogenous. America is not. End of story.

"Finland (and most of the rest of Europe) doesn't glorify violence any more" might be closer to the point....

Indeed. I always find it a little surprising that many Americans seem to think everyone having guns is a good thing. One would think that, at best, they could argue along the following lines: Allowing everyone to have guns in the first place has created a violent and dangerous situation, which, arguably, should be addressed by allowing people to have guns to defend themselves. But few Americans seem willing to acknowledge that they got themselves into this mess by allowing everyone to carry guns in the first place.

The US has the highest gun crime rate per capita in the Western world. Over here in France, people don't carry guns... and, guess what, there's no gun crime!
The necessity to carry a firearm extends far back beyond the Revolutionary War. You couldn't shoot, you were a dead man, not because of other people having guns, but because there were wild animals which would eat your ass, and because your survival depended to a large extent on your ability to hunt for your food.

Allowing the population to own firearms was not a "decision" ... it was a necessity.

Now why is it that if there's a shooting, people start screaming about banning guns, whereas if there is a drunk driver, no one demands banning alcohol or cars??

They have already tried alcohol, and it failed miserably.

Now why is it that if there's a shooting, people start screaming about banning guns, whereas if there is a drunk driver, no one demands banning alcohol or cars??

You know that there is such a thing as a "driver's licence", but as far as I know no "gun licence" in the US?

You know that there is such a thing as a "driver's licence", but as far as I know no "gun licence" in the US?

Not to mention registration.

You know that there is such a thing as a "driver's licence", but as far as I know no "gun licence" in the US?
Every gun sold [ remember that word "sold" ] in the US requires that the seller conduct a background check before sale. Additionally, some States require even more than what the federal law stipulates. In North Carolina I had to do everything except put one of my children up as surety bond before I could obtain a concealed carry permit.

Each State is responsible for issuing both driver's licenses and gun permits, so there's considerable variation across the Country, although this is changing.

*sigh*

Neither stricter or looser gun control actually reduces or increases the number of crimes committed. You show me a high crime "gunfree" country, and I show you Switzerland. You show me a high crime "gunrich" country, and I give you Canada.

So... banning guns does not solve crime. Allowing guns does not solve crime.
Is there therefor any use in having a gun at all - or does it just serve to increase the possibilities of accidents?

Not to mention registration.

Just the point I was making earlier on. I won't discuss the fact that criminals will be able to get guns under almost any circumstances (which still begs the question why it would be in anybody's interest to make it even easier for them, but that's a different part of the story). Neither will I go into detail regarding the American attitude towards aggression and violence, aggressive self-denfense and general anger control, which is something most Europeans will struggle to understand.
What I don't get is, if the USA reconginsed the necessity to train people to drive a car and to put in place a test to establish if the person in question is able and mentally responsible enough to drive a car, why won't they do the same for guns, which are potentially more dangerous?

Is there therefor any use in having a gun at all - or does it just serve to increase the possibilities of accidents?

Last resort.

The background checks, for those who are curious, typically will run you 1-2 weeks, maybe more depending on where you buy.

Last resort.

Against what ? One could assume that for every crime someone manages to prevent because guns were easily available another crime was succesfully pulled off for the same reason.

The background checks, for those who are curious, typically will run you 1-2 weeks, maybe more depending on where you buy.

I would find it more intersting to know what exactly it is they are checking there?
Do you have to answer any questions to see if you know how to handle a gun? Or to see if you are responsible enough?
Or do they simply check your criminal history?

Against what ? One could assume that for every crime someone manages to prevent because guns were easily available another crime was succesfully pulled off for the same reason.
Operant word ... "assume." The facts say otherwise. Just the knowledge among miscreants that North Carolina passed a concealed carry law and that you might get shot by some lilttle old lady in tennis shoes while going about your business of robbing convenience stores, resulted in a precipitous fall in gun-related crimes across the State.

I would find it more intersting to know what exactly it is they are checking there?
Do you have to answer any questions to see if you know how to handle a gun? Or to see if you are responsible enough?
Or do they simply check your criminal history?
Define "responsible enough."

Define "responsible enough."

Legal age, no mental conditions, no convictions and training with said weapon.

Define "responsible enough."

Good question. I take it they didn't ask you any such questions, then? :p

Seriously, I can't fully answer that as I neither have a driver's license nor a gun. But I would imagine a test regarding questions like "What will you use the gun for", "Where will you keep the gun if children are around", etc.

Operant word ... "assume." The facts say otherwise. Just the knowledge among miscreants that North Carolina passed a concealed carry law and that you might get shot by some lilttle old lady in tennis shoes while going about your business of robbing convenience stores, resulted in a precipitous fall in gun-related crimes across the State.

Correction: some facts say otherwise. Some, like yours, show crime is reduced. Others show it increases. And some say it doesn't matter.

It is not possible to determine what the truth is, since it varies per area or even per person. So perhaps one should look at the other things guns do. Like going off accidentally.

Frakkin' "A" right! Mess wid da best, die like the rest! Mwahahahaha! :D

But, but, why do you need a gun when you've got a trout?:eek:

So... the other 41 "unshot" Presidents means that guns have kept our Chief Executive safe 95.34% of the time over the last 230 years, or an incident averaging once every 115 years. :DI know it's off topic, but why did no one point out that there have been four assassinated Presidents? So five out of 43 of them were shot while in office, not two. Also I believe Jackson assualted, but the gun misfired.

But, but, why do you need a gun when you've got a trout?:eek:

We don't discuss the mighty trout-gun.

I think a point being overlooked in all these statistics is that not all activity pertinent to the point is being recorded. What I mean to say is...the majority of violent crimes committed with guns are not commited by a person who went out, went through the legal process of buying a gun, then commiting the crime with it.

It's absurd to say that making guns legal to buy will increase gun-related crime, because criminals are not using legal methods to obtain the guns in the first place. I can, of course, see how the argument can be made that if more guns are legally bought, that there will be more sources for criminals to obtain guns (by stealing), but since that's already happening, I fail to see it as a serious point.

I don't mean to make myself out to be making a prominent pro-gun point, I just want to point out that the problem with violent, gun-related crime can't be affected by one simple measure, such as banning guns. It's a complex problem, that needs a complex solution.

I would find it more intersting to know what exactly it is they are checking there?
Wouldn't know.

Do you have to answer any questions to see if you know how to handle a gun?
The man who sold it to me took me through a 30-minute briefing breakdown of how it worked, what kept the bolt from taking out my eye, loading, unloading, safety, safe unloading.

Or do they simply check your criminal history?

That'd be my guess.

But I would imagine a test regarding questions like "What will you use the gun for", "Where will you keep the gun if children are around", etc.

I was asked what the purpose was, I replied hunting and target practice and it went spiffy..

I think a point being overlooked in all these statistics is that not all activity pertinent to the point is being recorded. What I mean to say is...the majority of violent crimes committed with guns are not commited by a person who went out, went through the legal process of buying a gun, then commiting the crime with it.

It's absurd to say that making guns legal to buy will increase gun-related crime, because criminals are not using legal methods to obtain the guns in the first place. I can, of course, see how the argument can be made that if more guns are legally bought, that there will be more sources for criminals to obtain guns (by stealing), but since that's already happening, I fail to see it as a serious point.

I don't mean to make myself out to be making a prominent pro-gun point, I just want to point out that the problem with violent, gun-related crime can't be affected by one simple measure, such as banning guns. It's a complex problem, that needs a complex solution.

Agreed.
My personal impression is that America's problem lies less with the guns as with the general socially accepted aggressive behaviour. Eutrusca, I hope you don't mind serving as an example here ;)... The overall impression I get from yourself and others both on this forum and elsewhere is that Americans on the whole are incredibly fast at taking personal offense, and highly aggressive in answering to that. Competitiveness and social aggression are encouraged from an early age, resulting in a people who will regard aggression as a status quo and who will respond back with more aggression when feeling attacked.
Now add guns to this situation....

Agreed.
My personal impression is that America's problem lies less with the guns as with the general socially accepted aggressive behaviour. Eutrusca, I hope you don't mind serving as an example here ;)... The overall impression I get from yourself and others both on this forum and elsewhere is that Americans on the whole are incredibly fast at taking personal offense, and highly aggressive in answering to that. Competitiveness and social aggression are encouraged from an early age, resulting in a people who will regard aggression as a status quo and who will respond back with more aggression when feeling attacked.
I agree. Guns aren't the problem with America. Americans are!

If I lived in America I would favour more liberal gun laws. There is really no going back to being a gun-free society, so if I was American, I would like to be able to own a gun for self-defence.

Agreed.
My personal impression is that America's problem lies less with the guns as with the general socially accepted aggressive behaviour. Eutrusca, I hope you don't mind serving as an example here ;)... The overall impression I get from yourself and others both on this forum and elsewhere is that Americans on the whole are incredibly fast at taking personal offense, and highly aggressive in answering to that. Competitiveness and social aggression are encouraged from an early age, resulting in a people who will regard aggression as a status quo and who will respond back with more aggression when feeling attacked.
Now add guns to this situation....

You, like many Eurasians/Africans/NZ'rs/Aussies/ext. , generalize this to much. Yes, large ammounts of us are bred[sp] to be Aggressive & Competative, but by no means all or even a majority.

I happen to be one of these people, and while I wouldn't shoot someone I'm debating with [ you, for instance, though there was this guy earlier I could've gutted in real life ], just because I'm in a heated debate. You should also see, from both me and Eut and others on this forum, that not all Americans are quick to shoot, irrespondsible, gun-wavers who flaunt that we could/can kill you. We do it for fun, and to a minor degree defense.

I do Not arm myself because I can
I do Not arm myself because I wish to kill
I arm myself because I have little respect or trust in mankind
I arm myself to a greater degree because I have very little trust for Bush and most politicians that head this country, including Clinton and his Zero Tolerance bullshit.

It's absurd to say that making guns legal to buy will increase gun-related crime, because criminals are not using legal methods to obtain the guns in the first place.

But you are now assuming all crimes are committed by seasoned criminals. That is not true - quite a lot of it is committed by ordinary people. The scorned lover. The teased kid. The overworked manager. The welfare mother who needs to feed her kids. Hell, you can continue this list for quite a while..

You, like many Eurasians/Africans/NZ'rs/Aussies/ext. , generalize this to much. Yes, large ammounts of us are bred[sp] to be Aggressive & Competative, but by no means all or even a majority.

I happen to be one of these people, and while I wouldn't shoot someone I'm debating with [ you, for instance, though there was this guy earlier I could've gutted in real life ], just because I'm in a heated debate. You should also see, from both me and Eut and others on this forum, that not all Americans are quick to shoot, irrespondsible, gun-wavers who flaunt that we could/can kill you. We do it for fun, and to a minor degree defense.

I do Not arm myself because I can
I do Not arm myself because I wish to kill
I arm myself because I have little respect or trust in mankind
I arm myself to a greater degree because I have very little trust for Bush and most politicians that head this country, including Clinton and his Zero Tolerance bullshit.

I never assumed that the majority would overreact whenever given the opportunity.
I merely stated the different level of aggressiveness in the US, and that as a result, the violent minority is larger than it is in Europe (and maybe even more violent, although that's only my personal impression and I can't back that up in any way)
If it was a majority that was THAT aggressive, the country would be worse than South Africa...

... perhaps one should look at the other things guns do. Like going off accidentally.
Yeah. Don't ya just hate when that happens? Yer gun is just frakkin' layin' there and all of a sudden ... BOOM! ... it shoots yer momma in the ass! What a dangerous thing guns are! :rolleyes:

Yeah. Don't ya just hate when that happens? Yer gun is just frakkin' layin' there and all of a sudden ... BOOM! ... it shoots yer momma in the ass! What a dangerous thing guns are! :rolleyes:
The number of accidental shootings is not as significant as some would claim - in fact, despite the fact that the number of guns owned has gone up by 50 percent, the accident rate has gradually declined.

I still think it's hilarious that the majority of people who hate guns and think that guns cause crime are completely unaware that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed WITHOUT a firearm - indeed, WITHOUT a weapon of any kind.

I agree. Guns aren't the problem with America. Americans are!

If I lived in America I would favour more liberal gun laws. There is really no going back to being a gun-free society, so if I was American, I would like to be able to own a gun for self-defence.

When Texas passed it's concealed carry law back in the mid nineties, the first episode of use of a weapon happened about two weeks later. A man in Dallas was driving to work one morning. When he merged onto another highway, a driver of a large truck felt that he had been cut off. Traffic was at a crawl anyway, so the truck driver, a HUGE Samoan who had lived in Texas all of a month, decided to express his displeasure. He got out of his truck and went to the man's car and knocked on the window. When the man rolled down his window to see what was up, this big guy grabbed him and tried to pull him through the window, punching on him. My man reached under the seat where he had his pistol and expressed his objection to the manhandling with one shot. All over except for the crying. The shooter was No-Billed by the Grand Jury. Case Closed.

By the way, liberal democrat Ann Richards was Governor and running for reelection when this concealed carry thing came up. She opposed it. GW Bush favored it. He won and did two tours as Governor prior to his current job.

:p

I try not to assume about how Europeans are raised, or there general lifestyle, as I recognize it varies largely - as it does in America. ATM I'm having a hard time believing that you guys represent the modern day version of our fore-fore fathers.... but thats for me to ponder..


Yeah. Don't ya just hate when that happens? Yer gun is just frakkin' layin' there and all of a sudden ... BOOM! ... it shoots yer momma in the ass! What a dangerous thing guns are!

Those wild animals those...those... monstrosities!!!one!!!!1 :p


Seriously, you have to drop the damn thing, usually trigger the hammer, to even have the situation arise. And if it happens, move damnit.

When Texas passed it's concealed carry law back in the mid nineties, the first episode of use of a weapon happened about two weeks later. A man in Dallas was driving to work one morning. When he merged onto another highway, a driver of a large truck felt that he had been cut off. Traffic was at a crawl anyway, so the truck driver, a HUGE Samoan who had lived in Texas all of a month, decided to express his displeasure. He got out of his truck and went to the man's car and knocked on the window. When the man rolled down his window to see what was up, this big guy grabbed him and tried to pull him through the window, punching on him. My man reached under the seat where he had his pistol and expressed his objection to the manhandling with one shot. All over except for the crying. The shooter was No-Billed by the Grand Jury. Case Closed.



Perfect example of civil defense.


By the way, liberal democrat Ann Richards was Governor and running for reelection when this concealed carry thing came up. She opposed it. GW Bush favored it. He won and did two tours as Governor prior to his current job.

Only thing I've agreed with Bush on. Good on 'im - the traitor.

:p

I try not to assume about how Europeans are raised, or there general lifestyle, as I recognize it varies largely - as it does in America. ATM I'm having a hard time believing that you guys represent the modern day version of our fore-fore fathers.... but thats for me to ponder..



Not quite sure what you mean there...

Perfect example of civil defense.


And perfect example of the general aggression I was talking about ;)
Although, in fairness, that wasn't American aggressiveness, but Samoan ...

"Finland (and most of the rest of Europe) doesn't glorify violence any more" might be closer to the point....

One thing I am jealous of Finland for....They don't seem to have a problem with musicians glorifying the abuse of women, casual violence, and drug abuse. Rappers drive me crazy :headbang:

I would find it more intersting to know what exactly it is they are checking there?
Do you have to answer any questions to see if you know how to handle a gun? Or to see if you are responsible enough?
Or do they simply check your criminal history?

They simply check your criminal history. Asking someone if they are responsible enough is like charging a 'poll tax' or making someone fill out a questionaire to see if they are 'eligible' or 'smart enough' to vote. It's stupid.


Agreed.
My personal impression is that America's problem lies less with the guns as with the general socially accepted aggressive behaviour. Eutrusca, I hope you don't mind serving as an example here ;)... The overall impression I get from yourself and others both on this forum and elsewhere is that Americans on the whole are incredibly fast at taking personal offense, and highly aggressive in answering to that. Competitiveness and social aggression are encouraged from an early age, resulting in a people who will regard aggression as a status quo and who will respond back with more aggression when feeling attacked.
Now add guns to this situation....

More than anything it's popular culture. There doesn't seem to be any good role models today for Kids to follow. 50 cent? His 'G-unit' was busted for carrying concealed weapons in NY without a permit. They glorify killing cops, murdering innocent people, rape, drug dealing, etc. The 'gangsta' culture. Kids idolize these guys and emulate them....so you've got a generation or so growing up with the idea that it's OK to use weapons irresponsibly, treat women like play things, etc.

You, like many Eurasians/Africans/NZ'rs/Aussies/ext. , generalize this to much. Yes, large ammounts of us are bred[sp] to be Aggressive & Competative, but by no means all or even a majority.

I happen to be one of these people, and while I wouldn't shoot someone I'm debating with [ you, for instance, though there was this guy earlier I could've gutted in real life ], just because I'm in a heated debate. You should also see, from both me and Eut and others on this forum, that not all Americans are quick to shoot, irrespondsible, gun-wavers who flaunt that we could/can kill you. We do it for fun, and to a minor degree defense.

I do Not arm myself because I can
I do Not arm myself because I wish to kill
I arm myself because I have little respect or trust in mankind
I arm myself to a greater degree because I have very little trust for Bush and most politicians that head this country, including Clinton and his Zero Tolerance bullshit.

Ehh, same here. I became a gun owner in 2004 after my purchase of a CMP Garand from the US gov't. The reason I bought one was because of the 9/11 attacks. I might not be able to stop a nuke or hijacked plane, but I can keep ghetto goblins from terrorizing my family and keep my street safe so it's one less street the police have to worry about.

Of course, the UN is another reason I chose to buy weapons. Dirty POS commie pinkos....

I started off with one, now I'm at 5. These things grow :D

The reason I bought one was because of the 9/11 attacks.
Is anyone going to continue "debating" with him after that?

One thing I am jealous of Finland for....They don't seem to have a problem with musicians glorifying the abuse of women, casual violence, and drug abuse. Rappers drive me crazy :headbang:


You obviously haven't seen thier scenery and tasted their beer and women. Finlands got a lot of great stuff.

Is anyone going to continue "debating" with him after that?

With a guy who arms himself agaings Boeing 767s? I think not ;)

I still think it's hilarious that the majority of people who hate guns and think that guns cause crime are completely unaware that the majority of violent crime in the US is committed WITHOUT a firearm - indeed, WITHOUT a weapon of any kind.
Which makes what point? That is a red herring if you think about it. If it is commited without a firearm, it has nothing to do with firearms, thus it is pointless in this debate. Pointless except to help you to canonise firearms. So, I can say then, if we removed firearms, we would inherently remove all the crimes committed with firearms, thus decreasing the total number of crimes committed.

The in the Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun is always a good way for rubbishing the argument that to ban guns is unconstitutional. I cannot remember the dialogue line for line but it goes something like this:

Lisa: Dad, the constitutional right to armament is an archaic remnant from revolutionary days.

Homer: Lisa, without this gun, the King of England could just walk into this house and start shoving you around. Would you want that, eh? Eh?

Another great piece of satire from Groening and co.

Ehh, same here. I became a gun owner in 2004 after my purchase of a CMP Garand from the US gov't. The reason I bought one was because of the 9/11 attacks. I might not be able to stop a nuke or hijacked plane, but I can keep ghetto goblins from terrorizing my family and keep my street safe so it's one less street the police have to worry about.

Of course, the UN is another reason I chose to buy weapons. Dirty POS commie pinkos....

I started off with one, now I'm at 5. These things grow :D

Oi! Whatcha got against commies?! Why I oughta * fills clip *

:p kidding ! kidding !

More than anything it's popular culture. There doesn't seem to be any good role models today for Kids to follow. 50 cent? His 'G-unit' was busted for carrying concealed weapons in NY without a permit. They glorify killing cops, murdering innocent people, rape, drug dealing, etc. The 'gangsta' culture. Kids idolize these guys and emulate them....so you've got a generation or so growing up with the idea that it's OK to use weapons irresponsibly, treat women like play things, etc.

Not just rap either, on the other end of the scale [ country ] advocates spousal abuse, getting way drunker then is advisable, and generally bad ideas [ breaking car windows with your elbow - for instance ].



Not quite sure what you mean there...

The first batch of "Americans" who organized and united this country, we're british but generally really aggressive folks. Europe has an insanely violent history, but you guys seem so ... ugh... I wont say it - for the sake of civil convos. On the first part of what you quoted, alot of Europeans during debating assume a load about us through narrow perceptions. Raised to be aggressive, competative, ext. I merely said that as I've yet to tour Europe, or even visit, I will extend the courtesy of not assuming I have any idea what life is like there, and hope you return it.

More than anything it's popular culture. There doesn't seem to be any good role models today for Kids to follow. 50 cent? His 'G-unit' was busted for carrying concealed weapons in NY without a permit. They glorify killing cops, murdering innocent people, rape, drug dealing, etc. The 'gangsta' culture. Kids idolize these guys and emulate them....so you've got a generation or so growing up with the idea that it's OK to use weapons irresponsibly, treat women like play things, etc.



That begs the question where popular culture comes from. The name is a giveaway. The population.
It's really easy to blame modern music, TV, celebrities, the press, etc for the way the young generation is moving. But that is just blatantly ignoring the factor that influences them more than all of the others combined : Their parents and their family. And I think that's where the problem really lies. A large number of parents don't have the time or simply don't want to spent enough time parenting, pushing it off to teachers and TV.
You get back what you invest, I guess...

The first batch of "Americans" who organized and united this country, we're british but generally really aggressive folks. Europe has an insanely violent history, but you guys seem so ... ugh... I wont say it - for the sake of civil convos. On the first part of what you quoted, alot of Europeans during debating assume a load about us through narrow perceptions. Raised to be aggressive, competative, ext. I merely said that as I've yet to tour Europe, or even visit, I will extend the courtesy of not assuming I have any idea what life is like there, and hope you return it.

Well, I've been to the US, and what is more important, the US obliginly came right to my doorstep when I was a kid (I grew up in Germany, and there was a large US army base in my home town ;) )
Yes, Europe has and incredibly violent history, especially the last century. I like to assume that we've learned from that and try to keep emotions well under control. We don't always succeed, but hey, we're trying.

The first batch of "Americans" who organized and united this country, we're british but generally really aggressive folks. Europe has an insanely violent history, but you guys seem so ... ugh... I wont say it - for the sake of civil convos. On the first part of what you quoted, alot of Europeans during debating assume a load about us through narrow perceptions. Raised to be aggressive, competative, ext. I merely said that as I've yet to tour Europe, or even visit, I will extend the courtesy of not assuming I have any idea what life is like there, and hope you return it.

Well... if you wander around with your nose in the air, your thumb up your ass, and your finger on the trigger (in a rare display of contorsionism!:p), and you'll find Europeans... take against you, for some reason!

No, what you say is exactly right, the perception of americans in europe and to an extent the UK is that you're big, bullying retards, and that's not the case at all. I've visited bits of America several times (I was drinking coffee and listening to some band under the twin towers in new york just about 10 days before 9/11), and my brother studied there for a while, came back with glowing reports of the place :) (Well, everywhere he _visited_ anyway, his college was out in the middle of nowhere and didn't rate highly on the nightlife!) My family stayed in Harlaam while we were all together in New York, never had any problems with violence of any sort.

All the Americans I've met in real life were charming, erudite people; the Americans on TV, films, and lots on NS, I'm afriad, don't compare. Maybe you export your brightest and best, and keep the next best to greet tourists and students, though! :D

Oi! Whatcha got against commies?! Why I oughta * fills clip *

They make good guns but their world domination stuff sorta sucks.

:p kidding ! kidding !



Not just rap either, on the other end of the scale [ country ] advocates spousal abuse, getting way drunker then is advisable, and generally bad ideas [ breaking car windows with your elbow - for instance ].

That's another story, but I got that one under control. Think trailer trash exploding toilets.




The first batch of "Americans" who organized and united this country, we're british but generally really aggressive folks. Europe has an insanely violent history, but you guys seem so ... ugh... I wont say it - for the sake of civil convos. On the first part of what you quoted, alot of Europeans during debating assume a load about us through narrow perceptions. Raised to be aggressive, competative, ext. I merely said that as I've yet to tour Europe, or even visit, I will extend the courtesy of not assuming I have any idea what life is like there, and hope you return it.

x

Well, I've been to the US, and what is more important, the US obliginly came right to my doorstep when I was a kid (I grew up in Germany, and there was a large US army base in my home town ;) )
Yes, Europe has and incredibly violent history, especially the last century. I like to assume that we've learned from that and try to keep emotions well under control. We don't always succeed, but hey, we're trying.

"Hey kid you order a pizza?"


:D

Elgesh']

All the Americans I've met in real life were charming, erudite people; the Americans on TV, films, and lots on NS, I'm afriad, don't compare. Maybe you export your brightest and best, and keep the next best to greet tourists and students, though! :D

Definetly depends on where you go. Some places make you want to bash your skull in, some places make you want to sit down a have a look around.

I feel I must address some things. Sorry about the hijack...
And yet Finland is not a violent country.
Oh! It most definately is. We just prefer handling it without firearms - although we DO have them plenty. Fists and/or sharp objects are our preferred weapons - you'd be considered a wimp in the Big House for shooting someone.
Finland (and most of the rest of Europe) doesn't glorify violence any more" might be closer to the point.... Oh yes... we glorify it just as much as the Americans... not more, but as much.
One thing I am jealous of Finland for....They don't seem to have a problem with musicians glorifying the abuse of women, casual violence, and drug abuse. Rappers drive me crazy And what the fuck might you be on about? You have a great opportunity to educate me about my own culture here. Am I to understand there are Finnish rappers...*???


*Who do that, that is...

Edit: "don't seem" was what he said... I'm an ass... and apparently dyslectic ofsorts. Oh well. I'll just leave it there. Brutal honesty is also a Finnish trait. :( I'll get me coat. Sowwy ARF

You know that there is such a thing as a "driver's licence", but as far as I know no "gun licence" in the US?

So... you're forgotten every other time we've been in a gun control thread and I pointed out all that I had to do to get a Connecticut firearms licenese? The required safety class, the fingerprinting, etc? :(

They have already tried alcohol, and it failed miserably.

Exactly. Banning something never works.

The in the Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun is always a good way for rubbishing the argument that to ban guns is unconstitutional. I cannot remember the dialogue line for line but it goes something like this:

Lisa: Dad, the constitutional right to armament is an archaic remnant from revolutionary days.

Homer: Lisa, without this gun, the King of England could just walk into this house and start shoving you around. Would you want that, eh? Eh?

Another great piece of satire from Groening and co.

I agree! It's also true for the Right of Free Speech as well. [/sarcasm]

I'm amazed that anyone really believes that any one of the "original" admendments is jetisonable. They're all exactly the same thing, just on a different angle.

The reason I bought one was because of the 9/11 attacks.

With a guy who arms himself agaings Boeing 767s? I think not ;)

While I find your dismissiveness cute, the logic is actually simple: 9/11 got people actually thinking about emergencies ahead of time. In Connecticut, requests for firearms licenses went up 15% in the two years after 9/11. Most were honoured, a few were not (prior mental issues, felonies, whatever).

Fastforward a couple years: Hurricane Katrina. Guess who *didn't* get looted/robbed/raped/beaten when the police were unable to get to their location? Yep... the folks that were armed.

Fastforward a couple years: Hurricane Katrina. Guess who *didn't* get looted/robbed/raped/beaten when the police were unable to get to their location? Yep... the folks that were armed.
Stupid people with guns, then?

Fastforward a couple years: Hurricane Katrina. Guess who *didn't* get looted/robbed/raped/beaten when the police were unable to get to their location?

Everybody. There were very few crimes commited during Katrina. All of it was media hype.

It's very possible that had Barry been armed and tried to resist that he'd have wound up dead instead of just shy a few bucks and some credit cards.It's also possible that after getting the money and credit cards, the criminals could have blown the homeowner away to eliminate a witness that could identify them. If I could trust criminals to only take my money, I wouldn't need a gun to defend myself. The trouble is, some of them take the money and then take your life too:

[Link to video removed]

Here's some interesting reading:

http://www.google.com/search?q=defensive+gun+uses

Meh... I say we just get the world's largest game of Russian Roulette going. I go first *Click*

Meh... I say we just get the world's largest game of Russian Roulette going. I go first *Click*
http://www.funfreepages.com/games/russian_roulette.php

http://www.funfreepages.com/games/russian_roulette.php

That was a decent game. I'm gonna have to ask you to take down that link to the video on your prev. post... bit too graphic to be on here. Almost made me throw up :(

I'm gonna have to ask you to take down that link to the video on your prev. post... bit too graphic to be on here. Almost made me throw up :(Sorry. I added a warning to the link. That cool?

Sorry. I added a warning to the link. That cool?

Afraid not. If the mods see it, you'll get banned. I'd advise removing it entirely and replacing it with a description.

Afraid not. If the mods see it, you'll get banned. I'd advise removing it entirely and replacing it with a description.Ok, I don't want to make waves. Let's just say that sometimes doing everything your attacker wants, can still get you killed.

http://www.funfreepages.com/games/russian_roulette.php

Be Careful! I might have picked up a virus from this. I'm running anti-virus now.

Gun bans DO make sense, however several other initiatives must be taken on by the government as well. D C, remember, has been horrible at controlling crime. Here in New York City we have fairly good gun laws (which the mayor is pushing to be made stricter) and crime continues to lower, making us the safest big city in the US. It's not that bans are bad, it's that cities must improve overall. Also, a major problem are loose gun laws in many other parts of the country. Several violent crimes here in the last few months, including the murder of two cops, were done with OUT OF STATE guns. If the rest of the country improved gun laws, crimes in cities would drop with a lack of a source to buy them easily from.

Amen to that! This is the message from the True North where too many guns are pouring in from the gun rich US. You are probably not aware of the issue in Toronto where innocent people are dying in the crossfire!

I should like to cite "Bowling for Columbine" regarding the history of guns in America starting with the freaked out Pilgrims. :p :sniper:

Yes I know . . . guns dont kill people, people kill people . . . social problems need to be addressed around the world.
Why make things easier for problem people?

Be Careful! I might have picked up a virus from this. I'm running anti-virus now.Jeez, this is just not my night, huh? First day posting and I'm already spreading viruses and nearly getting banned.

Back to Lurk mode for me!!!

Amen to that! This is the message from the True North where too many guns are pouring in from the gun rich US. You are probably not aware of the issue in Toronto where innocent people are dying in the crossfire!

I should like to cite "Bowling for Columbine" regarding the history of guns in America starting with the freaked out Pilgrims. :p :sniper:

Yes I know . . . guns dont kill people, people kill people . . . social problems need to be addressed around the world.
Why make things easier for problem people?

Moore's rantumentarys are not valid sources.

Jeez, this is just not my night, huh? First day posting and I'm already spreading viruses and nearly getting banned.

Back to Lurk mode for me!!!

I'm not certain yet. Norton sent up n automatic flag. Something about a bloodhound virus. I don't know what that is, not being a super-duper computer nerd, so since it didn't say what it did with the virus, I'm running Anti-virus to make sure it isn't lurking on my computer.

Moore's rantumentarys are not valid sources.

Actually that one is very good. And what's more, he states in it that guns are not the problem.

Actually that one is very good. And what's more, he states in it that guns are not the problem.

Atleast he states the obvious. However,he is notorious for being one-sided. I prefer to see stats from the DOJ or something similar.

However,he is notorious for being one-sided. I prefer to see stats from the DOJ or something similar.

You won't hear any argument from this quarter.

Be Careful! I might have picked up a virus from this. I'm running anti-virus now.

If there was a virus at all, My Norton Security automatically protected me from it. It's not in my computer.

I've come across some pop-up ads that look like alerts from my computer. I've never seen one that looked like a message from Norton before, but I rule nothing out. Still, be careful. I don't recommend that link. :p

Moore's rantumentarys are not valid sources.

My first thought was . . . Why? Is he too close to home? However, since I have only seen the part I cited and would not bother watching the rest, I must say why I mention it. I found it funny in a sad sort of way. The history bit rings true in my experience.

Guns for protection is a myth. Most people who say that would probably never even touch it when the time came.
If they did manage to get the gun, the criminal would more likely take it and shoot them.

I dont have issues with guns, I have issues with idiots with guns.
Since most people I have met are idiots . . .

My first thought was . . . Why? Is he too close to home? However, since I have only seen the part I cited and would not bother watching the rest, I must say why I mention it. I found it funny in a sad sort of way. The history bit rings true in my experience.

Guns for protection is a myth. Most people who say that would probably never even touch it when the time came.
If they did manage to get the gun, the criminal would more likely take it and shoot them.

I dont have issues with guns, I have issues with idiots with guns.
Since most people I have met are idiots . . .

Not true, I have a CCW permit and carry everywhere I go. Honestly, people can choose thier ways of defending themselves and I choose that way. I do have a issue with people trying to take that from me, be it crooks or politians (there is a difference?) My CCW pistol is the only gun I bought for the sole purpose of protection. The rest are or are a copy of a military design, as I have said before I like having history laying around the house and a few of my rifles have seen combat. Why should I be penalized for what some idiots or criminals do? No one seems to answer why I should have my private property taken because some people do not like what I own.

I don't know if it has been stated before in this thread, but I'm not going to waste my entire night reading the 11 pages prior. Washington DC's gun laws have never worked. There are more murders per capita in DC than any other city in the nation. Now I won't claim that they all involve guns, but I will say that the speculations stating the gun laws as a cause are as credible as any.

The truth is, nobody can prove that gun control has worked as a crime deterent in any part of the world, but it has been shown in many studies that gun control has not significantly reduced crime. Don't waste your time asking me for links to studies proving this, everyone here can search just as well as I can, and the information is available here on the web.

I personally have more guns than my family could carry in one trip, none of which are convenient to commit a crime with, but all are capable of stopping one from being committed on me. I'm all for more law abiding citizens having guns. If DC repealed the gun ban, I would bet my gun rights that the murder rate would drop. :sniper:

Coming from a family that grew up without firearms in the house, having 'played' with many a firearm over the past decade, neither I nor any of my family would purchase a firearm with any more malicious intent than that of hunting wild animals - deer, quail, squirrels, etc...

My bro-in-law sleeps with a .22 pistol by his bed,
My sister received a shotgun for her wedding gift from one of the guys in our group of friends,
My gf wants a pistol for her 21st b-day and I'm considering purchasing her a Glock 23.

Firearms are no more a weapon than a sharpened pencil is. It's all about the intent of the person wielding the tool.

"Hey kid you order a pizza?"


:D

I tried pizza in the States once... *yuck
How can anybody stand that? It was virtually tasteless, incredibly fat and - worst of all - deep-pan. No self-respecting Italian would ever touch it

Firearms are no more a weapon than a sharpened pencil is. It's all about the intent of the person wielding the tool.

Reminds me of my favorite saying...

Guns don't kill people, I kill people.

While I find your dismissiveness cute, the logic is actually simple: 9/11 got people actually thinking about emergencies ahead of time. In Connecticut, requests for firearms licenses went up 15% in the two years after 9/11. Most were honoured, a few were not (prior mental issues, felonies, whatever).

Fastforward a couple years: Hurricane Katrina. Guess who *didn't* get looted/robbed/raped/beaten when the police were unable to get to their location? Yep... the folks that were armed.

I wouldn't really call that logic, the reaction seems to stem more from a gut feeling of being threatened than from actual reflection on possible ways to defend yourself.
Terrorists flying planes in buildings in a suicide attack are not very likely to break into people's homes, to attack a single person or small group in the street or to bring themselves in any situation at all in which a simple gun could stop them....

Coming from a family that grew up without firearms in the house, having 'played' with many a firearm over the past decade, neither I nor any of my family would purchase a firearm with any more malicious intent than that of hunting wild animals - deer, quail, squirrels, etc...

My bro-in-law sleeps with a .22 pistol by his bed,
My sister received a shotgun for her wedding gift from one of the guys in our group of friends,
My gf wants a pistol for her 21st b-day and I'm considering purchasing her a Glock 23.

Firearms are no more a weapon than a sharpened pencil is. It's all about the intent of the person wielding the tool.

You would have to throw that pencil incredibly accurately to acheive the same damage over the same distance, though.

Yes, it is about the persons intend, or simple negligence in case of accidents.
Personally, I prefer living in a place where I don't have to own a gun to feel safe and protected, though. But that's just me again.

See, therein lies the paradox we as Americans have to deal with.

The places where we don't need to have guns to feel safe are the places where all the guns are.

Chicago and DC have very draconian gun laws, yet also have very high murder rates, a fair number of which are committed with said illegal guns.

Conversely, eastern California counties have many more guns per person and many less murders per person.

It would seem you either need to adopt pro-gun or anti-gun legislature everywhere to get results.

On that note, the anti-gun option would also require you to secure the borders against incoming illegal firearms, and that opens up a whole new bucket of social issues no politician wants to touch if he/she can help it.

See, therein lies the paradox we as Americans have to deal with.

The places where we don't need to have guns to feel safe are the places where all the guns are.

Chicago and DC have very draconian gun laws, yet also have very high murder rates, a fair number of which are committed with said illegal guns.

Conversely, eastern California counties have many more guns per person and many less murders per person.

It would seem you either need to adopt pro-gun or anti-gun legislature everywhere to get results.

On that note, the anti-gun option would also require you to secure the borders against incoming illegal firearms, and that opens up a whole new bucket of social issues no politician wants to touch if he/she can help it.

The problem I'm having with privately-owned firearms for protection purposes is that it seems to me to brink on vigilante justice. And I'm not entirely comfortable with that...
You see, with the police I can rely on the fact that they had intensive training when it comes to handling critical situations and diffusing violent aggression. My next-door neighbour hasn't.

The problem I'm having with privately-owned firearms for protection purposes is that it seems to me to brink on vigilante justice. And I'm not entirely comfortable with that...
You see, with the police I can rely on the fact that they had intensive training when it comes to handling critical situations and diffusing violent aggression. My next-door neighbour hasn't.

By the time a cop shows up, you will be robbed, raped, and/or killed. If they show up, since they're all off eating donuts or busting some poor kid for smoking a joint. You have FAR too much faith in the po-po. I rely on one person- myself.

By the time a cop shows up, you will be robbed, raped, and/or killed. If they show up, since they're all off eating donuts or busting some poor kid for smoking a joint. You have FAR too much faith in the po-po. I rely on one person- myself.

Seems to be very different here indeed...

Not to derail the thread, but some people have been using driver's liscences as an example. I just want to point out, that the US government does not issue them. The individual states do. Each state has its own criteria, just like they do with gun sales.

There are some federally mandated items (drunk driving laws, 3 day waiting period for a gun), but its up to the state governments themselves to decide who gets what.

By the time a cop shows up, you will be robbed, raped, and/or killed. If they show up, since they're all off eating donuts or busting some poor kid for smoking a joint. You have FAR too much faith in the po-po. I rely on one person- myself.

For ACNAT:
Not to mention that the Supreme Court of the US has already ruled that the police aren't obligated to save people. This means you ARE the only one responsible for saving you.

For the rest of the thread:
We all get every sensationalist report of someone using a weapon in a negative fashion. It's already been determined that there are more positive uses (even by anti-gun studies) showing that for every murder with a handgun (we're around 13000-15000 annually in the US now), there are at least 4 crimes stopped with a handgun (the lowest I could find was 80000-100000 per year, from anti-based studies). You have some pro-gun studies done that say up to 2.5 million crimes are stopped per year with firearms.

We're pretty independent on this side of the pond--that involves being able to secure one's own safety/food/whatever. It makes sense that the US citizenry would be extremely reluctant to give up the ability to be free (as firearms would make folks--don't have to rely on police for protection, for one, and being able to hunt for food for a second)--and that's what firearms do provide--freedom from external (or internal, for that matter) rule.

Not to derail the thread, but some people have been using driver's liscences as an example. I just want to point out, that the US government does not issue them. The individual states do. Each state has its own criteria, just like they do with gun sales.

There are some federally mandated items (drunk driving laws, 3 day waiting period for a gun), but its up to the state governments themselves to decide who gets what.

Sorry, there is no federally mandated law stating that everyone must wait three days for a firearm. That's a state-by-state kind of thing.

Wasn't that one of the provisions of the Brady Bill?

Wasn't that one of the provisions of the Brady Bill?

Nope. There is a great deal of misinformation about that particular piece of legislation, unfortunately.

Still, my point was that the driver liscence thing is not really a good analogy for the anti-gun people. The federal government doesn't regulate them.

I don't get it, I guess...a fellow who wants to ban guns is robbed at gunpoint, and for some reason this is supposed to make him "see the light" and start being more positive about gun ownership?

Wasn't that one of the provisions of the Brady Bill?

It was a provision UNLESS the state already had a more stringent law(longer waiting period etc.) or an instant check system.

IIRC, 12 of the states were exempt from the BB at the beginning, the majority of them w/ higher crime rates to go along w/ the stricter laws. over the next few years, it went to over 30 states exempt as they established primarily instant check systems.

Nope. There is a great deal of misinformation about that particular piece of legislation, unfortunately.

There's misinformation put out about almost every "gun control" law.

BB
CAWB
Commerce in Arms Act
etc.

It was a provision UNLESS the state already had a more stringent law(longer waiting period etc.) or an instant check system.


Good point--here in WI, we had an insta-check (of sorts).

I don't get it, I guess...a fellow who wants to ban guns is robbed at gunpoint, and for some reason this is supposed to make him "see the light" and start being more positive about gun ownership?

Surely the best point made here.

Why should a guy against guns suddenly think gun ownership is a good idea after his ordeal.

Oh let me see who this thread was started by...what a surprise!!!!:p

On the issue of gun ownership, allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to own a gun worries me simply because everyone thinks they are rational and everyone thinks that they would use an item (doesn't have to be a gun) in a rational manner. I also think that it would elad to essentally mob rule, again a bad thing. Ask a black person in the deep south in the 1950's.

History has shown that people are not rational. Does that mean that the people who could look after a gun responsibly should be penalised for the actions of other? I don't think so in most cases, but this one is different. In the same way I wouldn't want a person who has not concept of self-preservation or had was sociopathic driving on the roads, I wouldn't want some one like that owning a gun.

Simple make it really damn hard, to get a gun, not impossible but make is so that anyone who owns a gun has obtained that gun with everyone knowing that person has reached a standard of competency. Others would have to think up the standards, not me.

Hmmm what else. If I lived in really violent society I would think about owning a gun but that society would have to have a total break down in law and order, something like Baghdad now perhaps.

Having guns to reduce crime seems like a perverse version of M.A.D. which often lives up to it's name. Maybe that's the way forward, but I don't think so. it's been proven that an effective police force can reduce crime greatly.

I live it at that, I've read nearly all 12 pages of this and the points i've made have been a reaction to points made on all of the pages, so a bit non sequeta.

History has shown that people are not rational. .
:rolleyes: if this is one of your axioms then how can you possible study things like law, history etc.

Surely the best point made here.

Why should a guy against guns suddenly think gun ownership is a good idea after his ordeal.

Oh let me see who this thread was started by...what a surprise!!!!:p

On the issue of gun ownership, allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to own a gun worries me simply because everyone thinks they are rational and everyone thinks that they would use an item (doesn't have to be a gun) in a rational manner. I also think that it would elad to essentally mob rule, again a bad thing. Ask a black person in the deep south in the 1950's.

As compared to the "mob rule" that banned gay marraige in various states and also is banning handguns in SF?

History has shown that people are not rational. Does that mean that the people who could look after a gun responsibly should be penalised for the actions of other? I don't think so in most cases, but this one is different. In the same way I wouldn't want a person who has not concept of self-preservation or had was sociopathic driving on the roads, I wouldn't want some one like that owning a gun.

Do you determine that "before" someone has done anything? Sort of like 'pre-crime"?

Simple make it really damn hard, to get a gun, not impossible but make is so that anyone who owns a gun has obtained that gun with everyone knowing that person has reached a standard of competency. Others would have to think up the standards, not me.

And history has shown that the slippery-slope occurrs w/ ideas like this. I wouldn't mind a "competancy" requirement IF it could be put into an unbreakable/changeable law that the requirement couldn't be made so stringent as to be unobtainable or simply no longer offered.

Hmmm what else. If I lived in really violent society I would think about owning a gun but that society would have to have a total break down in law and order, something like Baghdad now perhaps.

Having guns to reduce crime seems like a perverse version of M.A.D. which often lives up to it's name. Maybe that's the way forward, but I don't think so. it's been proven that an effective police force can reduce crime greatly.

But that is still no reason to remove the RKBA of those who follow the law. Crime/murder levels have not increased in areas that have introduced CCW and no correlation has been found to various bans etc and lowering crime.

You do know, BTW, that the police have no obligation to protect you from crime or even to enforce a restraining order.

:rolleyes: if this is one of your axioms then how can you possible study things like law, history etc.

Is it rational to hate someone on the basis of their skin?

You have never don't something straight of the bat with out thinking then after wards wondered why you did that?

People will buy cars on by the colour, or houses which are falling down because the windows are nice. Those are two cases of friends of mine...norally rational people:) who crazy purchases and both have adimitted it after than they didn't know why they bought the items in question.

Also the study of history and law not rational exercises because they are done by a human being not robots and are open to interpretation by that individual. Nothing black and white.

And history has shown that the slippery-slope occurrs w/ ideas like this. I wouldn't mind a "competancy" requirement IF it could be put into an unbreakable/changeable law that the requirement couldn't be made so stringent as to be unobtainable or simply no longer offered.

They we agree. I have nothing agains guns but I am against a gun free for all.



But that is still no reason to remove the RKBA of those who follow the law. Crime/murder levels have not increased in areas that have introduced CCW and no correlation has been found to various bans etc and lowering crime.

But there is a corrilation between good policing (New York) and reducing crime. As for people who own guns I see know reason why they cannot be tested, say, phycologically and if found to be unbalanced (I don't have the technical knoweledge to give the words to discribe someone who is capable of running around a school shooting people) then their right to own a gun should be taken off them. Would you find it acceptable to live next to someone with a clear disorder who owned guns? I wouldn't.


You do know, BTW, that the police have no obligation to protect you from crime or even to enforce a restraining order.

That comes down again to the quality of the police you have.

They we agree. I have nothing agains guns but I am against a gun free for all.

I don't want one either. I support the NICS and efforts that go after criminals and not LAC's. Many efforts, however, only affect those who follow the laws in the first place.




But there is a corrilation between good policing (New York) and reducing crime. As for people who own guns I see know reason why they cannot be tested, say, phycologically and if found to be unbalanced (I don't have the technical knoweledge to give the words to discribe someone who is capable of running around a school shooting people) then their right to own a gun should be taken off them. Would you find it acceptable to live next to someone with a clear disorder who owned guns? I wouldn't.

I oppose psych tests due to their subjectivity. They leave way too much room for abuse (You didn't like your father? *checks 'unstable' on chart*).

As for those who have diagnosed disorders, it varies but in general, it is illegal for them to own/purchase/obtain firearms anyway.

Allowing NICS to include mental health records is something I'm mixed on due to privacy issues. There have already been cases of Fed's abusing the data contained in it.



That comes down again to the quality of the police you have.

Incorrect. That is by several SCOTUS decisions. If they're quality they will, but they don't have to and you won't win a lawsuit against them if something goes wrong. And yes, that is including restraining orders.

I personally would like all states to adopt a "shall issue" CCW program, but make the requirements a little more stricter.

California's inherently corrupt discretionary system is a bad example of this.

Rather than being forced to prove your need to own a firearm, I want you to prove your proficiency with a firearm.

In my opinion, it's just a little too easy to get a CCW permit in the 38 shall issue states. I think you should have to be able to field strip your CCW, demonstrate good proficiency with the firearm at close and medium ranges (handgun ranges, obviously...), and have a quick draw.

One of my few problems with the CCW program as it is is that most people who have a permit think that the permit and the gun will protect them. Incorrect! You have to be able to get your gun out, unlocked, and in the face of the criminal before he can take you down. Worse yet, if you bungle your draw, you may well have just given the criminal your gun!

Let everyone have a gun, but make sure they know how to use it in detail!

Ban the AK but not the M16? wtf they're both Assault Rifles.
because th ak can shoot through a car but the -16 can hardly penetrate the hood.

Everybody. There were very few crimes commited during Katrina. All of it was media hype.

You're thinking of the Superdome. THAT was media hype.

You don't remember the attack on the Police Department?!? :eek:

How about the looting? (Before that gets questioned: taking food so you'll live during a natural disaster is one thing. Taking 12 DVD players is looting.)

No, of couse it wasn't as sensational as the media portrayed (ala CBS and the infamous canoe in 6 inches of water), but how much was not reported?

Fastforward a couple years: Hurricane Katrina. Guess who *didn't* get looted/robbed/raped/beaten when the police were unable to get to their location? Yep... the folks that were armed.
Stupid people with guns, then?

I normally don't respond to drivel, but I've got to ask: what do you mean, "Stupid people with guns"? *Not* getting looted/robbed/raped/beaten/killed/whatever is stupid? Wow. I'd hate to live in your world!

There weren't actually that many rapes or attempted rapes going on in the superdome, just a lot of good ol' fist fights. And it would've been a little hard to do that sort of thing outside when your getting killed by the storm.

My first thought was . . . Why? Is he too close to home? However, since I have only seen the part I cited and would not bother watching the rest, I must say why I mention it. I found it funny in a sad sort of way. The history bit rings true in my experience.

Guns for protection is a myth. Most people who say that would probably never even touch it when the time came.
If they did manage to get the gun, the criminal would more likely take it and shoot them.

I dont have issues with guns, I have issues with idiots with guns.
Since most people I have met are idiots . . .

Yet, ironically, one of Moore's bodyguards was arrested for firearms possession. AN ILLEGAL gun. In an airport!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6849229/

Now no, Michael was allegedly not there, but if his guards carry firearms (and that's the point I'm making)... it seems a little inconguous. Kind of like Ted Kennedy talking about ethics or Barbara Streisand talking about conserving resources.

because th ak can shoot through a car but the -16 can hardly penetrate the hood.

If you're going to talk about firearms, please do not rely on movies and role playing games as primary sources.

On the issue of gun ownership, allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to own a gun worries me simply because everyone thinks they are rational and everyone thinks that they would use an item (doesn't have to be a gun) in a rational manner. I also think that it would elad to essentally mob rule, again a bad thing.

You mean a system in which descisions are made by the majority is a bad thing? I was certain there was a very popular form of government based on that idea.

Ask a black person in the deep south in the 1950's.

In fact, my friend has several family members who were part of the Civil Rights movements in Alabama in the 1950s and 1960s and are ardent supporters of the 2 Ammendment. It protected them against the KKK and corrupt government agents who were out to make sure they couldn't vote or send their kids to good schools, etc etc.

The NRA, the people Chubsy Ubsy tried to make the political wing of the KKK in his crockumentary Bowling for Colombine, were actually supporters of the Civil Rights movement and supplied not just weapons, but money and lawyers to fight the Klan and their politicians.

Its a historical fact that the Right to Bear arms has been a friend to oppressed minorities in this country.

History has shown that people are not rational.

Especially when they are in positions of power like government.

Or do I need to point out history's greatest gun control advocate?

Does that mean that the people who could look after a gun responsibly should be penalised for the actions of other?

Thats apparently your belief.

I don't think so in most cases, but this one is different. In the same way I wouldn't want a person who has not concept of self-preservation or had was sociopathic driving on the roads, I wouldn't want some one like that owning a gun.

If the person hasn't commited a crime or doesn't have any documentation saying he is clinically insane, why punish him?

Both the 5.56mm NATO bullet and 7.62mm Kalashnikov bullet would penetrate the car. I'd wager that the Kalashnikov would have a better chance of coming out the other side, though.

I've had no first-hand experience with the M-16 and its loveable tumbling .223, but I think penetrating the door or hood or what have you would start it in action, yes? Correct me if I am mistaken.

EDIT: Above poster, good points. I think Condi is a big Second Amendment buff on account of her growing up during those wonderful times gave her ideas about blacks arming themselves as a hedge against the genuine racists of the time.

[B]While not suffering any physical injuries during the ordeal, Barry did indicate that his feelings were hurt. "There is a sort of an unwritten code in Washington, among the underworld and the hustlers and these other guys, that I am their friend....I was a little hurt that this betrayal did happen."

Serves this asshole crackhead right.

Serves this asshole crackhead right.

If the jerks that robbed him are actually from D.C., he got what he deserved.

On the other hand, if they're out-of-state, it'll reinforce his silly position.

Obviously, I'm hoping they were local hooligans.

Both the 5.56mm NATO bullet and 7.62mm Kalashnikov bullet would penetrate the car. I'd wager that the Kalashnikov would have a better chance of coming out the other side, though.

I've had no first-hand experience with the M-16 and its loveable tumbling .223, but I think penetrating the door or hood or what have you would start it in action, yes? Correct me if I am mistaken.

EDIT: Above poster, good points. I think Condi is a big Second Amendment buff on account of her growing up during those wonderful times gave her ideas about blacks arming themselves as a hedge against the genuine racists of the time.

Sheet metal of almost any car or truck will not stop the 5.56 or 7.62 NATO rounds. I own an AR and an SKS. Both are more than capable of punching thru both sides of most cars.

I feel that the 5.56 is the more inherently accurate round. The tumble that the 5.56 is so known for comes from semi jacketed soft tip rounds. The tip bends on impact with a surface, causing it to rotate. Almost any caliber of this type of bullet will perform the same. What also adds to the illusion of the tumbling bullet is that the 5.56 NATO has a very high and relatively light bullet. When it strikes a bone inside the body, it is likely to ricochet rather than power thru.

because th ak can shoot through a car but the -16 can hardly penetrate the hood.
Say WHAT? ROFLMFAO!!!! Aaahahahahahahahaha! Oh, God. That's the best laugh I've had all day! :D

Sheet metal of almost any car or truck will not stop the 5.56 or 7.62 NATO rounds. I own an AR and an SKS. Both are more than capable of punching thru both sides of most cars.

I feel that the 5.56 is the more inherently accurate round. The tumble that the 5.56 is so known for comes from semi jacketed soft tip rounds. The tip bends on impact with a surface, causing it to rotate. Almost any caliber of this type of bullet will perform the same. What also adds to the illusion of the tumbling bullet is that the 5.56 NATO has a very high and relatively light bullet. When it strikes a bone inside the body, it is likely to ricochet rather than power thru.

That seems about right. My experience has all been with high-powered rounds (by NRA standards, anyway), such as the venerable 8mm Mauser, so I'm unfamiliar with how the little bullets of today work.