NationStates Jolt Archive

The attack on St. James Church in Cape Town, South Africa on July 25, 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James'_Church_Massacre) left 11 of the congregation dead and 53 wounded. Authorities confirmed (as did some of the terrorists later) that if it had not been for the presence of one armed man who fought back the toll would have been much higher.

“Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air. An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews — and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory — to pieces. We were being attacked!

“Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 Special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me. I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa…”


As the above paragraphs show, this book (http://www.leverguns.com/store/van_wyk.htm)is not a theoretical debate about self-defense. It is written from the basis of personal involvement and from one man's experience. The one man with the means to fight back.

Nope. A puny handgun is no match for military grade weapons or terrorists.

The attack on St. James Church in Cape Town, South Africa on July 25, 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James'_Church_Massacre) left 11 of the congregation dead and 53 wounded. Authorities confirmed (as did some of the terrorists later) that if it had not been for the presence of one armed man who fought back the toll would have been much higher.


The one armed man did it?

The attack on St. James Church in Cape Town, South Africa on July 25, 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_James'_Church_Massacre) left 11 of the congregation dead and 53 wounded. Authorities confirmed (as did some of the terrorists later) that if it had not been for the presence of one armed man who fought back the toll would have been much higher.



As the above paragraphs show, this book (http://www.leverguns.com/store/van_wyk.htm)is not a theoretical debate about self-defense. It is written from the basis of personal involvement and from one man's experience. The one man with the means to fight back.

Nope. A puny handgun is no match for military grade weapons or terrorists.

How are events in South Africa, where cars are routinely booby-trapped with acid and shotguns, relevant to gun-control in the west? It's a completely different enviroment.

The one armed man did it?
You could say that... :D

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0620281200/002-3131697-0216847?v=glance&n=283155

How are events in South Africa, where cars are routinely booby-trapped with acid and shotguns, relevant to gun-control in the west? It's a completely different enviroment.
Exactly the same way UK gun control is relevant to the US... :rolleyes:

Exactly the same way UK gun control is relevant to the US... :rolleyes:

So are you saying:

1. This story is stupid and irrelevant.

or

2. Comparisons of UK and US gun control are reasonable.

.. how gun control in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR is relevent to the west as well!

:sniper: :mp5: :upyours:

Theatricalis'].. how gun control in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR is relevent to the west as well!

:sniper: :mp5: :upyours:

:rolleyes:

So are you saying:

1. This story is stupid and irrelevant.

or

2. Comparisons of UK and US gun control are reasonable.

How about:

3. Comparisons of UK and US gun control are stupid and irrelevant.

Frankly, if I had been in that SA church, I wouldn't have been carrying a .38 snubby. I'd have had somthing with a bit more capacity because SA was, as you say, more violent than the US - which has also seen psychos bomb churches.

Theatricalis'].. how gun control in Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR is relevent to the west as well!
I hope you do not mean to say gun control contributed to the rise of those regimes. :rolleyes:

1) The Nazis began as a series of private armed militias aimed at countering the 'excessive' power of the Weimar Republic and the communist movement.

2) In the Soviet Union, many people outside the main urban areas had privately-owned guns. These ranged from shotguns to semi-automatic and sniper rifles and were used for hunting birds and big game, and shooting stray feral dogs (a common hazard during the early stages of the Siberian winter).

How are events in South Africa, where cars are routinely booby-trapped with acid and shotguns, relevant to gun-control in the west? It's a completely different enviroment.
Different environment yes, but SA is considered to be part of the West.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of this thread was to affirm that a gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen can save lives, instead of the contrary, regardless of the country. The way I see it, if you need more gun control, try using both hands!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of this thread was to affirm that a gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen can save lives, instead of the contrary, regardless of the country. The way I see it, if you need more gun control, try using both hands!Cookie for you!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of this thread was to affirm that a gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen can save lives, instead of the contrary, regardless of the country. The way I see it, if you need more gun control, try using both hands!
And, agreed. :)

*CanuckHeaven looks around to see if this is page 23 yet?

*CanuckHeaven realizing that this is only page one decides to come back 22 pages later. Same old, same old.....yawn!!

The way I see it, there's an exception to every rule. This is just an exception to the rule that guns are used to kill innocent people.

The way I see it, there's an exception to every rule. This is just an exception to the rule that guns are used to kill innocent people.

I'ld like to see evidence for that rule. You know that most homicide victims in the west have a criminal history as well as the actual assailants, right?

*CanuckHeaven looks around to see if this is page 23 yet?

*CanuckHeaven realizing that this is only page one decides to come back 22 pages later. Same old, same old.....yawn!!

You're right, same old , same old "gun control" measures doing absolutely nothing to decrease crime.

I'ld like to see evidence for that rule. You know that most homicide victims in the west have a criminal history as well as the actual assailants, right?

The fact that they have a record just means that they have committed a crime in the past. That doesn't make them any less innocent, provided that they have served their allotted time for the crime.

Exactly the same way UK gun control is relevant to the US... :rolleyes:
In both cases criminals can get guns reguardless of legal status?

In every nation where you can score black tar heroin you can score a gun.

The fact that they have a record just means that they have committed a crime in the past. That doesn't make them any less innocent, provided that they have served their allotted time for the crime.

Translation: "I have no actual data and just want to throw out anti-gun meme's."

Translation: "I have no actual data and just want to throw out anti-gun meme's."

In the US in 2002, there were over 11,000 homicides, but only 300 cases of self-defense or legal intervention.

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

In the US in 2002, there were over 11,000 homicides, but only 300 cases of self-defense or legal intervention.

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

No, there were 300 cases of civilians defending themselves by killing their assailant. Using a firearm to defend yourself (DGU) does not necessarily entail killing the assailant or even firing the weapon. Estimates for DGU's range from 750K to 2.5 million /year.

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

Try again.

Visitors to Switzerland are astonished to see guns and rifles being carried openly in public -- particularly when there is a "shooting festival" occurring nearby. In fact, Switzerland has more firepower per person than any other country in the world -- yet it is one of the safest places on Earth.

* In 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country -- with firearms involved in 91 of the 189 total cases.

* Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 population and a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000.

* Almost half of those crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners -- whom locals call "criminal tourists."

* By comparison, Britain -- which has strict gun control laws -- had a homicide rate in 1994 of 1.4 per 100,000 and a robbery rate of 116 per 100,000.

Although Switzerland has local shooting contests for boys and girls ages 12 to 16, there have been no school massacres in the country.

All males between the ages of 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for purposes of national defense. Military historians do not doubt that this was a big reason Hitler chose to avoid Switzerland in favor of conquering countries which had strict gun control laws -- as well as registration lists which facilitated confiscation of firearms.

Source: Stephen P. Halbrook (attorney and author), "Where Kids and Guns Do Mix," Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1999.
But instead of dealing with major social problems, banning guns would just make all the bad stuff go away.... right?

In both cases criminals can get guns reguardless of legal status?

In every nation where you can score black tar heroin you can score a gun.Cookie for you!

(I'm rapidly running out of Cookies for sensible posters. )

But instead of dealing with major social problems, banning guns would just make all the bad stuff go away.... right?

Nice. Do you have an online link for that? (yes I'm lazy)

Try again.

I was talking about the amount of times guns were used to kill. And killing someone with a gun is >300 times more likely to occur that killing an assailant with a gun.

Nice. Do you have an online link for that? (yes I'm lazy)
Here you go:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd061099b.html

I was talking about the amount of times guns were used to kill. And killing someone with a gun is >300 times more likely to occur that killing an assailant with a gun.

No, you were talking about how many times a firearm was used to kill an "innocent" and then brought in a misleading stat of defensive gun uses. My stat shows that firearms are used much more often to PREVENT homicides and/or violent assaults of innocents.

Here you go:

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd061099b.html

Danke.

Well, the evidence always seems to suggest that the reason for the chaos in the US with respect to Americans slaughtering each other is not so much due to gun laws, but due to something else.

There are many countries in which it is quite easy to get a gun and own it (like Canada, or Switzerland), but there people don't shoot each other at anything like the same rate Americans do.

So it would seem to me a good idea to focus the discussion on those explaining factors, rather than rehash old, tired ideas again and again.

So why do the Yanks murder each other at a rate of 0.042802 per 1,000 people and the Swiss at only 0.00921351 per 1,000 people?

And why do the Russians kill each other even more, at 0.201534 per 1,000 people?

No, you were talking about how many times a firearm was used to kill an "innocent" and then brought in a misleading stat of defensive gun uses. My stat shows that firearms are used much more often to PREVENT homicides and/or violent assaults of innocents.

When a firearm kills somebody, it is much more likely to kill an innocent person than a criminal. That's all I'm saying.

As for the DGUs, do you have data on the percentage of cases in which the DGUs involved firing a bullet to scare somebody off and how many times a gun just needed to be shown to deter a crime?

SAVE GUNS!

(Ban gangsters!)

As for the DGUs, do you have data on the percentage of cases in which the DGUs involved firing a bullet to scare somebody off and how many times a gun just needed to be shown to deter a crime?

Irrelevent. Most self-defense with a gun events do not involve the firing of said gun, and even fewer still involve shooting the assailant.

Theoretically, just showing the gun is enough for most cases. On that note, you might actually get away with carrying a replica.

However, that has no bearing whatsoever on a gun control agenda. If you banned handguns but encouraged people to carry replicas to "fool criminals," it would be a hollow threat, as the criminals, themselves being members of society, would know that there was no firepower behind the it.

Also, I did -not- know that Swiss people were required to have guns. I think that's going just a little far. Being a libertarian and all, I'm up for encouragement to own guns, but being required strikes me as being a little wierd. Just a little.

I would question whomt they think is going to invade them, but they want to be prepared for that sort of thing, and I respect that decision.

When a firearm kills somebody, it is much more likely to kill an innocent person than a criminal. That's all I'm saying.

If that's "all" you're saying, it's different from what you originally said "the rule that guns are used to kill innocent people.

Do you see the difference?

As for the DGUs, do you have data on the percentage of cases in which the DGUs involved firing a bullet to scare somebody off and how many times a gun just needed to be shown to deter a crime?

Not off the top of my head.

But instead of dealing with major social problems, banning guns would just make all the bad stuff go away.... right?

I assume then that you have many enlightening theories for reducing instances of armed violence in this country? You have criticism for current policies, this must mean you've got reasonable alternatives.

I assume then that you have many enlightening theories for reducing instances of armed violence in this country? You have criticism for current policies, this must mean you've got reasonable alternatives.

For me:

1. Reduce the number of illegal immigrants, encourage registered worker programs. A large number of homicides in the SW are committed by II gang members and most police are prevented from enforcing immigration laws due to "sanctuary" statutes.

2. Demolish the ghettos and develop low cost housing in stable neighborhoods. a huge percentage of crime is committed in these areas by non-residents.

3. Modify the welfare system so as not to encourage cradle-to grave dependancy and give more to those actually improving themselves by education/work programs.

4. Stop just throwing money at the school system and look for methods/techniques that encourage kids to learn/improve themselves instead of dropping out or just not caring.

5. While this may seem somewhat racist, as almost 50% of homicides are committed by AA's, AA leaders need to start encouraging better role models (ie Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, etc) instead of sports figures and "gangsta's".
This, however, also applies across the board to caucasians and hispanics.

For me:

1. Reduce the number of illegal immigrants, encourage registered worker programs. A large number of homicides in the SW are committed by II gang members and most police are prevented from enforcing immigration laws due to "sanctuary" statutes.

2. Demolish the ghettos and develop low cost housing in stable neighborhoods. a huge percentage of crime is committed in these areas by non-residents.

3. Modify the welfare system so as not to encourage cradle-to grave dependancy and give more to those actually improving themselves by education/work programs.

4. Stop just throwing money at the school system and look for methods/techniques that encourage kids to learn/improve themselves instead of dropping out or just not caring.

5. While this may seem somewhat racist, as almost 50% of homicides are committed by AA's, AA leaders need to start encouraging better role models (ie Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, etc) instead of sports figures and "gangsta's".
This, however, also applies across the board to caucasians and hispanics.

It would seem ideal if all of this could actually be set into motion. Tweaking the welfare system in particular, as it could well be the end of the US if it led to an economic meltdown.

So what we're saying here is carry your Glock when you go to church.

Nice.

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

Try again.
Ummmm, Guncite.....try again. :D

Do you see the difference?

Yeah, you're right, I phrased that extremely badly.

"Guns don't kill people, but husbands who come home early do." - Larry the Cable Guy

Also, I did -not- know that Swiss people were required to have guns. I think that's going just a little far. Being a libertarian and all, I'm up for encouragement to own guns, but being required strikes me as being a little wierd. Just a little.

I would question whomt they think is going to invade them, but they want to be prepared for that sort of thing, and I respect that decision.

Well yes, put the Swiss policy into its national and historical context and it becomes a lot clearer.

Though I would not like such a policy implement here, since though I trust my family with a gun, and my next door neighbour. I'm not too keen on those bastards across the road having one :p

Though I am intrigued by Neu Leonstein's question. Though not knowing much on this subject I can't offer any anything , but would be interested in reading anything.

I assume then that you have many enlightening theories for reducing instances of armed violence in this country? You have criticism for current policies, this must mean you've got reasonable alternatives.
Having an intent to kill is far more dangerous than simply having a premade weapon. Firearms are non-issue expect amongst those who have given inanimate objects the property of being inherently good or inherently evil. Though taking away the means of self defense is evil.

As I said, there are no simple answers. The only thing I can think of to reduce crime would be to eliminate the black market (by ending consensual crime) and the crime associated with it. But any real change cannot be mandated, it has to come from and be implimented by the communities themselves.

*CanuckHeaven looks around to see if this is page 23 yet?

*CanuckHeaven realizing that this is only page one decides to come back 22 pages later. Same old, same old.....yawn!!
Syniks sees Canuk's boredom and raises an:

If you don't like my anecdotes, please provide anecdotes where an unarmed individual mde a significant contribution to limiting/stopping a criminal armed assault.


Raise or Fold.

When a firearm kills somebody, it is much more likely to kill an innocent person than a criminal. That's all I'm saying.
How about some Linguistic Ethics eh?

A firearm is an inanimate object. It is no more likely to "do" anything than your average chunk of bedrock. Like a Chainsaw, it takes Human Intervention for a Firearm to be used in any action. Thus, it is not the firearm that "does" anything. Removing the tool does not change the intent of the actor.

I am far more messyily effective with an Axe than a firearm anyway. It's just that an Axe is not as good for Self Defense as it is for decapitationg morons.

So what we're saying here is carry your Glock when you go to church. Nice.
Why not? Unless you are particularly keen on your parishioners being killed without your reasonable attempt to save them....

Really, what's the difference between carrying your Glock and your Wallet?

(If you like, I can link you to a Rabinical adjudication as to carrying firearms on the Sabbath...)

Well, the evidence always seems to suggest that the reason for the chaos in the US with respect to Americans slaughtering each other is not so much due to gun laws, but due to something else.

There are many countries in which it is quite easy to get a gun and own it (like Canada, or Switzerland), but there people don't shoot each other at anything like the same rate Americans do.

So it would seem to me a good idea to focus the discussion on those explaining factors, rather than rehash old, tired ideas again and again.

So why do the Yanks murder each other at a rate of 0.042802 per 1,000 people and the Swiss at only 0.00921351 per 1,000 people?

And why do the Russians kill each other even more, at 0.201534 per 1,000 people?

i suppose one could argue that our culture(and the russian's)are inherently violent due to the nature of their origins.
violent rebellion against england,the so called taming of the west,a pretty bloody civil war..on and on...
i am not a historic scholar or a social psychology scholar,however it does seem to (the above)infer a violent pattern of behaviour.
i am not well read enough to compare the us or russia to other cultures and their affinity towards violence.

i would add that others have made good points pointing towards cradle to grave welfare dependency,glorifying "gangsta" in media,chronic poverty and permanent underclass.

one could could also look to plain old marketing(madison ave. crap)whereas,every commercial gloryfies material possession and of coarse,the best of all...you have money and objects of value...you are more appealing to the fairer sex!
hell even beer commercials appeal to that.

so mix that enviroment with some poor guy in the hood,fed a steady diet of your the victim and gangsta rap..you do have the makings of a problem.and he has no idea where his next meal is coming from,let alone where he is gonna get the loot for a cadillac escalade to get the girl the tv tells him he can only have if he has said escalade..and is reinforced daily by the gangsta rappers driving escalades full of "booty"

it is also easy to say...pull your self up by the bootstraps and get a job...where in the hood do you get a job?
and how much does it pay..enough to buy an escalade?

all that said..there are probably countless more reasons i am overlooking.

and THAT said...i am not going to not let myself be disarmed,i may comisserate and even understand some of the motivations for violent behaviour,i most certainly will not intentionally fall victim by being disarmed and unable to protect myself,my loved ones,and my property!

until there is some type of hope for some of societies underclass,amongst many other factors,violent crime will continue un abated...and just because i have something some one wants..i will not fall victim or feel guilty for working for what i have and relinguish it.

it does not mean i have no feelings or i dont care for their situation,but i certainly do not want to be attacked,defenceless, because i have something you want.

it's basically a mess,for so many reasons,i prefer to have some modicum of defence other then calling the cops after i am a victim!

lastly,as someone pointed out,the ILLEGAL immigration thing is bringing drug gangs from south america in by the boatload,and they are quite violent,i could post all night about the horror show going on with them(ms-13,etal)here in the states.
they are brutal,violent,and do not just attack their competitors..the soldiers also have their play time,and innocent people are there victims.



sorry for the mile long post:-(

but iread this on another site,and while i cant vouch for the claims about certain levels of violence in other countries,i did find it an interesting read...so thanks if you managed to trudge thru all this,and take some moments to read the following and give me your opinion..thanks


Now that I have watched all of Lord of War, including the deleted scenes, and the commentary by Amnesty Intl., etc., I have a few things swirling through my mind(s).

Demonising the technology has never accomplished its intended goal. In the same way that the 18th Amendment did nothing but make mobsters millionaires, any attempt to curb violence through the making of small arms (and subsequent hunting / sporter firearms) illegal or increasing their difficulty to obtain legally shall make any impact upon their illegal use.
Moreover, their creation by national manufacturing plants and their subsequent export to 'Third World' nations does not create a problem, it merely escallates an existing problem.

Without AK-47s, Liberia and Sierra Leone would still have had the potential to be blood baths, as Rwandan aggressors demonstrated potently with machetes and clubs. The firearms merely made the ease of the killings and the speed at which bodies could be felled, that much more efficient.
In the UK, the disarming of the citizenry has done nothing to curb violence in the population. Instead, knifings have gone up hundreds of percent over the world average, and as a result, the cost in human lives has increased through this more brutal violence, as the victims often are not noticed or the crime witnessed as when a firearm discharges.
In response, in the UK, knife-carrying is now illegal by common citrizenry. This of course may have its own side-effects on increased rape and violent robbery as the citizenry will be unable to legally defend themselves from attackers who are entirely unconcerned with laws.
In disarmed countries under the UK (Scotland in particular), beatings with blunt weapons have increased, as well as the intensity and severity of unarmed attacks.

The real problem is two-fold.
On a large-scale, it is the purposeful ignorance of so-called civilised nations regarding Second- and Third-world countries commiting violence on a national level against their own populace.
Secondly, it is the generational pandemic of violence within human populations regardless of class, ethnicity, education level, or religion (or lack thereof).

The first problem is rooted in the second.
Humans as a species are a mixed bag of loving and evil.
We may care about ourselves but less so about others. We may love our family and chosen friends lovers, but not others. We may care for our local, State, and National brethren, but not others. We may espouse the love of all human kind, but if pressed, most would use violence in an instinctual reaction to harm being visited upon their own loved ones.

"Its in your blood and you can't shake it." -- 'Hate Breeders' by Glen (Anzalone) Danzig, The Misfits, Walk Among Us.

The naive and misguided attempts by certain individuals to disarm populations will not result in a uptopian reality, but one of oppression by unscrupulous individuals beyond the reach of decency and basic human emotions.
To surrender one's ability to defend life, whether to bestow such responsibility upon a chosen group (police, national army, or international peace-keeping force) is still addressing the issue that the deed must be performed by someone, as the need (and perpetrators of evil acts) truly exist(s).
To believe that no defence is needed or desired and the consequences of inaction preferable in some grand ideological scheme, is one of personal choice, and ought not be imposed on others.

As one sworn to come to the aid of strangers, regardless of the personal cost, I am often disheartened by the well-intentioned efforts of some to make this a 'safer world' by making certain items or instruments legally unobtainable, when the true canker is within each of us that share this planet.

Maimed children do not make me gleeful, nor the sight of child soldiers in senseless conflict, but seeing evil governments disarming their own citizenry only evokes memories of a period only 60 years gone by, when many millions of humans peacefully entered boxcars and were shipped off to camps, where millions were then killed without a fight.
I can't understand why so few seem to realise that disarmed populations are prey for their own despots.

As a friend of mine has as a signature on his profile, "If guns are outlawed...I'll become an outlaw."

The sad fact is that many of us also hunt, if you ban guns you also ban that. And that in itslef is a different topic i suppose. Like many have said on here, guns dont kill, humans that hold it do and you can predict what every human is going to do by what the criminals do.

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

I just love the smilies!!

i am not well read enough to compare the us or russia to other cultures and their affinity towards violence.
Well, for example, there is the tiny matter of the Holocaust. Ultimately, every country has a history of violence, and the US has been no different.

So it's not that one.

i would add that others have made good points pointing towards cradle to grave welfare dependency
In the US of all places? And have a look at the Russian "welfare" state. They don't get much support at all.

They do though in Switzerland.

So it's not that one.

,glorifying "gangsta" in media
Well, that's international. They listen to that music all over the world.

So it's not that one either.

,chronic poverty and permanent underclass.
That might have to do with it. But then, the quickest way to make people less poor is to give them welfare money...

So it might be that one, although probably not exclusively.

so mix that enviroment with some poor guy in the hood,fed a steady diet of your the victim and gangsta rap..you do have the makings of a problem.and he has no idea where his next meal is coming from,let alone where he is gonna get the loot for a cadillac escalade to get the girl the tv tells him he can only have if he has said escalade..and is reinforced daily by the gangsta rappers driving escalades full of "booty"
Couldn't you find the same thing just across the border in Canada though? Are there no poor people, or no black people, or no hip hop fans in Canada?

lastly,as someone pointed out,the ILLEGAL immigration thing is bringing drug gangs from south america in by the boatload,and they are quite violent,i could post all night about the horror show going on with them(ms-13,etal)here in the states.
they are brutal,violent,and do not just attack their competitors..the soldiers also have their play time,and innocent people are there victims.
Well, how about making all immigration legal? That would quickly get rid of the gangs.
And besides, you don't wanna see the sort of shit the Russian mob pulls all over Europe. It can't be much better than what anyone from South America could come up with.

Humans as a species are a mixed bag of loving and evil.
So resign to it? I don't want to.

Maimed children do not make me gleeful, nor the sight of child soldiers in senseless conflict, but seeing evil governments disarming their own citizenry only evokes memories of a period only 60 years gone by, when many millions of humans peacefully entered boxcars and were shipped off to camps, where millions were then killed without a fight.
Oh, brother. Not that one again.

Let's make it quick: If every household in Germany would have been armed, nothing would have been different except maybe that the nation would have been even more difficult to defeat.

Let's make it quick: If every household in Germany would have been armed, nothing would have been different except maybe that the nation would have been even more difficult to defeat.

Actually that was true anyways. Many of the Germans had guns in their home. :)

Ummmm, Guncite.....try again. :D

Ummmm, Ad Hominem.....try again. :D

Ummmm, Ad Hominem.....try again. :D
It's not like the using data from the rabidly anti-gun ICHV is any less slanted than Gunsite's info.

Nope. Not at all.

But instead of dealing with major social problems, banning guns would just make all the bad stuff go away.... right?

Well if you want to induct everyone forcibly into the army as they do in Switzerland go ahead. Because that's what it might take. But then I suspect you're Libertarian so all the controls the Swiss put on their guns would freak you out.

What to do...

Well if you want to induct everyone forcibly into the army as they do in Switzerland go ahead. Because that's what it might take. But then I suspect you're Libertarian so all the controls the Swiss put on their guns would freak you out.

What to do...
Irrelevant, we have established that legality has nothing to do with the ability of criminals to obtain weapons in areas that have a black market. And that crime is a social problem that has nothing to do with the presence of inanimate objects or lack there of.

EX: Russia has very restrictive firearms laws and a very high firearms homicide rate.

Ummmm, Ad Hominem.....try again. :D
Your hypocrisy is overwhelming. If anyone tries to use a pro gun control site to support their arguments, then you would be the first to jump all over their case. I thought I would remind you early in the debate. :p

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming. If anyone tries to use a pro gun control site to support their arguments, then you would be the first to jump all over their case. I thought I would remind you early in the debate. :p
Um, actually, if you will recall, he did not jump all over him/her for using the ICHV site or data - just countered it with Gunsite published data.

Firearms is for Police and Military alone and should never be used by a civilian, civilians with guns is just stupid.

A small number of slow-firing rifles could be an exception, if you are a hunter, meaning you have undergone education and recieved a form of license in the proper use, safety and handling of said rifle, and to keep a weapon you should have to have a safe or other approved cabinet to lock it up in with the vital components removed at the time of storage and kept separately in a hidden location.

Whenever I think "USA" and "guns" I get the idea of 2-3 guns in every mans drawer...and it's probably an at least 50% accurate generalization to, so...

Having a glock .45 around is very usefull in Phila. I cant speak for other places in the US but Philly has some excellent pistol ranges and the glock is a fine weapon to bring to the range . Ammo is almost as cheap as .38 special ( although I have been using frangible to avoid the lead fouling of wad cutters ) , and enables me to get in lots of practice in case the martians land or I have some other neeed to actually use it for something other than recreation .

Firearms is for Police and Military alone and should never be used by a civilian, civilians with guns is just stupid.
Why one group of people and not the other?

Firearms is for Police and Military alone and should never be used by a civilian, civilians with guns is just stupid. The definition of a Police State...
A small number of slow-firing rifles could be an exception, if you are a hunter, meaning you have undergone education and recieved a form of license in the proper use, safety and handling of said rifle, and to keep a weapon you should have to have a safe or other approved cabinet to lock it up in with the vital components removed at the time of storage and kept separately in a hidden location. To be checked at regular intervals with Warrantless Searches by the Gun Police?
Whenever I think "USA" and "guns" I get the idea of 2-3 guns in every mans drawer...and it's probably an at least 50% accurate generalization to, so...Shows what you know. Actually, it very clearly shows the anti gun line you have been fed by the Anti Gun Media & UN.

Um, actually, if you will recall, he did not jump all over him/her for using the ICHV site or data - just countered it with Gunsite published data.
Ummm, basically what he was doing was trying to discount the ICHV site by suggesting that Guncite was somehow more factual?

I do believe that the words used by Kecibukia was "try again". :rolleyes:

How about:

3. Comparisons of UK and US gun control are stupid and irrelevant.

Frankly, if I had been in that SA church, I wouldn't have been carrying a .38 snubby. I'd have had somthing with a bit more capacity because SA was, as you say, more violent than the US - which has also seen psychos bomb churches.

Way to miss the point.:rolleyes:

Either you can compare gun control in different settings or you can't. If you want to dismiss comparisons of the UK and the US as irrelevant then you must admit that this story is irrelevant. If you accept the story as relevant then you must accept the legitamacy of comparisons between the UK and the US.

Ummm, basically what he was doing was trying to discount the ICHV site by suggesting that Guncite was somehow more factual?

I do believe that the words used by Kecibukia was "try again". :rolleyes:
Sure. His numbers were a little off from the Gunsite report... the one where they republish Department of Justice data...

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

MENU TITLE: Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: May 1997
20 pages
41,893 bytes

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

Jeremy Travis, Director
May 1997

------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Results of a nationally representative telephone survey (1994) on private ownership and use of firearms by American adults. The survey provides the most complete data available on the private stock of firearms in the United States.

Key issues: With nearly 200 million guns in private hands, firearms have an important impact on the quality of life in America. What is the size and composition of the Nation's private gun inventory? What are the methods of, and reasons for, acquiring firearms? How are firearms stored? How frequently are guns used against criminal attackers?

Key findings: The survey data and analysis yielded the following results:

o In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25 percent of adults actually owned firearms; 74 percent of gun owners possessed two or more.

o The proportion of American households that keep firearms appears to be declining.

o Sixty-eight percent of handgun owners also possessed at least one rifle or shotgun.

o Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged, college-educated people of rural small-town America. Whites were substantially more likely to own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than Hispanics.

o The most common motivation for owning firearms was recreation. Forty-six percent possessed a gun primarily for protection against crime.

o There were 13.7 million firearm transactions in 1993-1994, including 6.5 million handguns. About 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved federally licensed dealers.

o About 211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial thefts in 1994. (comment: less than 1/2 of 1%)

o Slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked; 16 percent of firearms were stored unlocked and loaded. (comment - bad idea IMO)

o In 1994, about 14 million adults (approximately one-third of gun owners) at least once carried a firearm in their vehicles or on their person for protection.

o Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack. (I have nothing to hide. See below)

Defensive gun uses

NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs. Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and Gertz instrument and provides a basis for replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative were followed with "How many different times did you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or property in the past 12 months?" Negative answers to the first DGU question were followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original). Each respondent who answered yes to either of these DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional questions concerning the most recent defensive gun use in which the respondent was involved, including the respondent's actions with the gun, the location and other circumstances of the incident, and the respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses. Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most recent DGU description for any of the following reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator; the respondent could not state a specific crime that was involved in the incident; or the respondent did not actually display the gun or mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.

Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)

Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate
of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.[14]

The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar to the most recent case and provide evidence for additional millions of violent crimes foiled and perpetrators shot.

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria).

Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias. The reason can best be explained by use of an epidemiological framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject to error, whether the "test" is a medical examination for cancer or an interview question for DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or "false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber the former, the population prevalence will be exaggerated.

The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias--regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth.

Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:

o They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.

o They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.

o They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon known as "telescoping."

Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate.

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"

The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.

Unclear benefits and costs from gun uses. Even if one were clever enough to design a questionnaire that would weed out error, a problem in interpreting the result would remain. Should the number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public benefit of private gun possession, even in principle? When it comes to DGUs, is more better? That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:

o First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all parties before reaching a conclusion.

o Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim.[16] Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way reflected in the DGU count.
------------------------------

So, for a little intellectual honesty here.

#1: Guncite posted the the DOJ report, even though the DOJ was not interested in "proving" anything and the report is NOT oversympathetic to gun ownership. However, the report does they grudgingly admit that there are over 100,000 DGUs per year.

#2: The above bolded paragraph addresses the deterrant effect of an armed populous. Therefore, it is not outside the realm of reason to consider simple possession of a firearm to be a form of DGU. If a criminal avoids you because you might be armed, the firearm has been "effectively used".

#3: We have seatbelt and life preserver laws because "If only one person is saved, it is worth it". Somehow, this doesn't translate over to 100,000 + DGU of firearms. :rolleyes:

-------------------------------------

And no, RLI is missing the point. DGU can happen anywhere guns are not banned. You anti-gun types insist on saying that GB is better/safer because of anti-thing laws and we keep pointing out that GB has been historically safer because of a cultural paradigm.

Criminal Violence in the US fits somewhere between the racial violence in SA and the "It's a fair cop" of GB. The fact is, where armed assaults occur, the best response is a rapid armed response. Waiting for SWAT to arrive is not "rapid".

This particular DGU anecdote is not an irrelevant comparison between ocietal situations because, as you are so fond of pointing out, there are a pissload of guns in the US - some of which are in criminal hands.

So it is perfectly relevant to juxtapose the SA event, with the its DGU with somthing like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/448728.stm where noone fought back.

Ummm, basically what he was doing was trying to discount the ICHV site by suggesting that Guncite was somehow more factual?

I do believe that the words used by Kecibukia was "try again". :rolleyes:

Way to Red Herring. Can you be anymore disingenuous?

I posted counter information and listed Guncite as a source which links to and presents numerous sources.

You, instead of trying to refute the data, just attacked the source. That is known as an Ad Hominem. I mentioned nothing about the opposite source.

Now. Try again.

Where do criminals get their guns? It appears that they get them from stealing them from Law Abiding Citizens (LAC). :eek:

Thefts. A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons
was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those with
criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun.9

Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households
(269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial
thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.10

But God forbid that LAC's be made to store their guns securely.

Where do criminals get their guns? It appears that they get them from stealing them from Law Abiding Citizens (LAC). :eek:

Thefts. A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons
was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those with
criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun.9

Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households
(269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial
thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.10

But God forbid that LAC's be made to store their guns securely.


And that's been shown in Canada to work so well.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1136589011741

Criminals get their guns by committing crimes. Shock. Let's restrict those who actually follow the law because of them.

I'm glad you support warrantless searches of homes, punishing the poor, and oppose self-defense, Canuck.

I also find it interesting that you call into question the NSPOF report of 1.5 million DGU's / year but accept w/o hesitation the amount of firearms stolen.

Of course this whole thing is another Red Herring to try and get off the topic of you calling me a hypocrit.

James' Pro-Gun Message

Gun control is hitting your target.

http://www.theforsakenoutlaw.com/Graphics/The%20Outlaw/Photogallery/Gun%20Excursion%20VI/Gun-Excursion-6-38.mpg

I think a viable plan for gun control is this:
Require a license and insurance to own and use a gun - of any type.

Just think - we must have a license and insurance to own and operate a motor vehicle, and requiring these things in no way restricts the rights of citizens. It merely insures that the owners/operators of the vehicles must have demonstrated that they are capable of operating the vehicle safely and that they assume financial responsibility for repairs and liability incurred by and to the vehicle.
Something similar in regards to guns isn't unreasonable, is it?

I think a viable plan for gun control is this:
Require a license and insurance to own and use a gun - of any type.

Just think - we must have a license and insurance to own and operate a motor vehicle, and requiring these things in no way restricts the rights of citizens. It merely insures that the owners/operators of the vehicles must have demonstrated that they are capable of operating the vehicle safely and that they assume financial responsibility for repairs and liability incurred by and to the vehicle.
Something similar in regards to guns isn't unreasonable, is it?

Actually, you only require a license and insurance on a car if you use it on public roads. You can buy all you want and drive them on your land or other private land w/ permission. There's also no waiting periods or background checks. It's also good in all the states and territories.

Most anti-gunners have conniptions when that detail is brought up.

Way to Red Herring. Can you be anymore disingenuous?

I posted counter information and listed Guncite as a source which links to and presents numerous sources.

You, instead of trying to refute the data, just attacked the source. That is known as an Ad Hominem. I mentioned nothing about the opposite source.

Now. Try again.
*CanuckHeaven hands Kecibukia a mirror. :D

GunCite is a pro gun site. As such, it is biased. How does that make what I stated "disengenuous"?

Or, shall we just have a debate back and forth based on pro gun control sites and pro gun sites?

Where do criminals get their guns? It appears that they get them from stealing them from Law Abiding Citizens (LAC). :eek:

Thefts. A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons
was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those with
criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun.9

Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households
(269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial
thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.10

But God forbid that LAC's be made to store their guns securely.
A leading supplier of weapons for Palistinian terrorists is the IDF. IRA operatives stole a large number of firearms from the UK and US militaries. Numerous governments (Serbia, Sudan, Rwanda, etc.) equip paramilitaries to carry out genocide.

Again this argument is irrelivant. Intent is far more relvant than capacity.

*CanuckHeaven hands Kecibukia a mirror. :D

GunCite is a pro gun site. As such, it is biased. How does that make what I stated "disengenuous"?

Or, shall we just have a debate back and forth based on pro gun control sites and pro gun sites?

It's a progun cite that also links to sources that oppose it.

I posted links to the SOURCES (not Guncite) that countered the SOURCE of the OP's data and didn't bring up the origin of the OP's data at all. You, however, had to troll a little by making Ad Hominems and then had the nerve to call me a hypocrit .

Now go back under your bridge.

A reasonably armed man used a weapon to defend innocents, which is a good thing. But the 'terrorists' were also armed with guns, and they were trying to kill innocents, which is a bad thing.

To me this is just proof that a gun is a tool, nothing more. Which is why I support reasonable and responsible gun liberties, because banning guns makes as much sense as banning hammers, and is about as effective in reducing crime...

Actually, you only require a license and insurance on a car if you use it on public roads. You can buy all you want and drive them on your land or other private land w/ permission. There's also no waiting periods or background checks. It's also good in all the states and territories.

Most anti-gunners have conniptions when that detail is brought up.

Actually, there is a background check of a sort - try renewing your license with an outstanding traffic ticket - even a twenty-year-old one from out of state!

Actually, there is a background check of a sort - try renewing your license with an outstanding traffic ticket - even a twenty-year-old one from out of state!

I meant for purchase, but good point.

It's a progun cite that also links to sources that oppose it.

I posted links to the SOURCES (not Guncite) that countered the SOURCE of the OP's data and didn't bring up the origin of the OP's data at all. You, however, had to troll a little by making Ad Hominems and then had the nerve to call me a hypocrit .

Now go back under your bridge.
All I suggested is that pro gun sites were biased and you have called me on them before. Shall I go back and dig up your quotes to me on those issues?

In the meantime, in this thread, you have accused me of "ad hominems", called me a "troll", suggested that I am "disengenuous", and should "go back under my bridge".

Perhaps you should cut down on the number of personal attacks and concentrate on the thread. :D

A reasonably armed man used a weapon to defend innocents, which is a good thing. But the 'terrorists' were also armed with guns, and they were trying to kill innocents, which is a bad thing.

To me this is just proof that a gun is a tool, nothing more. Which is why I support reasonable and responsible gun liberties, because banning guns makes as much sense as banning hammers, and is about as effective in reducing crime...

I'm sorry, but hammers kill people. They are an evil blight on our otherwise-utopian society and must be banned.

All I suggested is that pro gun sites were biased and you have called me on them before. Shall I go back and dig up your quotes to me on those issues?

And the OP used a "gun control" site. I didn't mention this at all and just used information. You, however, instead of trying to counter the information, just attacked the source. This is known as an Ad Hominem as you well know. When I called you on it, you called me a hypocrit. You can dig up all the quotes you want. It still has nothing to do w/ this thread and my reply to the OP.

In the meantime, in this thread, you have accused me of "ad hominems", called me a "troll", suggested that I am "disengenuous", and should "go back under my bridge".

I call it as I see it.

Perhaps you should cut down on the number of personal attacks and concentrate on the thread. :D

Perhaps you should also look in the mirror as you were the one that first cried "hypocrit".

I'm sorry, but hammers kill people. They are an evil blight on our otherwise-utopian society and must be banned.

I'm sure this statement will be used in the UK soon. :)

Where do criminals get their guns? It appears that they get them from stealing them from Law Abiding Citizens (LAC). :eek:

Thefts. A major theme highlighted in a 1986 survey of incarcerated felons
was that theft was an important means of obtaining firearms for those with
criminal intentions: 32 percent of surveyed felons had stolen their most recently acquired handgun.9

Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all gun-owning households
(269,000) experienced the theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen in noncommercial
thefts that year, for a total of 593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are consistent with earlier estimates of about half a million guns stolen annually.10.
Psst. Perhaps you missed my bold comment :rolleyes: those thefts count for less than 1/2 of 1% (somewhere around .003246) of legally held handguns. If you are going to ban somthing because it is stolen frequently, you aught to look at car stereos. :rolleyes:
But God forbid that LAC's be made to store their guns securely"Made"? Made how? With no-knock warrantless searches? I thought you Liberal types were against things like that. Maybe those no-knock searches should apply to "sodomy laws" too... :rolleyes:

I think a viable plan for gun control is this:
Require a license and insurance to own and use a gun - of any type.

Just think - we must have a license and insurance to own and operate a motor vehicle, and requiring these things in no way restricts the rights of citizens. It merely insures that the owners/operators of the vehicles must have demonstrated that they are capable of operating the vehicle safely and that they assume financial responsibility for repairs and liability incurred by and to the vehicle.
Something similar in regards to guns isn't unreasonable, is it?
Hmm. I wrote this back in 1999 or 2000 during the Clinton admin. It was published in a few papers. For some reason the Anti-Gun types can't refute it.
License & Registration Please?

Perhaps it's time to call their bluff.
In his state of disunion show President Clinton, that famous duck hunter, once again voiced the anti-gun mantra of "why don't we treat guns like cars..." and this time I think we in the pro gun community should take heed. I mean this only half factiously. Really.
The President has said, "Should people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of Course I do...", and this time proposed a national “drivers license” (picture ID and all) for gun owners.

Hello! We have been given an absolutely splendid opportunity to stand up to the anti-freedom crowd and CALL THEIR BLUFF. We should take them up on their leader's offer (especially since it will only get shot down – by their side no less) and show the world once and for all how meaningless (and un-thought-out) their anti-gun talking points are.
Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.

Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:

Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":

A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:

A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.
So sure. I absolutely agree with you. I certainly do want a DMV stile licensing scheme.

6 hours of *crickets*

Ohhh look, a gun debate that refused to devolve into Flames and ends with logic.

I guess that takes all the fun out of it. :rolleyes:

And the OP used a "gun control" site.
Wow, you really are on a roll today huh? The OP did not use a "gun control" site.

I didn't mention this at all and just used information.
You just used info from a pro gun site which you are wont to do. God knows you are the first to attack someone if they use a pro gun control site, such as the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/).

You, however, instead of trying to counter the information, just attacked the source. This is known as an Ad Hominem as you well know.
Reminding you that GunCite is a pro gun site is not an ad hominem.

When I called you on it, you called me a hypocrit.
Show me where in this thread that I called you a "hypocrit"?

You can dig up all the quotes you want. It still has nothing to do w/ this thread and my reply to the OP.
Your rant has nothing to do with this thread.

I call it as I see it.
Well then you better check your glasses my friend. :D

Perhaps you should also look in the mirror as you were the one that first cried "hypocrit".
I refer you to my point above about hypocrisy.

If you want to license guns, fine. However, you have to do it properly.

California's "discrentionary" CCW program is inherently corrupt, and possibly racist.

There must be set critera, and you must pass an exam, and possibly pay a fee. If you do these, you should get the permits you require, and that's that.

If you want to license guns, fine. However, you have to do it properly.

California's "discrentionary" CCW program is inherently corrupt, and possibly racist.

There must be set critera, and you must pass an exam, and possibly pay a fee. If you do these, you should get the permits you require, and that's that.
:confused: :confused:

Did you even read my post?

I don't expect Canuck to, but I do have hope for other Generalites...

So...while we're at it.

The 2nd amendment talks about an "armed populace", right?

So why are there such issues with butterfly knifes, or in some states, switchblades?

Is this about weapons, or about guns?

So...while we're at it.

The 2nd amendment talks about an "armed populace", right?

So why are there such issues with butterfly knifes, or in some states, switchblades?

Is this about weapons, or about guns?

To people who believe things are causal in evil rather than people it's about "weapons"... any "weapon", or any thing that might be used as a weapon.

The 2nd Am. is a an article that is read as many ways as a passage of the Bible or Koran - whose interpretation of which is dependant on the predjudices of the reader, at least if they want to ignore grammar anyway. Commas are important.

Article II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

#1 "Regulated" - Regular, trained, drilled. Also "to a matched point of aim" as in a "regulated" double rifle.

#2 "Militia" - defined elsewhere as "the whole body of the people", or all physically capable (males) between ages X & Y.

#3 "being necessary to the security of a free state" - explanatory clause modifying "well regulated militia"

#4 "the right" - as defined in the Declaration of Independence and 1st Amendment. Preceeding and preempting Law.

#5 "of the people - "the people" is used in the Constitution only in reference to individuals. See 1st Amendment

#5 "to keep and bear arms" - "keep", maintain within one's extended personal possession(s). "bear" - to carry

#6 "Arms" - specifically the weapon of the comon soldier of the period. I.e., a Rifle &/or a sword & Pistol(s).

#7 "Shall not be infringed" - clause emphasising and modifying "Right". "Infringed" - denied, reduced or delayed

In as much as tanks, WMDs, rocket launchers, switchblades, etc are not "arms" in the sense dictated by the 2nd Am, there is no Constitutional prohibition to a State censuring or controlling their possession - i.e. the "keeping or bearing" of non-common weapons.

To people who believe things are causal in evil rather than people it's about "weapons"... any "weapon", or any thing that might be used as a weapon.

The 2nd Am. is a an article that is read as many ways as a passage of the Bible or Koran - whose interpretation of which is dependant on the predjudices of the reader, at least if they want to ignore grammar anyway. Commas are important.

Article II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Canadian iterpretation #358687558......

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as you are in a well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.

Canadian iterpretation #358687558......

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as you are in a well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.

And since by US law every able bodied male between 17 & 45 are part of the militia, I guess you just want to discriminate against senior citizens, women, and the disabled.

Wow, you really are on a roll today huh? The OP did not use a "gun control" site.

The poster that this whole tirade of yours started w/ used a "gun control" site or are you just trying to throw in semantics about the first post of the thread and the poster that I replied to and you then Ad Hominem'd? How sad would that be?


You just used info from a pro gun site which you are wont to do. God knows you are the first to attack someone if they use a pro gun control site, such as the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/).

And since I didn't do that with the poster I replied to, your "God" must not exist. You are now the one making personal attacks and still being disingenuous as can be.



Reminding you that GunCite is a pro gun site is not an ad hominem.

When you are inferring that the data is questionable because of the site, it is. Are you now denying that you inferred that?



Show me where in this thread that I called you a "hypocrit"?

Right here:


Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

So you weren't calling me a hypocrite? That is kind of what one is if they are using alledged hypocrisy, so unless you deny making this post or admitting that your arguement is so weak you have to go after spelling...


Your rant has nothing to do with this thread.

and neither have the majority of your posts. Nice Red Herring.



Well then you better check your glasses my friend. :D

I see clearly and it still shows the same thing.



I refer you to my point above about hypocrisy.

I reffered to it and how it shows how disingenuous you are.

Canadian iterpretation #358687558......

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as you are in a well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.
A militia is a group of people who can be called/recalled by the government to defend the "homeland".

Every person who has ever been honorably discharged from the US military is part of the "inactive Ready Reserve" and is subjet to recall. How many million men & women does this "permit" to keep and bear arms?

Every male 18 - 35 is subject to the Draft - the call to defend the homeland. How many million more does this include?

In fact, according to your interpretation, since the militia is necessary, it occurs to me that any male between 18 & 35, and any military veteran who doesn't "keep and bear" the regular arms of the military is vioating the highest law of the US.

How cool. I was about to get excided about your definition and how much it contradicted your other positions until I remembered that a Canadian interpretation of the US Constitution means precisely dick.

But thanks for the "permission" to demand gun ownership of such a large percentage of the population of the US.

------------------

And yet, no one has refuted my Licensing scheme. Must be a good one.

Many anti-gun pundits (and some not so anti-gun *cough* CT *cough*:) ) have used US v Miller's line "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" to justify the banning, restriction, or heavy regulation of various firearms from shotguns w/ barrells less than 18" (aka "sawed-off") semi-auto's, pistols, "sniper rifles", etc.

My question is what, then ,are the firearms that bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" ? Why these and not the others?





Note: "Miller" was way off in the decision w/ this line "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." as the 1897 Trench Gun was a shotgun w/ a barrel less than 18" and over 30,000 of them had been issued to US troops during WWI and after.

Many anti-gun pundits (and some not so anti-gun *cough* CT *cough*:) ) have used US v Miller's line "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" to justify the banning, restriction, or heavy regulation of various firearms from shotguns w/ barrells less than 18" (aka "sawed-off") semi-auto's, pistols, "sniper rifles", etc.

My question is what, then ,are the firearms that bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" ? Why these and not the others?
Because the movies and the TV say they are bad.

While I think that the federal government has NO legal ability to control weapons what constitutes a militia should be up to the states.

How are events in South Africa, where cars are routinely booby-trapped with acid and shotguns, relevant to gun-control in the west? It's a completely different enviroment.
Well, firstly there's the fact that no replicable and reliable study has been able to prove that gun control lowers violence.

Note: "Miller" was way off in the decision w/ this line "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." as the 1897 Trench Gun was a shotgun w/ a barrel less than 18" and over 30,000 of them had been issued to US troops during WWI and after.
Not really. Given that it was a court case the evidence had to be directly shown to the court. It wasn't because the people in question weren't at the court to defend themselves.

Not really. Given that it was a court case the evidence had to be directly shown to the court. It wasn't because the people in question weren't at the court to defend themselves.

I understand that. My point was that given a one-sided arguement, the court made a decision that didn't represent historical fact hence "way-off".

Canadian iterpretation #358687558......

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed as long as you are in a well regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.
Which any remotely competent english teacher would tell you is a completely different meaning from the original sentence. Also, when discussing what is now the 2nd amendment when creating the Bill of Rights, there was a motion to append it with the words "for the common defense" which would completely eliminate the individual rights aspect. It was struck down.

Annoy Canuck Bump.

The most popular bullet used to kill people in the United States is the venerable .22LR. Yet, aside from a wholesale ban on firearms of any kind, I've never seen a single piece of legislation against the .22LR.

Conversely, all matters of exotic weapons, such as the Dragunov SVD, Barrett M82, Mauser C96 Broomhandle, Heckler & Koch VP-70, any jacketed cartridge above 12.7mm, and so forth, either are or have been banned or regulated out of reach of the average citizen at some point.

Why? How often are these expensive, maintenance-heavy firearms used to commit crimes? Is it less about the weapon's 'criminal record' and more about its capacity to commit crime? Sounds like bad logic to me.

If anyone can find any specific examples of the above weapons being used to commit a crime in the United States, please inform me: I dislike surprises like that.

Just taking an opportunity to say
"Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
I hope no one has said it yet.

Annoy Canuck Bump.
Is that "annoy" as in trolling? :rolleyes:

Which any remotely competent english teacher would tell you is a completely different meaning from the original sentence.
Well that is exactly what I was striving for. :p

Also, when discussing what is now the 2nd amendment when creating the Bill of Rights, there was a motion to append it with the words "for the common defense" which would completely eliminate the individual rights aspect. It was struck down.
Well, I sure as hell ain't a lawyer, and there have been so many interpretations, I think everyone is confused? :confused: