NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Excerpts:

In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.

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

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

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

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

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

Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)

The American Conservatives in my view are very foolish in this regard. Anyone can see that an armed public is far more dangerous to itself than criminals.

The American Conservatives in my view are very foolish in this regard. Anyone can see that an armed public is far more dangerous to itself than criminals.


I would have to agree. If they are truly afraid of the government's 'ability to take over' an unarmed public; then maybe they should spend less that $400 billion dollars on the military each year, hmm?

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States
Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:

In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:

16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.

I had no idea about this one. This suicide statistic makes me seriously reconsider my opinion on the subject.

(My opinion was, legalise guns for civilians)

I had no idea so many people killed themselves with guns. This gives me food for thought. Thanks for this information.

Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:



Fair enough; but, the other countries do not scale up equally -- If each country had it's same rate but with an American-sized population, the casualties would still be numerously less.

Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:

Your population isn't 'that' big... You have maybe 10 times the population of Canada... if that...

So if you multiplied Canada's numbers, you'd end up with 1510. A number significantly less than America's 11,789.

Your population isn't 'that' big... You have maybe 10 times the population of Canada... if that...

So if you multiplied Canada's numbers, you'd end up with 1510. A number significantly less than America's 11,789.
I was directing that comment at the statistic itself, not trying to refute the general statements of the OP.

Imagine: We could cut our gun deaths in half if people started killing themselves in non-pussy ways.

First of all, I am a gun owner (or rather my father is) and if it were up to me, I would simply make guns illegal, or make it very hard to get them. Yes I enjoy target shooting, and it makes me feel safer, but they do so much more harm than good. Since it would simply be impossble to get rid of all guns in the USA, I would make the following changes,

- Slap a heavy tax for the sales of ALL guns

- Slap an even heavier tax on handguns

- Slap a heavy tax on bullets

- Reinstate the assault rifle ban

Seriously, there is no good reason to own handguns or assault rifles. I can understand why hunters would want to buy single shot rifles, but assault rifles and pistols are out of the question. The only reason you would need something like a .38 special or an AR-15 is to kill people.

Fair enough; but, the other countries do not scale up equally -- If each country had it's same rate but with an American-sized population, the casualties would still be numerously less.

Well, you look at instintaeneous numbers, but have you checked where those numbers are going?

Seriously, their is no good reason to own handguns or assault rifles. I can understand why hunters would want to buy single shot rifles, but assault rifles and pistols are out of the question. The only reason you would need something like a .38 special or an AR-15 is to kill people.
There are good reasons for owning guns, and I respect responsible gun ownership. But with a 56% suicide rate of gun deaths, there are too many people that are not responsible with their guns.

But criminals have guns anyway blahblahblahblah.

As far as I'm aware about 75% of shootings in New Zealand are suicide if anyone cares about statistics.

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

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States


This is for Eut
All of these are estimated populations for 2006, followed by percentages instead of whole numbers:
Germany Pop- 82 million (0.00045%)
Canada - 33 million (0.000046%)
Australia - 20 million (0.00029%)
Japan - 127 million (0.000015%)
England + Wales (only had UK) - 60 million (0.00009%)
US - 298 million (0.00396%)

That is a factor of TEN times more than the nearest country.
Now that we're talking in percentages, instead of whole numbers, please defend.

This is for Eut
All of these are estimated populations for 2006, followed by percentages instead of whole numbers:
Germany Pop- 82 million (0.00045%)
Canada - 33 million (0.000046%)
Australia - 20 million (0.00029%)
Japan - 127 million (0.000015%)
England + Wales (only had UK) - 60 million (0.00009%)
US - 298 million (0.00396%)

That is a factor of TEN times more than the nearest country.
Now that we're talking in percentages, instead of whole numbers, please defend.

Isn't the US rate going down, as gun control becomes looser in various states?

Isn't the US rate going down, as gun control becomes looser in various states?

I've never heard anything about that. I was just applying the whole numbers given to forecasted populations.. likely those whole number stats came from a previous year, but it gives a good enough ball park figure.

Isn't the US rate going down, as gun control becomes looser in various states?

The murder rate in first world countries is going down anyway in general because of improvements in healthcare meaning more people survive to become 'attempted murder victims'.

I've never heard anything about that. I was just applying the whole numbers given to forecasted populations.. likely those whole number stats came from a previous year, but it gives a good enough ball park figure.

Well It shows that Us rates are higher, not the lack of gun control is causing that. If the level of gun control was the only difference between the US and those other countries, there might be a point there

The murder rate in first world countries is going down anyway in general because of improvements in healthcare meaning more people survive to become 'attempted murder victims'.

Really? What's with the UK?

When looking at gun crime, people tend to forget that America is completely different from all these other countries listed. America gained its independence in a long war, America has never been completely destroyed multiple times by wars, and most importantly America is a huge melting pot of people from around the planet that hate each other.

This is for Eut
All of these are estimated populations for 2006, followed by percentages instead of whole numbers:
Germany Pop- 82 million (0.00045%)
Canada - 33 million (0.000046%)
Australia - 20 million (0.00029%)
Japan - 127 million (0.000015%)
England + Wales (only had UK) - 60 million (0.00009%)
US - 298 million (0.00396%)

That is a factor of TEN times more than the nearest country.
Now that we're talking in percentages, instead of whole numbers, please defend.
Looks ok to me. Why do I need to "defend," and what??

Well It shows that Us rates are higher, not the lack of gun control is causing that. If the level of gun control was the only difference between the US and those other countries, there might be a point there

Is there another industrialized country on that list that is as free with its distribution of guns to the citizens?? If so, I haven't heard of it before...

Isn't the US rate going down, as gun control becomes looser in various states?


That can be refuted by simply comparing the United States to Japan. Japan has strict regulations and even stricter enforcement on the policy of guns; the United States is, in comparison, handing them out. Can you guess which country has the lower death rate by gun?

When looking at gun crime, people tend to forget that America is completely different from all these other countries listed. America gained its independence in a long war, America has never been completely destroyed multiple times by wars, and most importantly America is a huge melting pot of people from around the planet that hate each other.
ROFLMAO!!! Isn't "hate" putting it just a TAD too strongly? :D

I think that addressing the root causes of crime would be far more effective in reducing gun violence than gun control.

I think a full ban on guns may possibly reduce the total number of firearm related deaths, but I highly doubt the crime rate would lower dramatically. So many of our firearm related deaths are suicides, mainly because it's so much easier to kill oneself with a gun than any other method.

Also, why can people just not accept that Americans want their guns?

That can be refuted by simply comparing the United States to Japan. Japan has strict regulations and even stricter enforcement on the policy of guns; the United States is, in comparison, handing them out. Can you guess which country has the lower death rate by gun?

Again, trying to get you off the instintaeneous values. What is Japan's rate doing? Up, down, steady? While the US "hands them out" the numbers get smaller and smaller.

Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:

Defend this point of view that guns are okay for America.
The larger population theory was disproven.
I'm interested to hear how more guns = more security, when there is a marked increase in percentages of homicides by guns. Or how having guns is more important than having gov't regulations against gun ownership.
Not just aimed at you, of course. :) If anyone has a good reason for keeping guns on the streets and in the hands of everyone, I'd like to hear it.

... why can people just not accept that Americans want their guns?
We tend to fear that which is different or that which we cannot understand.

I think that addressing the root causes of crime would be far more effective in reducing gun violence than gun control.

I think a full ban on guns may possibly reduce the total number of firearm related deaths, but I highly doubt the crime rate would lower dramatically. So many of our firearm related deaths are suicides, mainly because it's so much easier to kill oneself with a gun than any other method.

Also, why can people just not accept that Americans want their guns?

We cannot accept that because the Americans are killing each other by the tens of thousands with their guns...

That can be refuted by simply comparing the United States to Japan. Japan has strict regulations and even stricter enforcement on the policy of guns; the United States is, in comparison, handing them out. Can you guess which country has the lower death rate by gun?

Well, the Japanese are a much less violent culture. We don't kill each other so much because we have guns, we kill each other because we're violent as hell.

Is there another industrialized country on that list that is as free with its distribution of guns to the citizens?? If so, I haven't heard of it before...

Other things affect crime you know, Poverty, unemployment, economy. Is there some way you can show it's lack of gun control making that number what it is?

We cannot accept that because the Americans are killing each other by the tens of thousands with their guns...

What makes you think we'd stop if you took our guns?

Defend this point of view that guns are okay for America.
The larger population theory was disproven.
I'm interested to hear how more guns = more security, when there is a marked increase in percentages of homicides by guns. Or how having guns is more important than having gov't regulations against gun ownership.
Not just aimed at you, of course. :) If anyone has a good reason for keeping guns on the streets and in the hands of everyone, I'd like to hear it.

What's this "marked increase"?

Defend this point of view that guns are okay for America.
The larger population theory was disproven.
I'm interested to hear how more guns = more security, when there is a marked increase in percentages of homicides by guns. Or how having guns is more important than having gov't regulations against gun ownership.
Not just aimed at you, of course. :) If anyone has a good reason for keeping guns on the streets and in the hands of everyone, I'd like to hear it.
There are lots of reasons for gun ownership, not the least of which is that it's guaranteed by the Constitution, but I'm not sufficiently conversant with all of that to hold forth on it with any degree of certainty.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable rants on "militia" and other specious arguments ]

Who cares if guns were used?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

Interesting chart at the bottom of this website. Includes more countries than what was given here.

What's this "marked increase"?

See my previous calculations.

There are lots of reasons for gun ownership, not the least of which is that it's guaranteed by the Constitution, but I'm not sufficiently conversant with all of that to hold forth on it with any degree of certainty.

[ Braces himself for the inevitable rants on "militia" and other specious arguments ]

Well... I have an idea that may not be popular...
Maybe the Constitution needs to be redone for modern life.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

Interesting chart at the bottom of this website. Includes more countries than what was given here.

Still insintaeneous, where's the lines graphs showing trends over time?

Well, the Japanese are a much less violent culture. We don't kill each other so much because we have guns, we kill each other because we're violent as hell.
LOL! There's an element of truth to that. After all, what can you say about a Country formed from the culls and rejects from every other country on the planet? :D

See my previous calculations.

Increase involves two related values over a period of time.

We don't need new gun control laws, we need to enforce the ones we have, if the Firearms bureau spent more time and money tracking down and dealing with the people who break our current gun control regs than it does now trying to nail survivalists and the like that buy guns to hide in their fallout shelter for world war three then there would be a lot less gun related crime in the U.S.

Who cares if guns were used?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
That argument is flawed. Using a gun is way easier than getting your hands dirty or using an axe or whatever other means. And it's less personal, too, which IMHO, makes it "easier" to kill.

Click, boom, dead.

Increase involves two related values over a period of time.

No, it involves a comparison between America's rate of gun deaths, and any other industrialized nation. That's the case I've been making all along... if you're trying to say I'm saying something else, try to read what I'm writing, instead of assuming I'm saying something I'm not.

We don't need new gun control laws, we need to enforce the ones we have, if the Firearms bureau spent more time and money tracking down and dealing with the people who break our current gun control regs than it does now trying to nail survivalists and the like that buy guns to hide in their fallout shelter for world war three then there would be a lot less gun related crime in the U.S.
The BATF pretty much sucks, IMHO. :(

No, it involves a comparison between America's rate of gun deaths, and any other industrialized nation. That's the case I've been making all along... if you're trying to say I'm saying something else, try to read what I'm writing, instead of assuming I'm saying something I'm not.

Okay, now listen. Why is America's so much higher? Loose gun laws? How do you know that?

the thing to do is not ban guns but to teach people, especially kids, about the safe way to use and handle guns. also keep them out of criminals hands, thats the problem.

only way you will get my guns is to pry them from my cold, dead hands!
-Charlton Heston and me

That argument is flawed. Using a gun is way easier than getting your hands dirty or using an axe or whatever other means. And it's less personal, too, which IMHO, makes it "easier" to kill.

Click, boom, dead.

It doesn't matter. If you really hated somebody and wanted them dead, you will just take them out any way you can. Plus that will be quieter anyways so neighbouring people won't hear.

If you outlaw guns or restrict guns, only the law-abiding people will follow those laws. This makes no sense.

Guns rank VERY high in my positions. Why take away what I love? Guns are one of the only few things that I still do with my dad anymore. I'm sure the case is the same with many others. Guns keep families together. God bless american, and god bless the second ammendment.

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html

Interesting chart at the bottom of this website. Includes more countries than what was given here.

According to this chart Finland has a higher rate of gun ownership than the United States, and Norway is relatively close at 32%. How do people explain the fact that these countries have lower murder rates?

Again, I submit that it's not guns that make Americans kill each other in record numbers, it's the fact that we're an extremely aggressive people.

Well... I have an idea that may not be popular...
Maybe the Constitution needs to be redone for modern life.
Perhaps. But it's deliberately a long, involved process.

According to this chart Finland has a higher rate of gun ownership than the United States, and Norway is relatively close at 32%. How do people explain the fact that these countries have lower murder rates?

Again, I submit that it's not guns that make Americans kill each other in record numbers, it's the fact that we're an extremely aggressive people.
Yup, you need to make weed mandatory and all the problems are solved.

It doesn't matter. If you really hated somebody and wanted them dead, you will just take them out any way you can. Plus that will be quieter anyways so neighbouring people won't hear.

If you outlaw guns or restrict guns, only the law-abiding people will follow those laws. This makes no sense.

Guns rank VERY high in my positions. Why take away what I love? Guns are one of the only few things that I still do with my dad anymore. I'm sure the case is the same with many others. Guns keep families together. God bless american, and god bless the second ammendment.
Funny that it works in other civilized societies but whenever someone suggests that the U.S. try it, you're up in arms about it!
Guns keep families together... Hah! I wonder how many families were torn apart because of those very guns!

Yup, you need to make weed mandatory and all the problems are solved.
LOL! Then people would be shooting each other as a joke.

"Yo, Dude! You bleed funny!" ;)

Funny that it works in other civilized societies but whenever someone suggests that the U.S. try it, you're up in arms about it!
Perhaps it's because we think that the people shouldn't fear their government, but that the government should fear the people. Perhaps, that is.

Funny that it works in other civilized societies but whenever someone suggests that the U.S. try it, you're up in arms about it!
Guns keep families together... Hah! I wonder how many families were torn apart because of those very guns!

I'm "up in arms about it" because it is MY right to own guns. And like I have stated before: guns don't kill people, people kill people. If somebody has a motive, they will go through with it, guns or not.

And yes, guns keep families together, like I have said before.

Perhaps it's because we think that the people shouldn't fear their government, but that the government should fear the people. Perhaps, that is.
I fear both your nutty government and your gun toting crazy people. :D

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

German pop 80.6 million
Canadian pop 27.8 million
Australia pop 17.8 million
Japanese pop 125 million
English & Welsh pop 50 million (minus Scotland & N Ireland)
United States pop 265.8 million

Given that I droped GCSE maths would someone be so kind as to work out the per 10,000 ratios?

Given that I droped GCSE maths would someone be so kind as to work out the per 10,000 ratios?

Been done, don't matter anyways.

According to this chart Finland has a higher rate of gun ownership than the United States, and Norway is relatively close at 32%. How do people explain the fact that these countries have lower murder rates?

Again, I submit that it's not guns that make Americans kill each other in record numbers, it's the fact that we're an extremely aggressive people.

Gun ownership is different than gun types.
For instance, Canadians own a lot of guns, but they're hunting rifles. That's what they're used for... handguns = illegal. Semi/Full Automatic Rifles = illegal.
If you have laws that ensure that people who buy guns are getting the sort of guns that are used for legal activities, they're not as likely to get their hands on the sort that it's easy to commit suicide with (i.e., handguns) or murder a lot of people with (i.e., assault rifles).

I'm "up in arms about it" because it is MY right to own guns. And like I have stated before: guns don't kill people, people kill people. If somebody has a motive, they will go through with it, guns or not.

And yes, guns keep families together, like I have said before.

Maybe it shouldn't be the right of civilians to own guns. Seriously. Or at least restrict the kind of guns people can buy.
As someone else mentioned, it's easy to kill someone with a gun. You can do it from far away, and impersonally. If people don't have guns, it makes it a much more personal thing to kill someone, and that itself would deter a great many people from killing others.
I'd like you to tell all the American families that have lost people due to suicide or assault with guns that those same guns keep families together. I'd like to hear their responses...

Guns are fine....but our violent society is not.

Guns are fine....but our violent society is not.

I wonder if there's any sort of peaceful cure for a violent society? Or if they just need to run up against the wrong person, and get taken down a notch...
I hope that's not the case, cuz the only two countries coming up to Superpower status that could do that are China and India... and I'd rather not see those sort of fights get started.

I wonder if there's any sort of peaceful cure for a violent society? Or if they just need to run up against the wrong person, and get taken down a notch...
I hope that's not the case, cuz the only two countries coming up to Superpower status that could do that are China and India... and I'd rather not see those sort of fights get started.

India....your joking? They are barely second-class.
China needs another 20 years to become a superpower.

Well let me make some points here.

1. A crossbow could easily kill someone just as easily as guns. Not as quick but more painful

2. A car is just one big 100 mph bullet

3. Explosives made out of what you say? Household stuff

4. Toxic gas made out of bleach and ammonia

5. Any weapon that is bladed can kill someone

6. Your hands! All you need is gloves and your pretty much good to go

7. Poison! You know anti-freeze has really sweet but deadly taste to it!

See the point is if you really want to kill someone there are more ways to do it than listed above. See even if America didn't have guns we would still be a violent society and find other ways to kill each other. Even in the Old West we were just as violent. The thing is the population just wasn't as close together as it is now.

Isn't the US rate going down, as gun control becomes looser in various states?
For the first 6 months of 2005, the murder rate increased 2.1%

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005prelim/table2.htm

Largest increase was the Midwest 4.9%, followed by the South at 2.2%, then the Northeast at 1.9%, and the smallest increase was the West at .2%

A 4 year comparison shows increased murder rates in 3 of 4 years.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005prelim/table3.htm

I'd like to see a chart on how many of those guns used to murder people were LEGAL, REGISTERED firearms. I own many fire arms and I've yet to kill any one with them. I gained my guns legally. It is a sad truth that if a gansta wants a gun hes gonna get it. There could be a billion laws banning guns and still they would get them. On the same token if some one is going to kill some one they are gonna do it with what ever they can get. Guns just make it easier. Also most gun laws are retarded. Does anyone know what deems an assult rifle, an assult rifle. If it has pistol grips, a detachable mag, bayonet lugs, or a folding stock. It has nothing to do with the round it fires. No offence but if you are gonna kill some one with an assult rifle.....why does it matter that it has a lug for a bayonet what is he gonna stab you afterwards? Also many states gun laws curb mag down to only 5 rounds. Okay so then all he has to do is reload and keep shooting? By far a .30-06 spring field is more powerful and more deadly then any AK-47 or AR-15 yet no one complains about that rifle. Most gun laws are created by people who know nothing about firearms. Which makes it easy to get around them. So heres an easy fix to it. If you have an unregistered firearm in your posession automatic jail time. 5-10 years. Easy, its a deadly weapon. But also then you have to make it easier for people buying the firearm to register is when they buy it. Don't make gun laws based on cosmetic features. Its retarded. Having a folding stock does not make a fire arm more dangerous. BTW more people are killed with small caliber fire arms like .22lr and .38 special then say...an ak-47. (Note: the .22lr has enough energy to enter the skull at close range but not enough to exit so the bullet gets lodged in the brain. The mob use to LOVE using it.) Banning certian firearms has nothing to do with curbing crime. Esp if most of those firearms banned are not even used in most crimes.

This is for Eut
All of these are estimated populations for 2006, followed by percentages instead of whole numbers:
Germany Pop- 82 million (0.00045%)
Canada - 33 million (0.000046%)
Australia - 20 million (0.00029%)
Japan - 127 million (0.000015%)
England + Wales (only had UK) - 60 million (0.00009%)
US - 298 million (0.00396%)

That is a factor of TEN times more than the nearest country.
Now that we're talking in percentages, instead of whole numbers, please defend.

The U.S. has more homicides involving guns because more people have guns. In a country where guns are outlawed, of course there will be fewer people murdered by people wielding guns.

What should be analyzed is the ratio of total homicides to population. The U.S. may have more people using guns to murder, but that doesn't mean more people are being murdered. The total percentage of homicides in Canada or wherever could be just as high as in the U.S., but the murderers may be using axes, knives, whatever, as it was what they could get their hands on at the time. People in the U.S. will grab the gun instead of the knife because it's there. That doesn't mean there are more homicides in the U.S.

For example, if a man catches his girlfriend in bed with another man, he may run downstairs, grab a kitchen knife, and stab the man. If he lived in the U.S., he may go and grab the .22 he uses on the weekends to hunt deer. Either way, the crime would have been committed, and the availablity of the firearm made absolutely no difference. However, the firearm incidence would have risen the number U.S. homicides involving firearms, where as the other would not have raised Canada's, for example, number of homicides involving firearms.

The only case against the right to bear arms would be that the number of homicides in a region have risen due to an increase in the number of firearms, not that the number of homicides involving firearms has risen.

The person that pointed out that there are more homicides involving guns in the U.S. compared to other countries where guns are outlawed did nothing but state the obvious. :rolleyes:

And here's what i have to say to all those who prmote gun-control. :upyours: (gotta love smilies :D )

Other things affect crime you know, Poverty, unemployment, economy. Is there some way you can show it's lack of gun control making that number what it is?

My point exactly, most of our shootings around here are from street gangs, drug dealers, and hoodlums. My friend worked as a officer on the bad side of town and he said 90-95% of the guns he confinscated from criminals were illegal anyway. So far our CCW law has been tried once in the state of Ohio from a man held up by a three teens, he was down on his hands and knees with a gun trained on him before he opened up on them. He hit one of the teens and wounded him. About a hour later the three showed up at a local hospital in a stolen car to get help for thier friend. Anyhow, back on topic. Gun control locally is curing a symptom, but not the cause. Punishing citizens over criminal activity is simply unacceptable.

16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths)

I live in Canada.

If I lived in a country without gun control (i.e. USA), I'd probably be dead about now. I'm clinically depressed, and sometimes suicidal (though I haven't been in the past while).

I've felt real suicidal thoughts a lot, but they didn't come into fruition because it would have been so difficult to kill myself. Then one day I truly resolved to do it, and I decided to jump off a building. However, the journey to the nearest high building was long, and it allowed me to defeat my suicidal thoughts before I could kill myself. I shiver at the thought of what would happen if there were a gun in the house.

You really, really need to quit quoting Kellerman, since he's basically been tarred and feathered when it comes to his gun studies. Ergo this entire thread is bullshit. The statistics do not discriminate between illegal and legal gun, as the first major flaw, the second flaw is that suicide rates have NO correlation whatsoever with guns.

I live in Canada.

If I lived in a country without gun control (i.e. USA), I'd probably be dead about now. I'm clinically depressed, and sometimes suicidal (though I haven't been in the past while).

I've felt real suicidal thoughts a lot, but they didn't come into fruition because it would have been so difficult to kill myself. Then one day I truly resolved to do it, and I decided to jump off a building. However, the journey to the nearest high building was long, and it allowed me to defeat my suicidal thoughts before I could kill myself. I shiver at the thought of what would happen if there were a gun in the house.
? 1 sharp knife down the length of your forearm. And if you note my post, no correlation there buddy. Japan's suicide rates make the US's look like chump change. Guess how many of theirs occur using guns?

Germany has a higher rate than the US. Guess how many of theirs occur using guns?

Nothing suggests the availability of firearms would have changed a damn thing.

? 1 sharp knife down the length of your forearm. And if you note my post, no correlation there buddy. Japan's suicide rates make the US's look like chump change.

Yeah, that's gonna work. I've heard stories about people failing to commit suicide by slitting their wrists. I also didn't think I would muster the strength to completely kill myself so that I'd die before an ambulance could save me.

Most importantly, though, is that I did consider the pain. I was not totally suicidal. I was just past the point where I wanted to kill myself, but I still wanted it without pain. Knifes would mean a lot of pain. Jumping off a building headfirst did not. And bullet to the head would certainly mean no pain.

I live in Canada.

If I lived in a country without gun control (i.e. USA), I'd probably be dead about now. I'm clinically depressed, and sometimes suicidal (though I haven't been in the past while).

I've felt real suicidal thoughts a lot, but they didn't come into fruition because it would have been so difficult to kill myself. Then one day I truly resolved to do it, and I decided to jump off a building. However, the journey to the nearest high building was long, and it allowed me to defeat my suicidal thoughts before I could kill myself. I shiver at the thought of what would happen if there were a gun in the house.

So, I have to hand over my guns because you are suicidal? Sorry, no dice. If you are suicidal why not go and get help on that?

I live in Canada.

If I lived in a country without gun control (i.e. USA), I'd probably be dead about now. I'm clinically depressed, and sometimes suicidal (though I haven't been in the past while).

I've felt real suicidal thoughts a lot, but they didn't come into fruition because it would have been so difficult to kill myself. Then one day I truly resolved to do it, and I decided to jump off a building. However, the journey to the nearest high building was long, and it allowed me to defeat my suicidal thoughts before I could kill myself. I shiver at the thought of what would happen if there were a gun in the house.

Please, with everything your average household has that can be easily used to kill yourself, saying "it's a good thing I didn't have a gun or I'd shoot myself" is like swimming in a pool and saying "it's a good thing I didn't have a bucket of water to drown myself in." I highly doubt that taking away guns would've stopped a substantial fraction of those 16,000 from taking their lives.

Well, the Japanese are a much less violent culture. We don't kill each other so much because we have guns, we kill each other because we're violent as hell.
The japanese don't kill each other, they just kill themselves.

So, I have to hand over my guns because you are suicidal? Sorry, no dice.

There are plenty of reasons, that's one of them.

Another one is that making people have guns makes it easier to kill other people. Now anyone can get guns and kill anyone.

But criminals can already get guns, and the only people you'd be keeping guns from are the criminals themselves.

Then why don't you (the government) sell the criminals the guns? They can already get guns, so might as well make some money off of it!

If you are suicidal why not go and get help on that?

I didn't want my parents to know. Usually clinically depressed people are very reserved in their thoughts.

Please, with everything your average household has that can be easily used to kill yourself, saying "it's a good thing I didn't have a gun or I'd shoot myself" is like swimming in a pool and saying "it's a good thing I didn't have a bucket of water to drown myself in." I highly doubt that taking away guns would've stopped a substantial fraction of those 16,000 from taking their lives.

Well, it would have stopped my suicide, unless I end up killing myself later in life.

Don't you get it people, guns make it easy. They make death easier to achieve. Not all murders and suicides are by absolutely determined people.

I bet a fair portion of those people acted on impulse, and/or wouldn't have bothered if they didn't have such an easy method to kill a person, or most likely have simply injured them.

What part of no correlation between guns and suicides do you not understand? None, plenty of anti-gunners have tried to find one, but they've all been laughed at by any serious scientists when they released their research.

What part of no correlation between guns and suicides do you not understand? None, plenty of anti-gunners have tried to find one, but they've all been laughed at by any serious scientists when they released their research.

It would have prevented my death is all I have to say, good thing I'm not in the US.

Oh well, I'm probably unimportant, and the deaths of a few people who wouldn't have killed themselves if there weren't guns is not important to your right to have firearms.

We also have to look at who is committing those crimes. The US has a large percentage of minorities that, statistically, commit most of the crime.

According to the FBI's uniform crime statistics report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm) (2003, to match the data in the first post). African Americans commit about 50 percent of all violent crime, while making up about 13 percent of the population.

The populations of other western nations have much more monocultural societies. Germany is 91.5% German. The United States is less than 69% European, and will be less than 50% by 2050.

It would have prevented my death is all I have to say, good thing I'm not in the US.

Oh well, I'm probably unimportant, and the deaths of a few people who wouldn't have killed themselves if there weren't guns is not important to your right to have firearms.
No, you think it would have prevented your death. As you cannot see alternate timelines, you do not know.

We also have to look at who is committing those crimes. The US has a large percentage of minorities that, statistically, commit most of the crime.

According to the FBI's uniform crime statistics report (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm) (2003, to match the data in the first post). African Americans commit about 50 percent of all violent crime, while making up about 13 percent of the population.

The populations of other western nations have much more monocultural societies. Germany is 91.5% German. The United States is less than 69% European, and will be less than 50% by 2050.
Except for murder, the UCR is a pretty worthless document because of the nature of the reported crimes like rape, and the nature of how it tabulates it's statistics.

Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:

Your population isn't 'that' big... You have maybe 10 times the population of Canada... if that...

So if you multiplied Canada's numbers, you'd end up with 1510. A number significantly less than America's 11,789.

I was directing that comment at the statistic itself, not trying to refute the general statements of the OP.

How does one direct a comment at a statistic, Forrest?

people should just legalize guns already. Don't you know the more you ban something, the more ways people would find to get them? reverse psychology always works. Besides, guns DON"T kill people, people do. If a country has good enough socials programs that prevents people from wanting or needing to commit crimes, the crime rate would decrease. I don't believe the rate of gun possession and the rate of gun-related crimes are related at all.

Making guns illegal makes about as much sense as making drugs illegal. The people who want guns will get around the law pretty much the same way they are doing now. Drugs are illegal in this country, but it certainly doesn't stop the millions of people from getting high. You can pass all the laws you want, but it won't stop the people who want the guns from getting them.

What part of no correlation between guns and suicides do you not understand? None, plenty of anti-gunners have tried to find one, but they've all been laughed at by any serious scientists when they released their research.

Bullshit.

You are overstating your case. IT is difficult to show causation, but the correlation is there.

International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/148/10/1721)

GUN OWNERSHIP, SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE:
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE (http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf)

Association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression, and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/8/4/313)

Thousands of people are killed in car accidents every year, ban cars!

Thousands of people die from fall-related injuries, ban walking!

Millions die from heart disease, ban red-meat!

Thousands of people are killed in car accidents every year, ban cars!

Thousands of people die from fall-related injuries, ban walking!

Millions die from heart disease, ban red-meat!

Yeah, that is a parallel argument. NOT. :headbang:

And BTW we do rather regulate and constrict the use of cars precisely to limit the danger. Are you against those regulations as well?

Yeah, that is a parallel argument. NOT. :headbang:
How is it differant? Those things would definitly cause less deaths.
And BTW we do rather regulate and constrict the use of cars precisely to limit the danger. Are you against those regulations as well?
Some of them.

If people don't have guns, it makes it a much more personal thing to kill someone, and that itself would deter a great many people from killing others.

This is correct, if all of those homocides and suicides were commited by upright, sound-minded citizens. However, I doubt this is true. ;)

While a crime of passion is likely to occur, the presence of a gun (or lack there of) will not cease this from occuring; crimes of passion are considered that for a reason. They're personal.

If you take mugging, or other criminalized acts into mind, of which resulted in the death of someone. This is also likely not to fit the 'deter' idea, because a criminal is likely willing to commit them off the basis they are already committing an act against the law.

Killing someone with a gun as opposed to a knife doesn't make it any less personal, or more personal. The only real difference rests in the method. Killing is killing, and it's the knowledge of taking someones life that destroys the personality of people, not the idea they just shot or stabbed some stranger/friend.

Replacing guns with knifes would most likely just decrease the rate of drive-bys; that is, if the guns weren't illegal in the first place, of which in most cases, they are.

The main problem with anti-gun activists is they attempt to make it sound like Guns are the reasons these crimes are being commited, creating a convincing illusion, when all they do is serve as a tool. The removal of guns won't stop the deaths, people will simply find alternative methods as has been previously stated.

So many factors play into things like this that it's ridiculous to simply try and specify just to push a political agenda.

If I'm not mistaken, the current poverty line hasn't been reset to account for all the inflation since something like the 1950 - 1970's. The cost of living now, compared to then, has drastically increased, but the line is the same.

Does anyone else think its interesting that in 1998 there were just under 12,000 deaths by firearms, and in 2003 there were over 30,000...these are all domestic casualties...wtf is going on? what happened to our precious homeland security, lol

The western world is not the world.

This is western world gun statistics.

Maybe it shouldn't be the right of civilians to own guns. Seriously. Or at least restrict the kind of guns people can buy.
As someone else mentioned, it's easy to kill someone with a gun. You can do it from far away, and impersonally. If people don't have guns, it makes it a much more personal thing to kill someone, and that itself would deter a great many people from killing others.
I'd like you to tell all the American families that have lost people due to suicide or assault with guns that those same guns keep families together. I'd like to hear their responses...
Yes! Finally someone with common sense...

Oh. Wait. You're Canadian!!! :D

India....your joking? They are barely second-class.
China needs another 20 years to become a superpower.
And I give you guys less than ten years before you lose your status if you don't change your ways.
And don't be too haughty - I've seen your country and it's not top notch.

Well let me make some points here.

1. A crossbow could easily kill someone just as easily as guns. Not as quick but more painful
2. A car is just one big 100 mph bullet
3. Explosives made out of what you say? Household stuff
4. Toxic gas made out of bleach and ammonia
5. Any weapon that is bladed can kill someone
6. Your hands! All you need is gloves and your pretty much good to go
7. Poison! You know anti-freeze has really sweet but deadly taste to it!

See the point is if you really want to kill someone there are more ways to do it than listed above. See even if America didn't have guns we would still be a violent society and find other ways to kill each other. Even in the Old West we were just as violent. The thing is the population just wasn't as close together as it is now.
It would still take more effort or skill than just a simple "squeeze-kaboom" and you know that.

The U.S. has more homicides involving guns because more people have guns. In a country where guns are outlawed, of course there will be fewer people murdered by people wielding guns.
What should be analyzed is the ratio of total homicides to population. The U.S. may have more people using guns to murder, but that doesn't mean more people are being murdered. The total percentage of homicides in Canada or wherever could be just as high as in the U.S., but the murderers may be using axes, knives, whatever, as it was what they could get their hands on at the time. People in the U.S. will grab the gun instead of the knife because it's there. That doesn't mean there are more homicides in the U.S.
For example, if a man catches his girlfriend in bed with another man, he may run downstairs, grab a kitchen knife, and stab the man. If he lived in the U.S., he may go and grab the .22 he uses on the weekends to hunt deer. Either way, the crime would have been committed, and the availablity of the firearm made absolutely no difference. However, the firearm incidence would have risen the number U.S. homicides involving firearms, where as the other would not have raised Canada's, for example, number of homicides involving firearms.
The only case against the right to bear arms would be that the number of homicides in a region have risen due to an increase in the number of firearms, not that the number of homicides involving firearms has risen.

The person that pointed out that there are more homicides involving guns in the U.S. compared to other countries where guns are outlawed did nothing but state the obvious. :rolleyes:

And here's what i have to say to all those who prmote gun-control. :upyours: (gotta love smilies :D )
Read the paragraphs about homicide (total, not only involving guns)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf
There are more homicides in the U.S. and they are easier committed because of the availability of guns. Oh yeah - http://flamevault.com/~meeks/emoticons/thefinger_red.gif (;))

? 1 sharp knife down the length of your forearm. And if you note my post, no correlation there buddy. Japan's suicide rates make the US's look like chump change. Guess how many of theirs occur using guns?

Germany has a higher rate than the US. Guess how many of theirs occur using guns?

Nothing suggests the availability of firearms would have changed a damn thing.
Source?

Please, with everything your average household has that can be easily used to kill yourself, saying "it's a good thing I didn't have a gun or I'd shoot myself" is like swimming in a pool and saying "it's a good thing I didn't have a bucket of water to drown myself in." I highly doubt that taking away guns would've stopped a substantial fraction of those 16,000 from taking their lives.
I believe it would. Killing with a gun is way too easy.

Thousands of people are killed in car accidents every year, ban cars!
Thousands of people die from fall-related injuries, ban walking!
Millions die from heart disease, ban red-meat!
Introduce speed limits, seat belts, airbags...
Death by fall-related injury?!?
Ban smoking, make people aware of their failures...

Only when it comes to guns you hear the same over and over again.

People kill, not guns. (It's actually people with guns kill more people than people without guns).
It's my right. (Yeah. And your country is developing just the way the writers of the 2nd amandment hoped it would. NOT)
The criminals would find a way. (Yeah. And even easier because there are so many guns around).

It would have prevented my death is all I have to say, good thing I'm not in the US.

Oh well, I'm probably unimportant, and the deaths of a few people who wouldn't have killed themselves if there weren't guns is not important to your right to have firearms.

It is not the government's job to keep you from destroying yourself. I would never live in a country that it is the gov's job. And yes, I will not give up my guns because someone was suicidal as I refuse to pay for other's mistakes.

Who cares if guns were used?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Its far easier to kill someone with a gun. And guns when involved in accidents are far more dangerous.

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

Excerpts:

In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.

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

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

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

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

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

Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)


Kellerman has already been picked apart and destroyed over and over again, as is that claim.

One might go to the Department of Justice website, and see how firearm related violence and murder dropped over 65 percent while gun ownership increased over 50 percent and the number of states allowing concealed carry of firearms jumped to 35 states.

Come back and try again.

India....your joking? They are barely second-class.
China needs another 20 years to become a superpower.

All I can say is that I heard projections on the news a week or so ago saying that China and India are both on the path to becomming Superpowers.
It was after Bush signed that deal with India over nuclear power, despite the fact that India hasn't signed on to international nuclear agreements.
Gee... neither has Iran... yet America is rattling sabres with them...
Oh... the hypocrisy of Bush and company gives me pains. I can almost see their little meeting going on.
"So, Mr. Bush. As you know, Iran, North Korea, India, and others are developing nuclear technologies."
"Nukeular!? Well crap! We better blast 'em all with our nukes before they get any!"
"No, Mr. Bush. We simply don't have the forces to do that. Now, India is looking like it may one day become a super power. If we make friendly with them, they may help us to prop up our own status. And that would leave us plenty of nukes for the others who are lower on the food chain."
"Am I going to have to be dip... dip... nice to people again?"
"Yes, sir." *deep sigh*
"Someone wanna get me some chicken nuggets? All this talkin' about dippin' things is makin' me hungry!"

Kellerman has already been picked apart and destroyed over and over again, as is that claim.

One might go to the Department of Justice website, and see how firearm related violence and murder dropped over 65 percent while gun ownership increased over 50 percent and the number of states allowing concealed carry of firearms jumped to 35 states.

Come back and try again.

And your homicide rates are STILL 10x that of most other industrialized countries? That's terrifying to think of what they were before.

And your homicide rates are STILL 10x that of most other industrialized countries? That's terrifying to think of what they were before.

Let's start with the claim that 2003 is the "last year for which data is available", which puts the firearm murder rate at over 30,000 per year.

Then go to this site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Now on that page, see this:
# Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.
(wow, if there were no guns, there would still be 94 percent of the same violent crimes!)

# The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Wow, that's 10,650 firearm murders, not over 30,000.

Guess we must be doing something right to lower the firearm violence rate - both in violent crime and the total number of murders - all while radically increasing the number of guns, the number of concealed weapons, and the number of states that allow concealed weapons.

Laughing at you now.

Let's start with the claim that 2003 is the "last year for which data is available", which puts the firearm murder rate at over 30,000 per year.

Then go to this site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Now on that page, see this:
# Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.
(wow, if there were no guns, there would still be 94 percent of the same violent crimes!)

# The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Wow, that's 10,650 firearm murders, not over 30,000.

Guess we must be doing something right to lower the firearm violence rate - both in violent crime and the total number of murders - all while radically increasing the number of guns, the number of concealed weapons, and the number of states that allow concealed weapons.

Laughing at you now.


If you'd bothered to read the stuff I posted earlier, I wasn't using the 30000. I was using the number closer to 10000. And that's still 10x higher than the closest country (Germany) that was listed. i.e., for those who haven't been able to figure it out, that's still a LOT more than elsewhere... by guns.

The high rates of crime without guns only shows one thing: Maybe the poster before was right that America is just a violent culture, and will kill each other any way they can... in which case.... I'm the one laughing at you now, if you think violence = good.

If you'd bothered to read the stuff I posted earlier, I wasn't using the 30000. I was using the number closer to 10000. And that's still 10x higher than the closest country (Germany) that was listed. i.e., for those who haven't been able to figure it out, that's still a LOT more than elsewhere... by guns.

The high rates of crime without guns only shows one thing: Maybe the poster before was right that America is just a violent culture, and will kill each other any way they can... in which case.... I'm the one laughing at you now, if you think violence = good.


I'm laughing because that figure is 65 percent lower than it was during the Clinton Administration.

We've managed to lower our violent crime by 65 percent - precisely because we're now walking around with concealed weapons.

Maybe that's because criminals by and large don't have the access to firearms that you believe they have.

All I can say is that I heard projections on the news a week or so ago saying that China and India are both on the path to becomming Superpowers.
It was after Bush signed that deal with India over nuclear power, despite the fact that India hasn't signed on to international nuclear agreements.
Gee... neither has Iran... yet America is rattling sabres with them...
Oh... the hypocrisy of Bush and company gives me pains.
[ errant nonsense deleted for clarity ]

So basically what you're saying is that you can't tell the difference between India and Iran, eh? How about the difference between the world's largest democracy and a demented, religious dictatorship which supports terrorists? That make it any easier for ya? :)

I would say they should make a couple new laws - like tightening the gun show loop, and they should standardize laws across the country, but other than that guns should remain legal. The current laws other than what I already said are fine.

Now if only we could ban income inequality, that would reduce the crime rate to almost nil.

I would say they should make a couple new laws - like tightening the gun show loop, and they should standardize laws across the country, but other than that guns should remain legal. The current laws other than what I already said are fine.

Now if only we could ban income inequality, that would reduce the crime rate to almost nil.

Probably one of the greatest moves to reduce violence and gun murders was the elimination of the subsidized housing project - scattering people as evenly as possible throughout a wider area, rather than concentrating them in huge apartment blocks.

But, since it's largely non-US people giving stupid advice, when the US has managed to lower the violent crime and murder by 65 percent, we might question their own judgment.

I would bet that a lot of the riots in France, for instance, have their roots in subsidized housing projects, where the poor are concentrated. But, go ahead, keep building those breeding grounds of permanent impoverishment and violence.

Probably one of the greatest moves to reduce violence and gun murders was the elimination of the subsidized housing project - scattering people as evenly as possible throughout a wider area, rather than concentrating them in huge apartment blocks.
Oh, but to hear how many people bitch about section 8 housing.

We've managed to lower our violent crime by 65 percent - precisely because we're now walking around with concealed weapons.
Supposition.

- Reinstate the assault rifle ban

Seriously, there is no good reason to own handguns or assault rifles. I can understand why hunters would want to buy single shot rifles, but assault rifles and pistols are out of the question. The only reason you would need something like a .38 special or an AR-15 is to kill people.
A. It was the Assault Weapons Ban (not assault rifle, yes, there is a difference)
B. It was so poorly made as to be largely ineffective. Yes, lets ban bayonet lugs (not bayonets...just the attachment points) and other such non-sense

Make people responsible for their actions, including healthcare costs. I don't understand how more regulations fix anything- Canada has pumped up its firearms laws considerably over the last 10 years with no real effect.

It would be interesting to have numbers on premeditated crimes vs crimes of passion vs self-defense crimes in the states.

Imagine: We could cut our gun deaths in half if people started killing themselves in non-pussy ways.
A slightly suicidal person with a gun is more likely to kill themselves than someone in the same state without a gun. Killing yourself in other ways requires some degree of planning and contemplation, if you're not really determined to do it, you'll figure it out through the preparation and won't do it. With a gun, you just have to point it at your head and bam, lights out.

A slightly suicidal person with a gun is more likely to kill themselves than someone in the same state without a gun. Killing yourself in other ways requires some degree of planning and contemplation, if you're not really determined to do it, you'll figure it out through the preparation and won't do it. With a gun, you just have to point it at your head and bam, lights out.
Even when guns are readily available, women rarely use them. In the US, women tend to use methods that give someone a chance to find them before they die.

Men in the US tend to use quick and final methods - guns, jumping from heights, etc.

More of a cultural thing than the methods at hand.

Men in the US tend to use quick and final methods - guns, jumping from heights, etc.

If guns weren't available, they'd have to jump from heights, and they'd have to walk all the way there, giving them time to reconsider their desire to commit suicide.

If guns weren't available, they'd have to jump from heights, and they'd have to walk all the way there, giving them time to reconsider their desire to commit suicide.

Prove it. I think you'll find that the difficulty in finding a gun has little to do with whether a man actually commits suicide, at least in the US.

Guns are designed to kill.

Now you're going to tell me that "Oh, but I use mine for hunting/shooting practice".

Why do you need shooting practice other than to kill a person? Fun? Well forgive me if I don't care that you have one less fun activity to do in order for everyone to be safer. You can try darts, or paintball. It's not the end of the world.

And if you hunt, then you should be allowed to get a gun, with a permit.

If own a gun and you don't plan to hunt, then really the only thing you're planning to do with it is kill people, since it barely has any alternative uses (unlike knifes, who have plenty of uses that they're designed for, it just happens that they can also kill).

Therefore, other than hunters (and "practicing" people that can't give up one activity of fun), the only reason people have guns is to kill people.

Guns are designed to kill.

Now you're going to tell me that "Oh, but I use mine for hunting/shooting practice".

Why do you need shooting practice other than to kill a person? Fun? Well forgive me if I don't care that you have one less fun activity to do in order for everyone to be safer. You can try darts, or paintball. It's not the end of the world.

And if you hunt, then you should be allowed to get a gun, with a permit.

If own a gun and you don't plan to hunt, then really the only thing you're planning to do with it is kill people, since it barely has any alternative uses (unlike knifes, who have plenty of uses that they're designed for, it just happens that they can also kill).

Therefore, other than hunters (and "practicing" people that can't give up one activity of fun), the only reason people have guns is to kill people.


Actually, both my wife and I have used guns to defend ourselves successfully several times, without shooting anyone.

Remarkable how polite someone can get if you have a gun and they don't - especially when 30 seconds before they were threatening to kill you.

There are evidently hundreds of thousands of such events in the US every year.

Of course, if you would rather that my wife were continually beaten and harassed, and that I end up like a personal friend (whose hands were chopped off with a machete), then go ahead and ban guns...

Prove it. I think you'll find that the difficulty in finding a gun has little to do with whether a man actually commits suicide, at least in the US.

I said it earlier in the thread that I was once feeling so suicidal that if there were a quick death (I didn't want pain) available in the house, I'd have done it, but I had to walk all the way to the nearest high building so that I'd kill myself by jumping off. The long journey made me recollect my thoughts and realize what I was doing.

Not everyone who commits suicide was absolutely outright suicidal. Maybe they were just over the tipping point, and a gun was available nearby.

If guns weren't available, they'd have to jump from heights, and they'd have to walk all the way there, giving them time to reconsider their desire to commit suicide.

Let's name some "Western" countries w/ stricter gun control that have higher suicide rates than the US:

Japan
France
Germany
Austria
Finland
Switzerland
Russia
Sweden

No causality.

I said it earlier in the thread that I was once feeling so suicidal that if there were a quick death (I didn't want pain) available in the house, I'd have done it, but I had to walk all the way to the nearest high building so that I'd kill myself by jumping off. The long journey made me recollect my thoughts and realize what I was doing.

Not everyone who commits suicide was absolutely outright suicidal. Maybe they were just over the tipping point, and a gun was available nearby.

It's not my job to prevent people from killing themselves. That's a personal decision.

I don't believe that one cent should be spent on suicide prevention, because it's a state interference in a personal decision.

Therefore, other than hunters (and "practicing" people that can't give up one activity of fun), the only reason people have guns is to kill people.

It seems you're projecting your own feelings on others. You shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm if you think they're "only for killing people".

I use mine for target shooting. ( It's a sport that doesn't involve killing if you didn't know.)
Re-enactments (no real killing)
Skeet (no killling)
Varmint control (only killing possums, coyotes, and racoons)

I also collect antique firearms. I haven't used any of them to kill people either.

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

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)


Ah, statistics. Where you can turn a correlation into a causation.

Maybe, just maybe if you live in a neighborhood where the risk of a homicide member is increased, you'll be the sort to own a gun as a result? That maybe it's the former and not the latter which builds for this statistic?

I hate statistics. Racists use statistics like "black men are 85.602% more likely to commit rape" and then of course the conclusion is that being black leads to more rapes. Right? Why not? Because a correlation is not a causation.

If you disagree you're probably a racist. ;)

-------------------------------------------------
Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

Purely by coincidence, the US has a larger population than Germany, Canada, Australian, Japan, England or Wales.

I'm sure this has no effect on the difference in these statistics - same with our culture, judicial system, geography and any other differences. They don't exist. Handgun ownership is the only difference between any of these nations.

------------------------------------------
Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.

This shows that taxation is theft. I agree that health care should become more privatized.

It's not my job to prevent people from killing themselves. That's a personal decision.

I don't believe that one cent should be spent on suicide prevention, because it's a state interference in a personal decision.

Incorrect, it's not a personal decision. When someone is clinically depressed they will kill themselves because of that medical condition. It is accurate to claim is as a death by the medical condition rather than an actual suicide. Most suicides are by clinically depressed people.

If you still think that "if the person wanted to die, well that's they're decision", then you don't understand clincal depression. It's not their decision because their mind has been plagued by this illness, making them kill themselves, in a similar way a virus might plague a person, and kill their physical body instead.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't respond to your previous comment because... well I don't have anything :P . I'll let someone else field it.

A. It was the Assault Weapons Ban (not assault rifle, yes, there is a difference)
B. It was so poorly made as to be largely ineffective. Yes, lets ban bayonet lugs (not bayonets...just the attachment points) and other such non-sense

Anti-gun politicians have used the old AWB bait and switch to make people thing that "Assault Weapons = Machineguns" for years. King Richard and his pet governor are using it as we speak.

They make it so many people can't see the difference.

A law based on a lie. Such high moral values the anti-gunners have.

Incorrect, it's not a personal decision. When someone is clinically depressed they will kill themselves because of that medical condition. It is accurate to claim is as a death by the medical condition rather than an actual suicide. Most suicides are by clinically depressed people.

If you still think that "if the person wanted to die, well that's they're decision", then you don't understand clincal depression. It's not their decision because their mind has been plagued by this illness, making them kill themselves, in a similar way a virus might plague a person, and kill their physical body instead.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't respond to your previous comment because... well I don't have anything :P . I'll let someone else field it.

The bottom line is:

Why should I be punished for someone elses medical condition?

It seems you're projecting your own feelings on others. You shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm if you think they're "only for killing people".

If you give me a valid reason other than killing people that guns are useful for (other than hunting), then do it.

I use mine for target shooting. ( It's a sport that doesn't involve killing if you didn't know.)

I already covered this one. You can go without a fun activity. You can try darts, or paintball, or I don't even care. Your loss of one fun activity is not significant in my books.

Re-enactments (no real killing)
Skeet (no killling)

Then you don't need real guns. Or if you actually want the shooting effect, you don't need bullets (meaning your guns are useless).

Varmint control (only killing possums, coyotes, and racoons)

I classify this under hunting, you might disagree, but I'll *add* it to hunting.

I also collect antique firearms. I haven't used any of them to kill people either.

Cool, I'd want to collect antinque level 4 viruses, but I'm not allowed to unfortunately. I know I wouldn't kill any people with them, I'd be very careful!

If you give me a valid reason other than killing people that guns are useful for (other than hunting), then do it.


Already gave you several. Of course, I can't be blamed if you don't bother to read my previous posts.

The bottom line is:

Why should I be punished for someone elses medical condition?

Because you're not selfish and you actually care that giving up something you love (but not something you need) might save the lives of many people?? I don't have much more than that...

Already gave you several. Of course, I can't be blamed if you don't bother to read my previous posts.

You gave me one that I couldn't refute. These other reasons are still invalid, and I want to make it clear they're invalid.

I would say they should make a couple new laws - like tightening the gun show loop, and they should standardize laws across the country, but other than that guns should remain legal. The current laws other than what I already said are fine.

Now if only we could ban income inequality, that would reduce the crime rate to almost nil.

That's a factor but not the only one.

According to the census beurue (sp) Hispanics and blacks are proportionally the same w/ poverty levels yet blacks account for over 45% of murders in the US.

There's too many factors to point it at just one but reducing poverty most likely would help.

If you give me a valid reason other than killing people that guns are useful for (other than hunting), then do it.

I have, you just don't like them.



I already covered this one. You can go without a fun activity. You can try darts, or paintball, or I don't even care. Your loss of one fun activity is not significant in my books.

So I should have to change my hobbies because of your condition and the actions of criminals. That makes sense.



Then you don't need real guns. Or if you actually want the shooting effect, you don't need bullets (meaning your guns are useless).

Showing you know little about the sport.



I classify this under hunting, you might disagree, but I'll *add* it to hunting.

You classify it however you like, you'll still be wrong.



Cool, I'd want to collect antinque level 4 viruses, but I'm not allowed to unfortunately. I know I wouldn't kill any people with them, I'd be very careful!

False analogy. Firearms don't reproduce nor kill people indiscriminately. Try again.

Because you're not selfish and you actually care that giving up something you love (but not something you need) might save the lives of many people?? I don't have much more than that...

Giving up my firearms might save many people? BS.

There are more firearms in the US now than before and the crime rate keeps dropping. The suicide rate in countries that don't even allow firearms are higher than the US in many cases.

All of your arguements just equal punishing the innocent for the actions of others.

You gave me one that I couldn't refute. These other reasons are still invalid, and I want to make it clear they're invalid.

You can feel they're "invalid" all you want. The fact that some are olympic events and popular hobbies show that hundreds of thousands of people disagree w/ you.

Kellerman has already been picked apart and destroyed over and over again, as is that claim.

One might go to the Department of Justice website, and see how firearm related violence and murder dropped over 65 percent while gun ownership increased over 50 percent and the number of states allowing concealed carry of firearms jumped to 35 states.

Come back and try again.
In 2002, Canada (population 32 Million) had a total of 582 murders, of which 149 were committed with firearms, or 25.6%. In 2003, Virginia (population 7 Million) had a total of 461 murders, of which 335 were committed with firearms, or 72.6%.

BTW, I think you will find that in the US, the number of guns owned increased significantly, but the number of gun owners did not.

Bullshit.

You are overstating your case. IT is difficult to show causation, but the correlation is there.

International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/148/10/1721)

GUN OWNERSHIP, SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE:
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE (http://www.unicri.it/wwk/publications/books/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf)

Association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression, and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/8/4/313)
People who responded to a telephone survey conducted by the 1989 International Crime Survey in 11 European countries, Australia, Canada and the United States.

General Social Surveys (GSS). The GSS, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center most years from 1972 to 1993, and biennially since 1994, is the gold standard for national surveys of gun ownership. In its current form, the GSS is conducted in person with a national area probability sample of 3000 non-institutionalized adults. The sample is chosen to be representative of each of the nine census regions. We use regional handgun ownership data averaged over the 1988–97 period.

The gold standard? Really? Oddly enough, I'd never even heard the name until now. Your first study uses a telephone survey, which is hardly reliable as well.

The real irony is that the second study cannot come up with a correlation beyond 1/3, the only value worth even beginning to discuss in a correlational study with so many hidden variables without excluding the US, where gun ownership is highest. Odd that. Combined with the fact that the correlation never reaches above .5 at all, the link is specious indeed. The correlation rate without the US and Northern Ireland is .353 and significant only at the .10 level. With NI, the rate rises to .392., but when the US is added, the correlation rate drops to .229 and becomes completely non-significant.

I have, you just don't like them.

No I don't.

So I should have to change my hobbies because of your condition and the actions of criminals. That makes sense.

Yes. The benefit that would come from gun restrictions would outweigh your loss of one activity of fun.

Showing you know little about the sport.

I just looked it up on merriamwebster now, and I classify it under target practice. An activity of fun you can do without.

For re-enactments, you don't need real guns. If you really want the powder effect, then I'm sure companies would be obliged to make guns that do only that.

You classify it however you like, you'll still be wrong.

Actually, never mind, not even varmint control's a good reason. That's why you have "Pest Control" companies.

Hunting's the only good reason, and you can do that with a permit (in my hypothetical nation).

False analogy. Firearms don't reproduce nor kill people indiscriminately. Try again.

Perhaps the analogy may be flawed one, but I'll dwell on the purposes of the two.

Level 4 viruses kill, and to us, they effectively have one purpose, to kill. With guns it is the same thing, they are designed with one purpose: to kill. Now you want everyone in the country to be able to kill. How does that make any sense? What power does the police have anymore? How safe are you if everyone around you could kill you in an instant?

In 2002, Canada (population 32 Million) had a total of 582 murders, of which 149 were committed with firearms, or 25.6%. In 2003, Virginia (population 7 Million) had a total of 461 murders, of which 335 were committed with firearms, or 72.6%.

BTW, I think you will find that in the US, the number of guns owned increased significantly, but the number of gun owners did not.

You still haven't explained the 65 percent drop in violent crime and firearm murders for the US as a whole. Let's compare nation to nation, shall we?

And you'll be standing there forever, because you can't explain it.

Giving up my firearms might save many people? BS.

That's effectively what I'm trying to convey.

There are more firearms in the US now than before and the crime rate keeps dropping. The suicide rate in countries that don't even allow firearms are higher than the US in many cases.

Source? And if you do, I don't have much more to say to that. We'll be stuck in a argument of logic vs. statistics, and I know you'll cling to whichever suits your right to own device that can kill a person in an instant.

All of your arguements just equal punishing the innocent for the actions of others.

Incorrect.

If you are right, then my arguments are just wrong, because "the actions of others" is not a valid reason. So it'd be just punishing the innocent for no good reason.

If I am right, it is imposing inconveniences on people to save other people's lives.

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

Excerpts:

In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:


16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.

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

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

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

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

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

Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)

This is ridiculous, of course strict gun laws and less gun ownership, and lower populations mean fewer gun homicides. The objective isn´t to end all gun homicides, but to end all homicides. The prescence of a gun in a home is only indicative of many other factors that produce suicide and homicide.

And finally, you have to keep in mind the war on drugs. That is responsible for the larger number of gun homicides in the US, and the larger number of homicides in general.

You can feel they're "invalid" all you want. The fact that some are olympic events and popular hobbies show that hundreds of thousands of people disagree w/ you.

How do you know that those hundreds of thousands of people would not give up their guns if they found out that giving up their hobbies might save lives? These people are not the debate.

The debate is convincing these people that gun restrictions might save lives.

Yeah, that is a parallel argument. NOT. :headbang:

And BTW we do rather regulate and constrict the use of cars precisely to limit the danger. Are you against those regulations as well?
Extremely disproportionately compared to guns however, and it's a hell of a lot harder to get a black-market car than to get a black market gun. Ask any number of people if they would like to treat guns the same as cars, and they would jump at the chance. Also interesting to note, is that the right to keep and drive cars is noted nowhere in the constitution and yet, clear as fucking day, the right to keep and bear arms is. There's also the little addendum about it not being infringed. And in fact, outside of Presser and Cruickshank, you can find no evidence of the supreme court that suggests limiting of the second amendment beyond making sure the weapon is militarily useful and is not an area of effect weapon. Given that Presser and Cruickshank had the same Cheif Justice and reiterated the same point on the second amendment itself, ignoring the primary point of Presser regarding people running around brandishing longarms indiscriminately as a group, and also give the extremely likely racist bias in Cruickshank, both Presser and Cruickshank can largely be ignored. Especially as given the wording of CJ Taney's Dred Scott decision and the oh so oddly similar wording of the 14th amendment.

Source?

http://www.mcdl.org/Stats/gnpsuicide.htm

Country Rate (per 100,000)
Finland 26.4
Denmark 20.4
Austria 20.4
France 19.8
Switzerland 19.6
Japan 15.1
Sweden 14.7
Germany 13.8
Norway 13
United States 11.8
Netherlands 9.6

How do you know that those hundreds of thousands of people would not give up their guns if they found out that giving up their hobbies might save lives? These people are not the debate.

The debate is convincing these people that gun restrictions might save lives.

My best friend used to believe as you do.

He had his hands chopped off with a machete.

Now he wishes he had listened to me.

No I don't.



Yes. The benefit that would come from gun restrictions would outweigh your loss of one activity of fun.

And yet you have NO proof than any of these "restrictions" would reduce crime or suicide one bit.



I just looked it up on merriamwebster now, and I classify it under target practice. An activity of fun you can do without.

For re-enactments, you don't need real guns. If you really want the powder effect, then I'm sure companies would be obliged to make guns that do only that.

You're still going under the assumption that I should be punished or restricted for your conditions and the actions of criminals.




Actually, never mind, not even varmint control's a good reason. That's why you have "Pest Control" companies.

and now showing how little you know about wildlife.

I should call a "pest control" company when I have a pack of coyotes attacking my chickens or dogs?



Hunting's the only good reason, and you can do that with a permit (in my hypothetical nation).

Well it's nice in your "hypothetical" nation that you like the gov't to control the populace.



Perhaps the analogy may be flawed one, but I'll dwell on the purposes of the two.

Level 4 viruses kill, and to us, they effectively have one purpose, to kill. With guns it is the same thing, they are designed with one purpose: to kill. Now you want everyone in the country to be able to kill. How does that make any sense? What power does the police have anymore? How safe are you if everyone around you could kill you in an instant?

You continue w/ a flawed and false analogy trying to compare an indiscriminate item to an inanimate object.

You're also now claiming that I want "everyone" to have a firearm. That's a false claim.

The police can not prevent every crime nor are they obligated in anyway to do so. Even CT will confirm that.

Being the fact that the overwhelming majority of states have concealed carry laws and those who have obtained those licenses are MORE law abiding than the average citizen, and ownership levels in the US have increased even while crime has been decreasing shows that legal ownership is very safe.

How do you know that those hundreds of thousands of people would not give up their guns if they found out that giving up their hobbies might save lives? These people are not the debate.

The debate is convincing these people that gun restrictions might save lives.

The fact is that firearm restrictions have NOT saved lives and there is no evidence that they have.

You still haven't explained the 65 percent drop in violent crime and firearm murders for the US as a whole. Let's compare nation to nation, shall we?

And you'll be standing there forever, because you can't explain it.
You are aware that US incarceration numbers in the US has doubled over the past 10 years, the Brady Bill enacted in 1994 closely coincides with the major decline in VCR.

That's effectively what I'm trying to convey.

And it's still BS



Source? And if you do, I don't have much more to say to that. We'll be stuck in a argument of logic vs. statistics, and I know you'll cling to whichever suits your right to own device that can kill a person in an instant.

There have been sources posted throughout this thread showing NO direct correlation of ownership levels. You own personal bias prevents you from even reading them apparently.



Incorrect.

If you are right, then my arguments are just wrong, because "the actions of others" is not a valid reason. So it'd be just punishing the innocent for no good reason.

If I am right, it is imposing inconveniences on people to save other people's lives.

But you are not right and you have not shown in any way that you are except w/ your own personal anectdote.

I could post hundreds of anectdotes where people saved themselves and others against attackers by using firearms.

You are aware that US incarceration numbers in the US has doubled over the past 10 years, the Brady Bill enacted in 1994 closely coincides with the major decline in VCR.

Which was following a trend that had started several years earlier, and was not even in effect in the states w/ the most crime .

You are aware that US incarceration numbers in the US has doubled over the past 10 years, the Brady Bill enacted in 1994 closely coincides with the major decline in VCR.
Hardly. According to the US government, the primary cause of the drop in violence is the elimination of government subsidized housing projects that concentrated the poor.

So, despite the increase in guns, and increases in gun ownership especially among women, and the radical increase in concealed carry, the gun violence plummeted.

Hardly. According to the US government, the primary cause of the drop in violence is the elimination of government subsidized housing projects that concentrated the poor.

So, despite the increase in guns, and increases in gun ownership especially among women, and the radical increase in concealed carry, the gun violence plummeted.
Then what are you saying is the cause in the drop of gun violence, increase in guns or decrease in projects? Because you can't derive the former from the latter as the cause.

Then what are you saying is the cause in the drop of gun violence, increase in guns or decrease in projects? Because you can't derive the former from the latter as the cause.

I'm saying it was the dispersal of the poor that made the difference.

Increasing guns doesn't increase the crime rate.

94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without any firearm at all.

Best Solution to the Identity Theft (Viruses, Spam, Nigerian Scam) Problem:


Ban all non-regulated uses of personal computers
Stricter laws to regular the sale and use of personal computers
Uniform federal laws regulating personal computers
Strict government regulation of all personal computers
Other


Regulate Computers!

Only the Government and specific controlled industries NEED computers.

http://www.a-human-right.com/somesee2_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_quills.jpg

Now on that page, see this:
# Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.
(wow, if there were no guns, there would still be 94 percent of the same violent crimes!)
Assuming, which is a false assumption, that crimes commited with firearms wouldn't be commited through other means.

I'm pretty tired of hearing about people killing other people with guns...but it IS an effective method of population control.

I'm pretty tired of hearing about people killing other people with guns...but it IS an effective method of population control.

>.>

Guns are good...but shouldn't be in the hands of those who are unstable.

My best friend used to believe as you do.

He had his hands chopped off with a machete.

Now he wishes he had listened to me.

Not going against your point or anything here. Not really trying to flame either, answer however you feel like and just... you know, agree or disagree with me. I won't care either way, I'm just curious.

Still, it seems all you try to do with that example is scare people. Now, I've heard of such a thing as the culture of fear in the US and from several people, I hear how the news also thrive on this. Could it be that you have submitted yourself to this?

Level 4 viruses kill, and to us, they effectively have one purpose, to kill. With guns it is the same thing, they are designed with one purpose: to kill. Now you want everyone in the country to be able to kill.

This is the silliest analogy I've ever seen.

You should just go all the way and compare how regulating personal, nuclear weapons is essentially the same as regulating a gun.

I love how people think just because they don't agree with something it should be banned. Remember "freedom for all as long as they agree with it" ;)

Appologies if already covered...

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

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

US has a population comparable to Europe, not Germany.
US population ~300million - .39 deaths / 10,000 people
German population ~ 82million - 0.045 deaths / 10,000 people
Australian population ~20mill - 0.03 deaths / 10,000 people

Which are the right numbers to look at. The problem isn't 31 times as bad a Germany, it's *only* 8 times.

Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.


Taxpayers pay what percentage of non-insured people's medical bills?

Shoot, I have health insurance. I pay part, the company pays part. Of the thousands of dollars we've combined paid, I've used hundreds. The same is true of most healthy people with insurance - we pay for the sick people and hope we never need it ourselves.

First of all, I am a gun owner (or rather my father is) and if it were up to me, I would simply make guns illegal, or make it very hard to get them. Yes I enjoy target shooting, and it makes me feel safer, but they do so much more harm than good. Since it would simply be impossble to get rid of all guns in the USA, I would make the following changes,

- Slap a heavy tax for the sales of ALL guns

- Slap an even heavier tax on handguns

- Slap a heavy tax on bullets

- Reinstate the assault rifle ban

Seriously, there is no good reason to own handguns or assault rifles. I can understand why hunters would want to buy single shot rifles, but assault rifles and pistols are out of the question. The only reason you would need something like a .38 special or an AR-15 is to kill people.


That'll slow down accidental shooting.

But if I decided robbing people for a living was a good idea, I wouldn't be going to a gun shop and fill out paperwork. I'd walk over to San Pablo Avenue, and find some shady character to buy a gun off of. Taxes, or lack thereof, wouldn't apply.

Maybe it shouldn't be the right of civilians to own guns. Seriously. Or at least restrict the kind of guns people can buy.
As someone else mentioned, it's easy to kill someone with a gun. You can do it from far away, and impersonally. If people don't have guns, it makes it a much more personal thing to kill someone, and that itself would deter a great many people from killing others.
I'd like you to tell all the American families that have lost people due to suicide or assault with guns that those same guns keep families together. I'd like to hear their responses...

As I recall, most people's aim sucks beyond more than 10 feet or so.

As for suicide - in my family, it was OD of sleeping pills, slit wrists + neck, but not a gun. That bullet in the brain is one way to off oneself, but by no means not the only way...

And how is restricting gun sales going to stop me from buying one off of the scumbag in the street? He and I are already thumbing our noses at the existing laws...

It would have prevented my death is all I have to say, good thing I'm not in the US.

Oh well, I'm probably unimportant, and the deaths of a few people who wouldn't have killed themselves if there weren't guns is not important to your right to have firearms.

The problem is in the US, we already have the firearms. Laws against ownership will affect the legally owned ones, not the illegally owned ones.

NB - depressed / suicidal people (at least, diagnosed and treated people) may not own guns - at least that was the case with my mother.

However, what happens when the law abiding public may not have guns, the criminal side does have them - and both sides know it?

Ugh, I wish I had the link. Guns were banned in restaurants in a city in Texas. Therefore, some jerkoffs commited crimes there, they knew it would be a bunch of easy targets.

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)




The relation between guns and suicide seems to be irrelevant. I don't think that the number on suicide is even remotely relevant. I seriously doubt that the presence of guns causes suicide.

Generally anyone who's going to shoot themselves is dead serious as to their suicide and not just crying out for help, and if they cannot shoot themselves, then they'll find another surefire way out, such as hanging themselves with a belt or jumping from very tall buildings.

Let's name some "Western" countries w/ stricter gun control that have higher suicide rates than the US:

Japan
France
Germany
Austria
Finland
Switzerland
Russia
Sweden

No causality.

Actually, there is a very strong correlation between length and severity of winters and suicide rates. Simply put, cold and darkness make people depressed. Now look at your list. Compare the latitudes involved.

So perhaps you are guilty of oversimplifying things as well? How about you compare suicide rates in Alaska and Maine specifically with those in Russia, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, etc.

All of those countries (except for southerly parts of Germany and Japan.) are Coooooold. And Japan has a long history as a culture closely tied to suicide practices.

Guns are designed to kill.

Now you're going to tell me that "Oh, but I use mine for hunting/shooting practice".

Why do you need shooting practice other than to kill a person? Fun? Well forgive me if I don't care that you have one less fun activity to do in order for everyone to be safer. You can try darts, or paintball. It's not the end of the world.

And if you hunt, then you should be allowed to get a gun, with a permit.

If own a gun and you don't plan to hunt, then really the only thing you're planning to do with it is kill people, since it barely has any alternative uses (unlike knifes, who have plenty of uses that they're designed for, it just happens that they can also kill).

Therefore, other than hunters (and "practicing" people that can't give up one activity of fun), the only reason people have guns is to kill people.

And if I own a gun to kill some piece of shit jerkoff who breaks into my house in the middle of the night, what's wrong with that?

If people don't use guns to kill themselves or others there will be another avenue they will take. Stabbing and blunt force trauma cases will go up. The manner of suicide would just adjust itself. I do not advocate taking away guns from people. They are a legitimate form of protection. Also it is part of the conerstone of the Constitution. Some overseas would not understand. Me personally I could kill you faster without a gun with less noise and screaming.

It's not my job to prevent people from killing themselves. That's a personal decision.

I don't believe that one cent should be spent on suicide prevention, because it's a state interference in a personal decision.

The state interferes in all sorts of personal decisions if the person isn't of sound mind. Wills, driving, contracts - you you were drunk / high / drugged (even legally on painkillers), there's limits on what you agree to. A depressed person isn't necessarily of sound mind - at least suicide doesn't directly hurt another the way driving a car is.

(though I'm not sure how apeshit the state should go protecting everyone from themselves as well...)

I use mine for ...
Varmint control (only killing possums, coyotes, and racoons)

Any PETA folks here wanna start the argument that 'coons are people too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kecibukia
Let's name some "Western" countries w/ stricter gun control that have higher suicide rates than the US:

Japan
France
Germany
Austria
Finland
Switzerland
Russia
Sweden

No causality.

Actually, there is a very strong correlation between length and severity of winters and suicide rates. Simply put, cold and darkness make people depressed. Now look at your list. Compare the latitudes involved.

...



http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx

Japan, France, Germany, Austria, & Switzerland are all between the 30th and 40th parallels - the bulk of the US between the 30th and 45th. (I forget exactly where the Canadian / US border is - ~48th)

Also, the much of US has pretty crappy winters.

Frankly, I dont feel like looking for state by state stats for suicide to compare between N. Dakota, Georgia, Texas, California, etc. Call me lazy.

Uh ... in case you were trying to use this stat to butress some argument against guns, do try to keep in mind that any comparison based on whole numbers rather than percentages of total population is specious. America just happens have a slightly larger population than the countries to which we are being compared. :rolleyes:

now I'm conservative and in no means am I a "american-basher"

but the USA has 10x the population of Canada, and nearly 100x more deaths by guns

Japan has 4x the population of Canada, and way less deaths

You are aware that US incarceration numbers in the US has doubled over the past 10 years, the Brady Bill enacted in 1994 closely coincides with the major decline in VCR.
If, of course, you mean by closely coincides that it was enacted 3 full years after crime started to decline. Oh, I'm sorry, does that blow your link right out of the water? Why yes, yes it does. Especially since there were relatively few handgun restrictions in the brady bill, which is what most killings are perpetrated with, and the fact that the Brady Bill stopped being applicable in certain states before others yet there was no corresponding difference in crime rate changes. Aslo given the fact that many states had even stricter gun laws in place, *cough*California*cough* and yet they didn't see any greater or lesser decline than the other states.

If, of course, you mean by closely coincides that it was enacted 3 full years after crime started to decline. Oh, I'm sorry, does that blow your link right out of the water? Why yes, yes it does.
Ummmm, no, no it doesn't. Your facts are skewed. :D

I will nuke your battleship tomorrow!! :eek:

Your population isn't 'that' big... You have maybe 10 times the population of Canada... if that...

So if you multiplied Canada's numbers, you'd end up with 1510. A number significantly less than America's 11,789.

Well, of course the number goes up exponentially with bigger popualtions, that is the closer together people are. If you fire a gun in Canada, most of the time the bullet just continues indefinitely through the void.

That's a factor but not the only one.

According to the census beurue (sp) Hispanics and blacks are proportionally the same w/ poverty levels yet blacks account for over 45% of murders in the US.

There's too many factors to point it at just one but reducing poverty most likely would help.Yes, I can't say that reducing poverty in and of itself is the answer, but other than the continued effects of discrimination, what do you think accounts for the higher incidence of crime in minority populations?

Other: start systematic diarmament of everyone followed by complete destruction of all weapon manufacturing units. its the only way.

maybe (i know this is konventional) but maybe you should illigelize the making of guns. that way criminals could impossibly buy guns from any where atleast with your contries high level of bordersecurity. A gun's only use is the kill peapole and if you think its your right to kill some one else then maybe it should be no restrictions at all? if not they should just plain and simply not be made at!

Yeah, that is a parallel argument. NOT. :headbang:

And BTW we do rather regulate and constrict the use of cars precisely to limit the danger. Are you against those regulations as well?
YAY! I get to post it again... :rolleyes:

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.

damn i read the hole forum but the very last page if this idé had already been seene haha always happends to me...

maybe (i know this is konventional) but maybe you should illigelize the making of guns. that way criminals could impossibly buy guns from any where atleast with your contries high level of bordersecurity. A gun's only use is the kill peapole and if you think its your right to kill some one else then maybe it should be no restrictions at all? if not they should just plain and simply not be made at!

Uh, what about the police? The military? And America doesn't exactly have a high level of border security, look at all the drugs and illegal immigrants coming in.

Oh yeah, and guns are used for target shooting and hunting. And yes, I think it is my right to kill someone who is trying to kill me or mug me.

maybe (i know this is konventional) but maybe you should illigelize the making of guns. that way criminals could impossibly buy guns from any where atleast with your contries high level of bordersecurity. A gun's only use is the kill peapole and if you think its your right to kill some one else then maybe it should be no restrictions at all? if not they should just plain and simply not be made at!
PaaX, I know you are new and English is'nt your first language, but you cannot "illigelize" somthing that is allready illegal.

The firearms industry in the US is one of the most highly monitored, regulated and taxed industries in the US. It is highly illegal to manufacture firearms without Government oversight.

That said, you could close down every gun factory in the world today, wave your magic wand and make all guns dissappear, and within 48 hours there would be new guns on the street - and it wouldn't be nice people carrying them either.

Follow the link in in my sig (or here (http://spaces.msn.com/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx)) to see how simple it really is.

Uh, what about the police? The military? And America doesn't exactly have a high level of border security, look at all the drugs and illegal immigrants coming in.

Oh yeah, and guns are used for target shooting and hunting. And yes, I think it is my right to kill someone who is trying to kill me or mug me.
they are secure enough its been proven here in sweden

ya what about em? if there would be no guns you wouldnt need any guns for them. else the guns should be a tool made by the goverment and only by the govermant... though history has shown that it would not be such a gr8 idé with your huge army.. get rid of it or at least a big part of it first

cinda an utopia for US realy but it works for other contries iceland does not have a military at all you know

Oh yeah, and guns are used for target shooting and hunting. And yes, I think it is my right to kill someone who is trying to kill me or mug me.

Im sorry, did you just say you would kill someone thats trying to mug you? You know how self-defense works right?

Well, of course the number goes up exponentially with bigger popualtions, that is the closer together people are. If you fire a gun in Canada, most of the time the bullet just continues indefinitely through the void.
That's bullshit. Japan for instance is waaaaay more densely populated than the US and they're not shooting each other by the thousands.

Im sorry, did you just say you would kill someone thats trying to mug you? You know how self-defense works right?
Self defense works by using the force sufficient to stop an attacker from continuing to attack you (or others in your immediate vicinity). If you can do this without killing the atacker, kudos. But the object is to immediately incapacitate the attacker and stop the attack.

In order of effectiveness to this task:


Major Caliber Guns
Tazers
Minor Caliber Guns
"Defense Sprays"

If you can get close enough:
Clubs
Knives

And if you are a Level 24 Wizard with a Summoning Spell: Chuck Norris. ;)

There's no point argueing with neo-cons who want their guns. It'll always be "but the numbers are shrinking here" or "but then only the criminalshave guns" or "I need to be butch and protect my family". Maybe it would be worht considering how the rate became so high in the first place? Centuries of extremely liberal gun policies (liberal in the actual sense of the word, not the american political one).

I have pondered this point and come to an epiphany. You won't ever be able to wrest the guns from the hands of rabid neo-cons, and neo-cons make up a voting majority in the U.S. So logically, they have a right to live in an urban warzone if they want to. For those who don't like it, there remains two paths:

1.Leave the U.S, or don't go there if you aren't already (My choice).
2.Try to reduce the neo-con voting majority by either attempting to talk some sense into them or (much much easier) pick up a handgun at the local highschool and go on a killing spree, culling off the overpopulated republicans.

Either way, I sense a bleak future for the U.S.

There's no point argueing with neo-cons who want their guns. It'll always be "but the numbers are shrinking here" or "but then only the criminalshave guns" or "I need to be butch and protect my family". Maybe it would be worht considering how the rate became so high in the first place? Centuries of extremely liberal gun policies (liberal in the actual sense of the word, not the american political one). I have pondered this point and come to an epiphany. You won't ever be able to wrest the guns from the hands of rabid neo-cons, and neo-cons make up a voting majority in the U.S. .
I am not a NeoCon. I am neither Zionist/Jewish nor Zionist/Evangilical Xtian.

I am a Classical Liberal - a non ancarcho-capitalist Libertarian. And as such, I do not believe ANYONE has the right to restrict my law abiding (i.e. not harming anyone) behavior. Should Computers be taxed/regulated/restricted from personal use because Script Kiddies and Criminals maliciously steal peoples lives and fuck up other peoples computer systems?

So logically, they have a right to live in an urban warzone if they want to. For those who don't like it, there remains two paths:

1.Leave the U.S, or don't go there if you aren't already (My choice).Good riddance.
2.Try to reduce the neo-con voting majority by either attempting to talk some sense into them or (much much easier) pick up a handgun at the local highschool and go on a killing spree, culling off the overpopulated republicans.Troll.

Guns are designed to kill.

Now you're going to tell me that "Oh, but I use mine for hunting/shooting practice".

Why do you need shooting practice other than to kill a person? Fun? Well forgive me if I don't care that you have one less fun activity to do in order for everyone to be safer. You can try darts, or paintball. It's not the end of the world.

And if you hunt, then you should be allowed to get a gun, with a permit.

If own a gun and you don't plan to hunt, then really the only thing you're planning to do with it is kill people, since it barely has any alternative uses (unlike knifes, who have plenty of uses that they're designed for, it just happens that they can also kill).

Therefore, other than hunters (and "practicing" people that can't give up one activity of fun), the only reason people have guns is to kill people.


What a load of BS... You actually expect me to just hand over 1,000s of dollars worth of MY personal property and tell me to take up another hobby?
Fortunantly this kind of facist thinking does not go over too well here. For the record, I own several guns, especially the "Scary assault weapon types" and I don't hunt with them. Your arguement that I intend to kill with those is flat out bullshit! Your arguement is simply emotion based and is irrational at best.

Oh, and how about tackling my arguement from the previous post? I will repost it here.

Oh, and how about tackling my arguement from the previous post? I will repost it here.
None of them are likely to tackle any argument, because that would force them to use Logic rather than emotion. Usually my Cars/Guns post kills these threads. We'll have to see this time.

Here it is...

Well, I do not wish to antagonize for to get a answer. In many ways I can understand why those from other countries who do not have any knowledge about guns aside from watching them blaze away in movies (Do not get me started about the inaccuracy shown in movies about any sort equipement) and sometimes in the evening news when a criminal uses one to commit a violent act. This forms a mindset that guns are bad, period. Unfortunantly, many of these people will never understand the fun of trying to put a very tiny peice of metal through a peice of paper 1,2,3+ football field lengths away. They will never understand the nastalgia of having a rifle used in a war in years past. Just the thrill of being able to handle, work on, and admire something that had a small hand in shaping the world as it is today. To them, that peice of metal and wood represents violence, represents fear, and in some cases represents what exactly is wrong with humanity. Because of this they loathe guns, which in all honesty is absolutely fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating something. However, what gets me is these people go on a crusade to ban the thing that they hate. Under the flag of anti-crime, social safety, and just flat phobias of guns they set out to remove all firearms. When someone has spent the amount of cash I have invested in my collection, I will have a very serious issue with this. Especially when the groups have to lie (brady campaign) to get the public on thier side in thier gun bans. Now, regardless of the banner they fly under or any genuine well meaning of these groups there is one thing that is ignored, the rights of the everyday citizen. No one seems concerned about those who keep guns for a hobby or recreational purpose. They by a very far margin outweigh those who use guns for malicious purposes. So, what these gun bans do is punish the lawful gun owners by taking away historical/recreational peices, not including the cash investment a owner expends to buy them. (Guns are by no means cheap) All this for what? You made a vast majority give up thier property for help ease your phobia. Something that may put a slight dent in crime level if any. This is simply unacceptable for any free country to follow through with something like this. What has just happened was like taking cough syrup for a serious flu. It may help releave a annoyance but does nothing to fight a deep seated virus in ourselves and in society. All that has happened is we banished a scapegoat instead of addressing the real problem. This is exactly why I am against any further gun control, I see any further as being punished for crimes that I did not commit while doing little to nothing to reduce crime or punish those who commit these crimes.

*snip*
Yeah, recreational shooting is great fun. Target shooting is a bit dry in my opinion, but getting out and about in the great outdoors whilst hunting is a both a rewarding and popular past-time. While hunting isn't really my all time favourite thing to do, I have had the privelidge to engage in the sport numerous times. Furthermore, my knowledge of guns (mainly rifles) comes mainly from using them on the farm/out hunting, not Hollywood. What do I think of recreational firearm usage? Whatever floats your boat. However, a firearm is an extremely dangerous piece of equipment (designed initially for killing in the most efficient way). For this reason, it would be reasonable to expect those who wanted to use them should pass some kind of safety test. Furthermore, it is the unfortunate case that the power of the firearm is quite often employed in crime, often ending with regrettable results. Therefore, those wishing to purchase firearms should have to undergo a criminal record check, just to be sure. When it comes to hunting, only certain firearms are practical/appropriate, so if you are applying for a licence for hunting use of firearms, you should not be given access to military weaons/handguns. When it comes to target practice, you should be a member of a registered shooting club. Automatic/semiautomatic weapos are of no real use in either of the above sports, and thus should not be made available.

That is pretty much my stance, and also that of the Australian Govt.

There's no point argueing with neo-cons who want their guns.

I just want to make the point that it's not just neo-cons who are pro-gun. I consider myself to be somewhat liberal, and I'm very pro-gun. The Democratic Lieutenant Governor of my state is in very good standing with the NRA, and our Democratic Governor signed a new conceal carry law not too long ago.

Yeah, recreational shooting is great fun. Target shooting is a bit dry in my opinion, but getting out and about in the great outdoors whilst hunting is a both a rewarding and popular past-time. While hunting isn't really my all time favourite thing to do, I have had the privelidge to engage in the sport numerous times. Furthermore, my knowledge of guns (mainly rifles) comes mainly from using them on the farm/out hunting, not Hollywood. What do I think of recreational firearm usage? Whatever floats your boat. However, a firearm is an extremely dangerous piece of equipment (designed initially for killing in the most efficient way). For this reason, it would be reasonable to expect those who wanted to use them should pass some kind of safety test. Furthermore, it is the unfortunate case that the power of the firearm is quite often employed in crime, often ending with regrettable results. Therefore, those wishing to purchase firearms should have to undergo a criminal record check, just to be sure. When it comes to hunting, only certain firearms are practical/appropriate, so if you are applying for a licence for hunting use of firearms, you should not be given access to military weaons/handguns. When it comes to target practice, you should be a member of a registered shooting club. Automatic/semiautomatic weapos are of no real use in either of the above sports, and thus should not be made available.

That is pretty much my stance, and also that of the Australian Govt.
So, what then would be wrong with my Licensing scheme? It addresses your points.

So, what then would be wrong with my Licensing scheme? It addresses your points.
Did I criticise your licencing scheme? If I'm not wrong, I my initial post was criticising the gun laws and management thereof in the U.S. (Albeit with a somewhat tounge-in-cheek tone). It seems that you have labelled me as 'one of them', and continued to build my arguement for me. Thanks, but no thanks;)

Did I criticise your licencing scheme? If I'm not wrong, I my initial post was criticising the gun laws and management thereof in the U.S. (Albeit with a somewhat tounge-in-cheek tone). It seems that you have labelled me as 'one of them', and continued to build my arguement for me. Thanks, but no thanks;)
And Yet, you labeled me as a NeoCon simply because I support Choice in gun ownership.

Would you accept my licensing scheme? Yes or No.

If no, tell me why my licensing scheme would be bad.

BTW, I'm waiting for the day when the Government requires Registration of all PCs so that they can drop people's houses and make sure they are not involved in International Cyber Crime or Child Porn.

Self defense works by using the force sufficient to stop an attacker from continuing to attack you (or others in your immediate vicinity). If you can do this without killing the atacker, kudos. But the object is to immediately incapacitate the attacker and stop the attack.

In order of effectiveness to this task:


Major Caliber Guns
Tazers
Minor Caliber Guns
"Defense Sprays"

If you can get close enough:
Clubs
Knives

And if you are a Level 24 Wizard with a Summoning Spell: Chuck Norris. ;)

The majority of nations state that your level of self-defense must equal that of an attack. If he comes at you with fists, you cannot stab him, you cannot shoot him, you cannot run him over with a car. Kinda prevents that whole "You saw it! He came at me with a knife!" incident.

The majority of nations state that your level of self-defense must equal that of an attack. If he comes at you with fists, you cannot stab him, you cannot shoot him, you cannot run him over with a car. Kinda prevents that whole "You saw it! He came at me with a knife!" incident.How many fights have you been in? Watch two equally matched boxers some time and tell me again how reasonable your suggestion is.

How is Little old Lady (A) supposed to defend "equal that of an attack" when being set upon by a 20 stone thug (B)?

Or the Disabled guy in a wheel chair? I guess he's just shit out of luck.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_wheelchair.jpg
Adequate defense means using superior force in order to stop the attack

The majority of nations state that your level of self-defense must equal that of an attack. If he comes at you with fists, you cannot stab him, you cannot shoot him, you cannot run him over with a car. Kinda prevents that whole "You saw it! He came at me with a knife!" incident.

That's not how it goes. Law doesn't say you have to use a knife if someones trying to stab you.

Your right to self defense means you use whatever means are considered reasonably necessary at the time, given that you believe and reasonably so that your life is endangered.

And Yet, you labeled me as a NeoCon.


I didn't label you a neo-con, I made a 'sweeping genralisation' in regards to the stereotype of the gun-nuts of the U.S. The fact is that I have not met too many neo-cons, nor have I been to the U.S. What I do know is that most neo-cons are pro-gun (though the opposite is not neccesarily true). Perhaps a better term would have been 'gun-waving-libertarian'. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right, and if you don't like being generalised then you should set the example.


Would you accept my licensing scheme? Yes or No.

I haven't read your licenceing scheme, mainly because I don't give a shit. I think you would agree, upon consultation of the OP of this thread, that the question at hand is:

"Is the current legislation on firearms adequate in managing the firearm related crime in the U.S?"

So I put it to you, is it? Yes or no?



If no, tell me why my licensing scheme would be bad.
Why don't you post a new thread on your licencing scheme and see if I post?

BTW, I'm waiting for the day when the Government requires Registration of all PCs so that they can drop people's houses and make sure they are not involved in International Cyber Crime or Child Porn.

Only Computers aren't small concealable lethal weapons that kill tens of thousands of people per year in the U.S. I guarantee you the government in any sane country would be doing just what you said if computers were an accessory to crime on as massive as a scale as are firearms. Think before you make an analogy.

That's not how it goes. Law doesn't say you have to use a knife if someones trying to stab you.

Your right to self defense means you use whatever means are considered reasonably necessary at the time, given that you believe and reasonably so that your life is endangered.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_foam.jpg

:p

I didn't label you a neo-con, I made a 'sweeping genralisation' in regards to the stereotype of the gun-nuts of the U.S. The fact is that I have not met too many neo-cons, nor have I been to the U.S. What I do know is that most neo-cons are pro-gun (though the opposite is not neccesarily true). Perhaps a better term would have been 'gun-waving-libertarian'. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right, and if you don't like being generalised then you should set the example. By doing what?
I haven't read your licenceing scheme, mainly because I don't give a shit. WHich means you have nothing to say. I think you would agree, upon consultation of the OP of this thread, that the question at hand is:

"Is the current legislation on firearms adequate in managing the firearm related crime in the U.S?"

So I put it to you, is it? Yes or no? Yes, because criminals will use firearms regardless of the amount of regulation. And No, for exactlythe same reason(s).

Why don't you post a new thread on your licencing scheme and see if I post? I have before. But here its only 21 posts up - but I guess you can't be bothered because Trolling is more fun.

Only Computers aren't small concealable lethal weapons that kill tens of thousands of people per year in the U.S. I guarantee you the government in any sane country would be doing just what you said if computers were an accessory to crime on as massive as a scale as are firearms. Think before you make an analogy.So you won't do it to protect the Children? Maybe someone should come check your computer...

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_foam.jpg

:p

Hey, don't knock pepper. I know a guy grows some really mean habaneros.

It's deadly. :D

Yes, in the US you can use whatever force you want to defend yourself. The number of gun related deaths supports that aye? I can only point to the numbers and shrug.

Im a rugby player. I have been in many fights, and with people many sizes my own. If I get mugged Im not going to grab a gun and shoot that person in the face. They may steal my wallet, but they may still have a family. Theres not a lot of news on people managing to defend themselves with a gun and being dismissed, or at least that I have heard of. Then again I am up in Canada.

Perhaps the problem is in your psyches? I could never shoot a person; could you?

Theres not a lot of news on people managing to defend themselves with a gun and being dismissed, or at least that I have heard of. Then again I am up in Canada. Try this: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html It aggregates self defense shootings. In the past 2 days...

Houston Chronicle of March 26, 2006
Homeowner fatally shoots intruder

A southeast Houston man shot and killed one of two armed intruders who forced their way into his home Friday night. Homeowner Sergio Quintanilla, 26, told officers he was in a rear room of his house in the 1200 block of Flushing Meadow shortly before 9 p.m. when he heard his mother and children scream for help. When he entered the living room, he saw the two intruders holding assault rifles. Quintanilla retrieved his weapon, the men exchanged gunfire and one of the intruders was killed. Officials did not release the deceased intruder's name. The second intruder, who may have been injured, fled in a gray or black Chevrolet. Police said there may have been three other suspects outside during the shooting.

From the Kansas City Star of March 27, 2006
Home invasion leads to deaths

Kansas City police responding to a report of a home invasion on Sunday afternoon found two men dead in a truck that had crashed into a tree.

Officers were called to the 5700 block of Newton Avenue about 12:30 p.m. Police spokesman Sgt. Tony Sanders said a homeowner told police that two men in their 20s had kicked in his front door. The homeowner told police he had been involved in a short exchange of gunfire with the men.

Officers found the two men, who had suffered gunshot wounds, dead inside the vehicle, which had crashed into a tree a short distance away.

Sanders said police had not yet determined whether the men died of the gunshot wounds or the crash. He said the homeowner was being interviewed about the incident and was cooperating, but details of how the shooting unfolded were not released.

“We’re investigating it as a home invasion or a robbery,” Sanders said. “We’re not sure what the circumstances were.”

Sanders said police were told a third person might have been involved and they were still investigating that on Sunday evening.

Names of the victim and the homeowner were not released. No other injuries were reported.



Perhaps the problem is in your psyches? I could never shoot a person; could you? If my life or the lives of others were in danger. Absolutely.

Yes, in the US you can use whatever force you want to defend yourself. The number of gun related deaths supports that aye? I can only point to the numbers and shrug.

I could point to the numbers of firearms used in defense (hundreds of thousands) and shrug right back.

Im a rugby player. I have been in many fights, and with people many sizes my own. If I get mugged Im not going to grab a gun and shoot that person in the face. They may steal my wallet, but they may still have a family. Theres not a lot of news on people managing to defend themselves with a gun and being dismissed, or at least that I have heard of. Then again I am up in Canada.

You're missing the point. You're in good physical shape. What about those that aren't?

I could point to hundreds of examples of people defending themselves w/ a firearm and not being charged at all.

Perhaps the problem is in your psyches? I could never shoot a person; could you?

If they are threatening me or my family? Yes. That does not equal a mental condition.

By doing what?...are you serious? You are replying to my response to the answer of that question.
WHich means you have nothing to say. Correct. I have nothing to say about your irrelevant peice-of-shit mock-legislation. As you can see, I have plenty to say about the issue at hand Yes, because criminals will use firearms regardless of the amount of regulation. And No, for exactlythe same reason(s).
Meaningless. Elaborate.
I have before. But here its only 21 posts upExacly my point.but I guess you can't be bothered because Trolling is more fun. Oh dear! You called me a troll...again! Only this time its because I said you weren't important:( , as opposed to (correctly) inferring that american highschool students are frequently armed. It may be a sensitive spot, but you HAVE to acknowledge shit like that. Seriously, its like there's an elephant in the room and nobody's saying anything:rolleyes:
So you won't do it to protect the Children? Maybe someone should come check your computer... I think you will find that there are very efficient internet cops which hunt down kiddie-porn rings by targeting childporn sites and data. That logic is the same as policing ladders for crime comitted on rooftops. The objetive in both cases is a medium to the crime, not the method as is the case with firearms. An example for you to consider is cars. Cars are involved in lots of deaths, both accidental and criminal. Given this, there is a comprehensive registration system paired with diligent policing of the rules. Simple.

No I don't.



Yes. The benefit that would come from gun restrictions would outweigh your loss of one activity of fun.



I just looked it up on merriamwebster now, and I classify it under target practice. An activity of fun you can do without.

For re-enactments, you don't need real guns. If you really want the powder effect, then I'm sure companies would be obliged to make guns that do only that.



Actually, never mind, not even varmint control's a good reason. That's why you have "Pest Control" companies.

Hunting's the only good reason, and you can do that with a permit (in my hypothetical nation).



Perhaps the analogy may be flawed one, but I'll dwell on the purposes of the two.

Level 4 viruses kill, and to us, they effectively have one purpose, to kill. With guns it is the same thing, they are designed with one purpose: to kill. Now you want everyone in the country to be able to kill. How does that make any sense? What power does the police have anymore? How safe are you if everyone around you could kill you in an instant?


Is it my fault that you aren't responsible enough to get the medical help you need to overcome your clinical depression? If you can't/won't go see the doctor to get the help you need, you're infringing on my right to life/liberty/the pursuit of happiness.

As to the target shooting/skeet/etc ..., what about those people that are unable to compete in normal sports (due to physical handicap)? Are they to be denied an activity that allows them to compete and socialize with other people? Competitive target shooting is about more than hitting the target.

For re-enactments, I do have to say that the guns shouldn't be able to fire live projectiles (due to a barrel insert or other means), only for safety of all the participants (note, I am not including C.A.S. in this statement, as it belongs with target shooting).

On the varmint issue, the kind of varmints that are being discussed aren't household pests. They are wild animals that pest control companies aren't equipped to deal with.

When you compare firearms to level 4 viruses, you're forgetting something. Firearms are inanimate objects that cannot do ANYTHING unless there is an external force applied to it (the trigger being pulled, dropping the hammer). Viruses are living parasites that reproduce without an external force and kill indiscriminately.

...are you serious? You are replying to my response to the answer of that question.
Correct. I have nothing to say about your irrelevant peice-of-shit mock-legislation. As you can see, I have plenty to say about the issue at hand Ah. Anger. Try This (not that I expect you to :rolleyes: ) http://www.rense.com/general33/antigun.htm

Meaningless. Elaborate. Not meaningless. The laws are meaningless because Criminals will not obey them. They are Criminals.
Exacly my point. No, the point is my post directly addressed the OP's question of Regulation, Cat's comparison, and your remark. Not that you care. Oh dear! You called me a troll...again! Only this time its because I said you weren't important:( , as opposed to (correctly) inferring that american highschool students are frequently armed. It may be a sensitive spot, but you HAVE to acknowledge shit like that. Hmmm. Teenagers committing Federal Felonies. Yep there's a problem there. But your assertion that you could go to a school and easily get a gun - with which you could progress to shooting NeoCon children is simple Trolling.
I think you will find that there are very efficient internet cops which hunt down kiddie-porn rings by targeting childporn sites and data. That logic is the same as policing ladders for crime comitted on rooftops. The objetive in both cases is a medium to the crime, not the method as is the case with firearms. An example for you to consider is cars. Cars are involved in lots of deaths, both accidental and criminal. Given this, there is a comprehensive registration system paired with diligent policing of the rules. Simple.Hello! Earth to GPN! My Licensing scheme directly compares auto registration to gun registration Since you are too lazy to go look for it, here is the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10648324&postcount=173

Thank you for your support.

Yes, I can't say that reducing poverty in and of itself is the answer, but other than the continued effects of discrimination, what do you think accounts for the higher incidence of crime in minority populations?


While I'm not saying poverty doesn't play a role. IMO a good portion of it is cultural. A perfect example of this is the "No Snitching" fad that is discouraging people from working w/ authorities. Some other aspects (anectdotal but they make a point) is a recent column in the Wash Post w/ some AA kids effectively denouncing marraige as a "white" thing and even a reluctance among AA women to get neonatal care as being a "white thing". That last came from the neonatal nurse my wife and I had who previously worked in inner-Chicago.

I'm sure various celebrities endorcing the "gang banger" lifestyle doesn't help either.

Ah. Anger. Try This (not that I expect you to :rolleyes: ) http://www.rense.com/general33/antigun.htm
This doesn't follow, I was pointing you in the right direction to discover what I mean't by 'set the example'. (I had a peek at the site, all I saw was the most hideous scarecrow ever to be unleashed upon the world. However, it was written by a psychiatrist, so it must be true.) btw, I don't do 'angry', it's not my thing. However, some have adorned me as the most agressive pacifist in the world :$.

Not meaningless. The laws are meaningless because Criminals will not obey them. They are Criminals. So a criminal is a type of person who behavioraly breaks the law? Laws would be meaningless were it not for the judiciary. Your example only includes the legislature. (Not that I blame you for being dissillusioned with the U.S. judiciary:p)
No, the point is my post directly addressed the OP's question of Regulation, Cat's comparison, and your remark. I never made reference to the said post, the irrelevance I noted was in your response to my 'remark' with a licencing scheme that you cooked up. I don't really care what Syniks' plan for the U.S. is. What I would like to debate is the state of the U.S. gun control system.Not that you care. You're getting better with every post ;) Hmmm. Teenagers committing Federal Felonies. Yep there's a problem there. But your assertion that you could go to a school and easily get a gun - with which you could progress to shooting NeoCon children is simple Trolling. I never said kill neo-con kids, I merely implied the highschool as a place to pick up a firearm. As far as I'm concerned, kids can't be neo-cons; they're too innocent, human, and cute. If you want a place to cull neo-cons, I would suggest the closest evangelical church.(Waaaah! Troll:mp5: )
Hello! Earth to GPN! My Licensing scheme directly compares auto registration to gun registration Since you are too lazy to go look for it, here is the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10648324&postcount=173
I remember you mentioning it. Thats why I included it in my post; I was hoping that having done some revision you may remember what a car is (those bicycles can be tricky). However, much to my dissappoinment, it seems you have still become confused. I am contrasting the analogy of cars to guns, whereas you seem to be comparing.
You really seem kind of lost here. I suspect that maybe you are finding it hard to keep up (with the irrelevant and misdirected rebuttals). If this is the case, and you are unwilling or ashamed to face up to defeat (though I would not call it so, we don't debate to 'win'), feel free to give me a subtle hint (maybe ;) ;)? ) and I will call off the hounds;)
Thank you for your support.
No Syniks, thank you:D

I gave a speech in college using some of this information. This is why even when I was a republican I believed in gun control. The problem is the N.R.A. and several other groups are puting money in the hands of out stretched politicians. The N.R.A. was actually started as an organization that promoted gun education and gun safety, a worth cause in my book. But then it went to hell when it became political.

Yeah, recreational shooting is great fun. Target shooting is a bit dry in my opinion, but getting out and about in the great outdoors whilst hunting is a both a rewarding and popular past-time. While hunting isn't really my all time favourite thing to do, I have had the privelidge to engage in the sport numerous times. Furthermore, my knowledge of guns (mainly rifles) comes mainly from using them on the farm/out hunting, not Hollywood. What do I think of recreational firearm usage? Whatever floats your boat. However, a firearm is an extremely dangerous piece of equipment (designed initially for killing in the most efficient way). For this reason, it would be reasonable to expect those who wanted to use them should pass some kind of safety test. Furthermore, it is the unfortunate case that the power of the firearm is quite often employed in crime, often ending with regrettable results. Therefore, those wishing to purchase firearms should have to undergo a criminal record check, just to be sure. When it comes to hunting, only certain firearms are practical/appropriate, so if you are applying for a licence for hunting use of firearms, you should not be given access to military weaons/handguns. When it comes to target practice, you should be a member of a registered shooting club. Automatic/semiautomatic weapos are of no real use in either of the above sports, and thus should not be made available.

That is pretty much my stance, and also that of the Australian Govt.


Thanks for adressing that and not doing all that bad of a job with it. However, military does have semi-auto/full-auto hence I collect them as well. You are still asking me to give up quite abit of money. This is still something I can not do as I am being punished for criminal actions. Secondly, military semi-autos are very rarely used in criminal cases, less so than knives. Also, tell me about a case that a legal full auto rifle/machine gun was used in something. For a time saver, you are not going to find anything about it as none have been commited. I'll adress your other points alittle later tonight when I have more time.

I gave a speech in college using some of this information. This is why even when I was a republican I believed in gun control. The problem is the N.R.A. and several other groups are puting money in the hands of out stretched politicians. The N.R.A. was actually started as an organization that promoted gun education and gun safety, a worth cause in my book. But then it went to hell when it became political.

And they still heavily promote safety and education. They had to become political due to the constant anti-gun measures and confiscations that politicians were foisting on the people due to groups like HCI.

This doesn't follow, I was pointing you in the right direction to discover what I mean't by 'set the example'.You are assuming I can duplicate your derangement. Spell it out.

A couple of posts ago you say: "That logic is the same as policing ladders for crime comitted on rooftops. The objetive in both cases is a medium to the crime, not the method as is the case with firearms." How is a Gun more a method than a medium?

So a criminal is a type of person who behavioraly breaks the law? Yes. By definition. Those "kids carrying guns in schools" are commiting Federal Felonies. How much more "illegal" can you make it?
I never made reference to the said post, the irrelevance I noted was in your response to my 'remark' with a licencing scheme that you cooked up. I don't really care what Syniks' plan for the U.S. is. What I would like to debate is the state of the U.S. gun control system. Which my post does by showing that the Registration of Automobiles/Drivers - which people tout as the "great contrast" to the US's supposed lack of gun control - would not achieve your goals, thus the contrast is disingenuous, as I prove. I never said kill neo-con kids, I merely implied the highschool as a place to pick up a firearm. Quoth GPN: 2.Try to reduce the neo-con voting majority by either attempting to talk some sense into them or (much much easier) pick up a handgun at the local highschool and go on a killing spree, culling off the overpopulated republicans. :rolleyes: As far as I'm concerned, kids can't be neo-cons; they're too innocent, human, and cute. If you want a place to cull neo-cons, I would suggest the closest evangelical church.(Waaaah! Troll:mp5: ) Still advocating killing innocents I see. Who's the violent one?.. :rolleyes:
I remember you mentioning it. Thats why I included it in my post; I was hoping that having done some revision you may remember what a car is (those bicycles can be tricky). However, much to my dissappoinment, it seems you have still become confused. I am contrasting the analogy of cars to guns, whereas you seem to be comparing. Since you and others are wont to contrast, I thought I would make it easier and make the two comperable. You say "We Regulate Cars, why not Guns" I say OK. what's hard to understand about that? You really seem kind of lost here. I suspect that maybe you are finding it hard to keep up (with the irrelevant and misdirected rebuttals). If this is the case, and you are unwilling or ashamed to face up to defeat (though I would not call it so, we don't debate to 'win'), feel free to give me a subtle hint (maybe ;) ;)? ) and I will call off the hounds;) No point. I'll just keep shooting them.

You are assuming I can duplicate your derangement. Spell it out. Did you mean comprehend? Your sentence is somewhat deranged, quite the duplication you were after, eh?

A couple of posts ago you say: "That logic is the same as policing ladders for crime comitted on rooftops. The objetive in both cases is a medium to the crime, not the method as is the case with firearms." How is a Gun more a method than a medium?
I gave you a little time to edit this post, but it seems it is indeed a genuine question. How shall I explain? Well in the first example the ladder is a means to acheiving the crime, (i.e.the ladder allows the crime to take place). In the latter example, the gun is the weapon (i.e. the gun is key to the action of the crime).
Yes. By definition. Those "kids carrying guns in schools" are commiting Federal Felonies. How much more "illegal" can you make it? You have, yet again, misunderstood. Feel free to bring it up later when it eventually clicks, telegram my nation cos I won't be online tomorrow.
Which my post does by showing that the Registration of Automobiles/Drivers - which people tout as the "great contrast" to the US's supposed lack of gun control - would not achieve your goals, thus the contrast is disingenuous, as I prove. Ultimately, cars are probably not a good choice for you. The fact is that they can be applied to both sides of the arguement, or neither. A car used as a weapon (accidentally or not) makes for a great comparison to guns. However, a 'getaway' car in a bank robbery makes for a much better contrast. Quoth GPN: 2.Try to reduce the neo-con voting majority by either attempting to talk some sense into them or (much much easier) pick up a handgun at the local highschool and go on a killing spree, culling off the overpopulated republicans. :rolleyes: Still advocating killing innocents I see. Who's the violent one?.. :rolleyes: I never called you violent. I did however call you stupid, and I shall do so again. Right now. You stupid unit. Either that or you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. In which case you should be made aware that you are the one who looks foolish. There is also the possibility that you are a very clever troll, but I doubt it, judging from the sheer vacuousness in your posts. There's really nothing there. You get perfect 'bullseyes' on the wrong targets, every time. It almost seems that you have a script, which you return to once the topic goes beyond your range. You may have noted (with relief I'm sure) that I didn't bring up any new and/or challenging points. This is partly due to pity, and mostly due to tiredness (of you, and being awake).
Since you and others are wont to contrast, I thought I would make it easier and make the two comperable. You say "We Regulate Cars, why not Guns" I say OK. what's hard to understand about that? ...grphm, I don't want to explain it again. Just go and learn to be more intelligent, somehow. Actually, on review, I don't think it is that you lack the ability to reason so much as you have some political opinionation 'block' which is warping and misdirecting it. No point. I'll just keep shooting them.If your going to kill puppies, make sure you do it for Satan, and make sure you have a licence;) . Thank you and good night

cinda an utopia for US realy but it works for other contries iceland does not have a military at all you know
Now the question becomes, in the grand scheme of world politics, who the fuck cares about attacking iceland?

The majority of nations state that your level of self-defense must equal that of an attack. If he comes at you with fists, you cannot stab him, you cannot shoot him, you cannot run him over with a car. Kinda prevents that whole "You saw it! He came at me with a knife!" incident.
Which, if you are a 100 lbs. soaking wet woman going against a 220 lb. male when all he's using is his fists, is fucking suicidal.

I haven't read your licenceing scheme, mainly because I don't give a shit. I think you would agree, upon consultation of the OP of this thread, that the question at hand is:

"Is the current legislation on firearms adequate in managing the firearm related crime in the U.S?"

So I put it to you, is it? Yes or no?

No, and unless we want to rip to shreds the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments they won't be. Hell, even we were, they still wouldn't be. Any other stupid questions?

I had no idea about this one. This suicide statistic makes me seriously reconsider my opinion on the subject.

(My opinion was, legalise guns for civilians)

I had no idea so many people killed themselves with guns. This gives me food for thought. Thanks for this information.

im pretty sure that if these people are suicidal, they are not going to be talked out of it because they dont have a gun

If, of course, you mean by closely coincides that it was enacted 3 full years after crime started to decline. Oh, I'm sorry, does that blow your link right out of the water? Why yes, yes it does. Especially since there were relatively few handgun restrictions in the brady bill, which is what most killings are perpetrated with, and the fact that the Brady Bill stopped being applicable in certain states before others yet there was no corresponding difference in crime rate changes.
As promised, I came back to nuke your battleship!! :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10647347&postcount=168

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Criminal Victimization, 1973-95


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf


In 1994, compared to 1973, the U.S. population was about as vulnerable to violent crime but significantly less vulnerable to property crime. From 1973 through 1994, the rates of violent crime victimization had intervals of stability, increase, and decrease, while the rates of property crime underwent a virtually uninterrupted decrease. The 1994-95 decline in the violent crime rate was the largest single-year decrease ever measured in the total violent category.

A decline in the violent crime rate beginning in 1994 interrupted a rising trend that existed after the mid-1980's. In 1995 rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey(NCVS), and murder, measured by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), were at or near a 23-year low.

(4) From 1986 to 1993 the rate of violent crime increased to nearly a peak level. This generally increasing trend was interrupted by the 1994-95 decrease, which was the largest ever measured by the survey.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10544215&postcount=128

:)

I'm laughing because that figure is 65 percent lower than it was during the Clinton Administration.
Actually, it was 57%, but it was during the Clinton years that the Violent Crime Rate started to drop dramatically.

A decline in the violent crime rate beginning in 1994 interrupted a rising trend that existed after the mid-1980's.

Notice how the decline softens after Clinton left office?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv04.pdf

We've managed to lower our violent crime by 65 percent - precisely because we're now walking around with concealed weapons.
That is not true. Shall we discuss Virginia's rates? Virginia's murder rate rose in 2002 by 4% and by 6% in 2003. Violent crime rate rose 3% in 1995 and 3.6% in 2001. In 2003, 72.6% of Virginia's murders were by firearms which is much higher than the US average.

Disclaimer: If you already hate guns, and are close-minded then you may as well skip reading this. I put this together after seeing the title to this, havent bothered taking 1 hr of my time to read the ranting and ravings of the people that have gotten pissed off about this topic and flamed all night long. :headbang:

Is there anyone here who has ever considered that IF all guns are outlawed in the US....that it wont matter worth a hill of beans as related to criminals?

A criminal is someone that does not obey the law. Do you honestly think that someone that doesnt care about KILLING another human being will think twice about breaking the law to acquire a firearm? No...I didnt think so either.

Once the anti-gun people outlaw pistols, rifles, etc...Well thats only taking the guns away from normal law-abiding citizens. I want to hear the plan to take guns away from the criminals! Once the criminals are the only ones with access to firearms...is crime really going to decrease?

Next...lets just say that somehow, in an utopian world...guns were completely eradicated from the face of the earth? There will still be people that are willing to KILL. So do we take the next step of outlawing knives? And then ball bats? And then outlaw picthforks? Whats going to stop people from picking up tree branches and clubbing each other to death.

The problem is not what people are using to kill each other. The REAL problem is the fact that there are persons willing to kill another person.

Next...has anyone here yet considered how many people in the US die from say...smoking related health problems? Heart disease? Car wrecks? How about we outlaw cigarettes/french fries and automobiles?

From the 1st page, "In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S." Compare that to the
Approx 40,000 car US deaths per year.
Approx 400,000 US smoking related deaths per year.
Approx 700,000 US Heart disease deaths per year.

Why is there such an argument over something that is a relativley small problem in our society? Why is so much money being spent fighting guns, when that money could much better be put to use fighting cigarettes or cancer..etc..etc.

And many people will refuse to believe this, and yet others will agree: Having a gun in your house, and knowing how to use it can and will reduce your chances of being a vitctim of a crime. Think about it...if a guy busts down your door in the middle of the night and looks up to see you holding a 12 guage to his head...is he really going to be interested in robbing you? I think not.

From 5 minutes of searching on the web:

"Convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than about running into the police."

"In 98 percent of the times that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack."

"During 1992, the violent crime rate in states with nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws – no permit required -- was 378.8 per 100,000 population. In all other states the rate was 81 percent higher or 684.5 per 100,000 population. In states forbidding concealed handguns, the violent crime rate was even higher: 715.9 per 100,000 population."

"93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation."
(This answers the question of whether or not gun laws will keep guns out of criminal hands ;))

"More children die in bicycle accidents each year than die from all types of firearms accidents."
(Outlaw bikes?)

"Only 2 concealed firearm permit holders in Texas were convicted of murder in 2000."

"The London Times reported on January 16, 2000, "Killings Rise as 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain."

"In Australia, one year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed -- a program costing the government millions -- the results were: a 3.2 percent increase in homicides, an 8.6 percent increase in assaults, a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, and in the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms increased by 300 percent. At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "Self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm." (Sidney Morning Herald, October 28, 1998. Source: the Australian Institute of Criminology.)"

"Switzerland is awash with guns. All males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home. In 1997 the Swiss homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 population and the robbery rate was 36 per 100,000. There have been no school massacres, though kids and guns mix freely, and Nazi invasion plans during World War II stated that because of Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify. (Stephen P. Halbrook, "Armed to the Teeth, and Free," The Wall Street Journal Europe, June 4, 1999.) "

Everyone....Guns are not the problem in the US, nor in most any other country you can think of.

The problem is that a small portion of society is OK with breaking the law, OK with killing a human being, and OK with breaking every sense of morals and ethics in existance. The more we blame the weapon the less we are able to correct the true problem of society: immoral, law-breaking burdens of humanity.

~~SNIP~~
Yup, we have seen all those argument before. Some are pretty lame.

First post huh? Jumped right into a loaded gun thread huh. :D

*CanuckHeaven looks for the strings.

Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.My friend tried to buy a car at a dealership without a license, and they wouldn't sell it to him...I don't know if this means that you do have to have a license to purchase a car in PA, or that the car dealership was just peculiar.

There's no point argueing with neo-cons who want their guns.I'm not a neo-con, I'm a communist, and aside from the couple of minor changes I wanted to make I want guns, too.

While I'm not saying poverty doesn't play a role. IMO a good portion of it is cultural. A perfect example of this is the "No Snitching" fad that is discouraging people from working w/ authorities. Some other aspects (anectdotal but they make a point) is a recent column in the Wash Post w/ some AA kids effectively denouncing marraige as a "white" thing and even a reluctance among AA women to get neonatal care as being a "white thing". That last came from the neonatal nurse my wife and I had who previously worked in inner-Chicago.

I'm sure various celebrities endorcing the "gang banger" lifestyle doesn't help either.There's actually a thread about a similar topic to this, which can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474821

Yup, we have seen all those argument before. Some are pretty lame.

First post huh? Jumped right into a loaded gun thread huh. :D



If you are saying some of the arguements made in the past are lame...thats one thing. If you are saying that the points made are...well thats quite another. PM me with exactly why they are lame? :cool: May as well avoid cluttering the topic with stuff thats been probably already posted in reply to said points.

Yeah..first post. Gotta deal with the stigma of being the "new" person to all of this, and with the people Im sure are out there thinking "One post? This guy knows nothing!"

For the people thinking that: You indeed know nothing about me. ;)

As promised, I came back to nuke your battleship!! :D




Swing and a miss.

And according to the FBI UCR, violent crime started dropping in 1991. Several years before the BB.

The FACT that it wasn't even in effect in the most dangerous states ( something you convienently keep ignoring, I wonder why?) also makes your stance pretty weak.

Try again.

Actually, it was 57%, but it was during the Clinton years that the Violent Crime Rate started to drop dramatically.

A decline in the violent crime rate beginning in 1994 interrupted a rising trend that existed after the mid-1980's.

Notice how the decline softens after Clinton left office?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv04.pdf


That is not true. Shall we discuss Virginia's rates? Virginia's murder rate rose in 2002 by 4% and by 6% in 2003. Violent crime rate rose 3% in 1995 and 3.6% in 2001. In 2003, 72.6% of Virginia's murders were by firearms which is much higher than the US average.


Notice how over 24 states also introduced CC laws?
Notice how most states were exempt from the BB by 1998?
Notice how almost 100% of murders in DC are committed w/ handguns and they're completely banned there?
Notice how crime right across the river is exponentially lower than DC? And it's in VA?

Notice how the VA difference is only 5% which isn't "much higher" and most of that is due to one crime ridden city w/ an innefective police force?

Notice how 75% of MD murders were committed by firearms? It's a very restrictive state BTW. Do you still want to claim it's "much higher"?

Notice how VT has non licensed CC and is one of the safest states in the US?

Notice that Chicago accounts for half of Illinois crime w/ only 1/4 of the population and the most restrictive firearm laws?

Notice how NY city's crime drop didn't coincide w/ any new firearm laws?

Swing and a miss.

And according to the FBI UCR, violent crime started dropping in 1991. Several years before the BB.

The FACT that it wasn't even in effect in the most dangerous states ( something you convienently keep ignoring, I wonder why?) also makes your stance pretty weak.

Try again.
The most dangerous States like Florida and South Carolina? Of course it was in effect in those States.

In 2000, 13 years after allowing Conceal Carry, Florida had this dubious distinction:

"This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states."

The National Crime Victimization Survey does mention the FBI's UCR in theiir survey.

*snip*

Another possible explanation for the drop in violent crime in the 90's was the economic boom.

One question?

What makes a crime committed with a firearm worse than a crime committed with any other weapon?

Why is it that most gun grabbers run to crime stats, thinking that guns are the one silver bullet that will end all crime? Crime is a far more complex issue than just gun ownership, and that fact that nearly 99% of all crimes are committed with an illegal firearm.

Well, the Japanese are a much less violent culture. We don't kill each other so much because we have guns, we kill each other because we're violent as hell.

...Are you freebasing at this moment or did you just finish? The Japanese have extreme problems with bullying in schools and are still very racist against foreigners and nationalistic in many areas. The atrocities they committed during WWII easily rival both Stalin and Hitler and they have a rich historic national culture of honor through death even if it means suicide. Not to mention they get quite a kick out of our big "Dirty Harry" type characters and have full access to our most violent materials. Are you telling me anime isn't violent? Violence as a cultural phenomena has nothing to do with anything since many other countries are as violent or more so just not with guns. We don't live in a bubble our culture permeates the entire world and they certainly don't need help from us to be violent.

The most dangerous States like Florida and South Carolina? Of course it was in effect in those States.

In 2000, 13 years after allowing Conceal Carry, Florida had this dubious distinction:

"This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states."

The National Crime Victimization Survey does mention the FBI's UCR in theiir survey.

California was more violent that SC and WAS exempt. It was #1 in 93.

Guess who was #2? That's right. New York. And they were exempt. They alone accounted for almost 25% of murders in the US.

Guess what CH. Florida WAS exempt from the law.

And how many of those CC holders in FL are the one's committing the crimes?

How many years did DC have the "most violent" city honor? Hey, it was also exempt. Didn't it also reverse it's trend of decreasing crime while the US's what rising AFTER it passed its' gun ban?

You really need to do your research CH. Your misguided admiration of the BB would be humourous if it wasn't that you keep w/ it after being shown the facts.

The report you cited uses PART of the UCR in it. Not the whole thing. Try reading up on the two.

One question?

What makes a crime committed with a firearm worse than a crime committed with any other weapon?A firearm is more likely to be deadly than a knife or some other weapon. A better comparison of violent crime rates would be to compare the rates of death via crime per capita.

A firearm is more likely to be deadly than a knife or some other weapon. A better comparison of violent crime rates would be to compare the rates of death via crime per capita.

A weapon is only as dangerous as the person weilding it. I am far more dangerous due to training and mind set unarmed than most people are with a weapon.

I completely agree with the second part of your statement.

...Are you freebasing at this moment or did you just finish? The Japanese have extreme problems with bullying in schools and are still very racist against foreigners and nationalistic in many areas. The atrocities they committed during WWII easily rival both Stalin and Hitler and they have a rich historic national culture of honor through death even if it means suicide. Not to mention they get quite a kick out of our big "Dirty Harry" type characters and have full access to our most violent materials. Are you telling me anime isn't violent? Violence as a cultural phenomena has nothing to do with anything since many other countries are as violent or more so just not with guns. We don't live in a bubble our culture permeates the entire world and they certainly don't need help from us to be violent.

They don't seem to cross the line and kill each other nearly as much, do they? Simply having high rates of gun ownership can't explain the expotentially higher murder rates in the US. A few countries have comparable rates of gun ownership (Finland, for example) but Americans just seem to use those guns to kill each other more often than other people. How would you explain that?

They don't seem to cross the line and kill each other nearly as much, do they? Simply having high rates of gun ownership can't explain the expotentially higher murder rates in the US. A few countries have comparable rates of gun ownership (Finland, for example) but Americans just seem to use those guns to kill each other more often than other people. How would you explain that?

Actually "criminals" in the US use them to kill more often. The overwhelming majority of murders are committed by previous felons (over half the time out on probation, parole, or bond) against other criminals during the committing of a crime.

California was more violent that SC and WAS exempt. It was #1 in 93.

Guess who was #2? That's right. New York. And they were exempt. They alone accounted for almost 25% of murders in the US.

Guess what CH. Florida WAS exempt from the law.

And how many of those CC holders in FL are the one's committing the crimes?

How many years did DC have the "most violent" city honor? Hey, it was also exempt.

You really need to do your research CH. Your misguided admiration of the BB would be humourous if it wasn't that you keep w/ it after being shown the facts.

The report you cited uses PART of the UCR in it. Not the whole thing. Try reading up on the two.
I need to do my research? All you need to do is get the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics to agree on the accuracy of their reports?

There are approximately 500,000 guns stolen annually in the US, which end up in the hands of criminals. The vast majority of crime guns in New York City (85%) come from out of State. To be precise, they come from the Southern States, with the leading supplier being Virginia.

From the latest Department of Justice FBI Violent Crime Report 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html):

The South

The South, the Nation’s most populated region, had an estimated 36.1 percent of the Nation’s inhabitants. An estimated 41.9 percent of the Nation’s violent crimes occurred in this region. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly (0.3 percent) in the region when compared with 2003 figures. The number of robberies and murders decreased, 4.1 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. However, from 2003 to 2004, the estimated volume of forcible rapes and aggravated assaults in that region increased 2.6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.

It would appear that the best place to start in the crack down on guns would be the South.

I need to do my research? All you need to do is get the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics to agree on the accuracy of their reports?

There are approximately 500,000 guns stolen annually in the US, which end up in the hands of criminals. The vast majority of crime guns in New York City (85%) come from out of State. To be precise, they come from the Southern States, with the leading supplier being Virginia.

From the latest Department of Justice FBI Violent Crime Report 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html):

The South

The South, the Nation’s most populated region, had an estimated 36.1 percent of the Nation’s inhabitants. An estimated 41.9 percent of the Nation’s violent crimes occurred in this region. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly (0.3 percent) in the region when compared with 2003 figures. The number of robberies and murders decreased, 4.1 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. However, from 2003 to 2004, the estimated volume of forcible rapes and aggravated assaults in that region increased 2.6 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.

It would appear that the best place to start in the crack down on guns would be the South.


Yes, you need to do your research. You just claimed that FL was not exempt when it was and implied that SC was more dangerous than NY or CA.

Now if you actually want to be truthful w/ yourself (doubtful), you''ld remember that I've pointed out several times that the South as a whole had a higher crime rate than the US for DECADES and had the same or stricter regulations than other states. (no ccw)

I could also point out that there are more "crime guns" that come from MD into DC than there are from VA.

You should also recall that, until recently, the majority of "crime guns" were NOT traced and that only specific ones were. I believe that's been pointed out before as well.

According to the Congresional Research Service:

was not designed to collect statistics. ... [F]irearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes."

It's nice to see that you're heading into your traditional "blame victims for the actions of criminals" mantra again.

Edit:
It's also nice to note that you completely avoided the question as to how many CCW holders are committing crimes. I guess the reality of it hurts your belief that CCW will cause an increase in crime.

Seriously, there is no good reason to own handguns or assault rifles.

Nor do we need a reason to own them.

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

I am not willing to give up a freedom for safety.

They don't seem to cross the line and kill each other nearly as much, do they? Simply having high rates of gun ownership can't explain the expotentially higher murder rates in the US. A few countries have comparable rates of gun ownership (Finland, for example) but Americans just seem to use those guns to kill each other more often than other people. How would you explain that?

I never said it could. I simply read your post about Japan and saw that it was entirely erroneous and extremely misinformed. I corrected you on this to keep it from being added to debate further.

Having high rates of gun ownership and loose gun laws do correlate to gun deaths in the United States. Countries with strict control do have much less deaths. This is consistant. Yet there are other countries with similar rates of gun possesion that do not have the difficulties the US does. Clearly this is not the only factor. It is notible that countries with very similar cultures and governments with less guns and stricter laws do indeed have far fewer gun deaths. Does this mean there are no other factors? No. Do I or anyone know what the other ones are with any real confidence? Doubt it.

Just try to refrain from making blatantly incorrect arguments to support your ideas. It is unbecoming of you.

Nor do we need a reason to own them.



I am not willing to give up a freedom for safety.


This is pretty much the only truely solid reason advocating pistols and other weapons designed for killing humans for civillian posession. Kudos for cutting through the bullshit everyone tries to argue about and hitting the point. America is about freedom not necessarily safety. We strive for both but as New Hampshire would say "Live free or Die!".

This is pretty much the only truely solid reason advocating pistols and other weapons designed for killing humans for civillian posession. Kudos for cutting through the bullshit everyone tries to argue about and hitting the point. America is about freedom not necessarily safety. We strive for both but as New Hampshire would say "Live free or Die!".

It is the citizen's part to live with freedom or with freedom die.

It is the citizen's part to live with freedom or with freedom die.

I can't recall ever agreeing with you before so mark this on your calendar before you piss me off and I find a gun. :D

I could also point out that there are more "crime guns" that come from MD into DC than there are from VA.
Ya a difference of less than 1%. However, 38% of crime guns in Baltimore Maryland come from out of State, the vast majority come from the Southern States and Virginia is the leading supplier.

You should also recall that, until recently, the majority of "crime guns" were NOT traced and that only specific ones were. I believe that's been pointed out before as well.
Proof.

I can't recall ever agreeing with you before so mark this on your calendar before you piss me off and I find a gun. :D

*Marked on calendar*

I'm not a big poster here, so I don't even remember ever debating/arguing with you before.

However, please make sure not to step on my lawn. That's a lethal offense.

*loads FAL*

Just thought I'd drop in my two cents worth: gun control is a waste of time and money. What we need to do is ban handguns AND rifles. Handguns can only be used to kill people, they have no useful purposes. As for rifles, guns are guns, and just because they can be used to hunt doesn't make them any safer than handguns. Besides, hunting is stupid:upyours:.
I live in Canada, and I agree with the Conservatives: we DO need to scrap the gun registry. However, Prime Minister Harper and I part ways after that. But hey, I'm not from Alberta, so maybe I don't understand the need to have a gun just because the barrel is useful for masturbating. Let's just hope a few of them have accidents and can't procreate;).

(Disclaimer: I have nothing against Albertans, I'm just using a stereotype for comical purposes.)

Ya a difference of less than 1%. However, 38% of crime guns in Baltimore Maryland come from out of State, the vast majority come from the Southern States and Virginia is the leading supplier.

So 62% come from in state. Those tough laws are really working.:rolleyes:

I still wonder why it is that right across the river in VA, crime is considerably lower than DC? It must be due to restrictive laws. Oh wait....


Proof.

Assault Weapons": Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues," May 13, 1992, 92-434 GOV.

You're the one that posted the link that showed that increased tracing has only been recent. Are you now denying your own sources?

I love it that you're still completely avoiding the FACT that CCW holders commit LESS crimes than the average citizen.

Besides, hunting is stupid

Controlled hunting is good for the environment.

Man has a natural role of predator in nature.

Well, the Japanese are a much less violent culture. We don't kill each other so much because we have guns, we kill each other because we're violent as hell.

Yeah...not. They don't murder eachother with guns, they do it with knives. Honestly, it's not hard to find a student in Japan carrying a knife to school, in fact it happens quite often.

Just thought I'd drop in my two cents worth: gun control is a waste of time and money. What we need to do is ban handguns AND rifles. Handguns can only be used to kill people, they have no useful purposes. As for rifles, guns are guns, and just because they can be used to hunt doesn't make them any safer than handguns. Besides, hunting is stupid:upyours:.
I live in Canada, and I agree with the Conservatives: we DO need to scrap the gun registry. However, Prime Minister Harper and I part ways after that. But hey, I'm not from Alberta, so maybe I don't understand the need to have a gun just because the barrel is useful for masturbating. Let's just hope a few of them have accidents and can't procreate;).

(Disclaimer: I have nothing against Albertans, I'm just using a stereotype for comical purposes.)

You can ban all the guns you want in Canada (I don't agree with it, but I'm not Canadian, so I have no say in what happens in Canada). However, there would be a real problem getting rid of guns in the US. For one, criminals won't give them up (duh, they're criminals :) ). Also, do you know that some skilled machinists make their own firearms? In the US, making a firearm for personal use is legal (although they would still have to follow the GCA and NFA laws). Eliminating ammunition sales wouldn't help either. People reload (take empty shells, re-prime them, add powder, and add bullets). People can make their own gunpowder (recipe is online), cast their own bullets (many who do this use old wheel weights), and recycle the brass they just finished shooting.

Take away the guns from everyone, and they'll be stabbed. And I'd rather be shot than stabbed...

That's bullshit. Japan for instance is waaaaay more densely populated than the US and they're not shooting each other by the thousands.

No it's mostly true, the bullet sails throught the empty void of Canada indefinitely. Wait...... I forgot to take into account the huge beaver population..... there are less deaths also due to beavers absorbing bullets before they hit people.

Is there anyone here who has ever considered that IF all guns are outlawed in the US....that it wont matter worth a hill of beans as related to criminals?

No. Why would we consider that? Please. It is the oldest argument in the books and it doesnt work. Why? Well guess what. The UK outlaws guns and we dont have nearly the same problem with gun crime that the US has. And also, have you considered that with guns being legal, hey guess what. It is far far easier for a criminal to get hold of a gun.


A criminal is someone that does not obey the law. Do you honestly think that someone that doesnt care about KILLING another human being will think twice about breaking the law to acquire a firearm? No...I didnt think so either.

Yes. But if gun ownership was against the law it would be far far harder for criminals to get guns hence a smaller number of them would use guns hence a safer place.


Once the anti-gun people outlaw pistols, rifles, etc...Well thats only taking the guns away from normal law-abiding citizens. I want to hear the plan to take guns away from the criminals! Once the criminals are the only ones with access to firearms...is crime really going to decrease?

Yes. Because it will be far harder to get guns hence less guns on the street. For a criminal to get a gun in the US he would have to merely break into someones house who has a gun or something like that. In the UK it is far far harder to obtain a gun like that.


Next...lets just say that somehow, in an utopian world...guns were completely eradicated from the face of the earth? There will still be people that are willing to KILL. So do we take the next step of outlawing knives? And then ball bats? And then outlaw picthforks? Whats going to stop people from picking up tree branches and clubbing each other to death.

I'll make it simple for you. It is much easier to kill someone with a gun. In the UK we outlaw the carrying of knives in public. The fact of the matter is yes there will always be people who want to kill people. Hence we make it more and more difficult for those people by taking away the means which they use to do it


Next...has anyone here yet considered how many people in the US die from say...smoking related health problems? Heart disease? Car wrecks? How about we outlaw cigarettes/french fries and automobiles?

Its not about how many people die. Its about what they are for. Many people die from car wrecks but are cars killing machines. No. They are machines designed for transport. In an accident yes they can kill. However this is minimised because of car safty systems.


And many people will refuse to believe this, and yet others will agree: Having a gun in your house, and knowing how to use it can and will reduce your chances of being a vitctim of a crime. Think about it...if a guy busts down your door in the middle of the night and looks up to see you holding a 12 guage to his head...is he really going to be interested in robbing you? I think not.

Firstly that is all just speculation and secondly, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder in those situations.


"Convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than about running into the police."

"In 98 percent of the times that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack."

And I supose the armed public is more of a danger to the criminals than to itself?


"93 percent of the guns obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through lawful transactions that are the focus of most gun control legislation."
(This answers the question of whether or not gun laws will keep guns out of criminal hands ;))

But how much easier is it to conduct these unlawful transactions if guns are freely available.


"More children die in bicycle accidents each year than die from all types of firearms accidents."
(Outlaw bikes?)

No. Make bikes safer.


"The London Times reported on January 16, 2000, "Killings Rise as 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain."

He he, you see this comparison doesnt work. In order to prove that there is a comparison to make here, you'd have to link the rise in illegal guns to the gun laws. And the gun laws havent changed significently in a long time. The UK has never been like America, it has never been legal just to carry a gun in the street.


"Switzerland is awash with guns. All males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home. In 1997 the Swiss homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 population and the robbery rate was 36 per 100,000. There have been no school massacres, though kids and guns mix freely, and Nazi invasion plans during World War II stated that because of Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify. (Stephen P. Halbrook, "Armed to the Teeth, and Free," The Wall Street Journal Europe, June 4, 1999.) "

I think its got less to do with the swiss shooting skills and more to do with the mountains. :rolleyes:

No. Why would we consider that? Please. It is the oldest argument in the books and it doesnt work. Why? Well guess what. The UK outlaws guns and we dont have nearly the same problem with gun crime that the US has. And also, have you considered that with guns being legal, hey guess what. It is far far easier for a criminal to get hold of a gun.

And that would explain Switzerlands low firearm crimes? And howabout the fact that firearm crime is INCREASING in the UK and was lower than the US before the bans anyway.



Yes. But if gun ownership was against the law it would be far far harder for criminals to get guns hence a smaller number of them would use guns hence a safer place.

False. See above.



Yes. Because it will be far harder to get guns hence less guns on the street. For a criminal to get a gun in the US he would have to merely break into someones house who has a gun or something like that. In the UK it is far far harder to obtain a gun like that.

See above.



I'll make it simple for you. It is much easier to kill someone with a gun. In the UK we outlaw the carrying of knives in public. The fact of the matter is yes there will always be people who want to kill people. Hence we make it more and more difficult for those people by taking away the means which they use to do it

And yet legal firearm availability has nothing to do w/ it. Try again.



Its not about how many people die. Its about what they are for. Many people die from car wrecks but are cars killing machines. No. They are machines designed for transport. In an accident yes they can kill. However this is minimised because of car safty systems.

More important is the person behind the machine.



Firstly that is all just speculation and secondly, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder in those situations.

Another myth endorsed by the anti-rights lobby.



And I supose the armed public is more of a danger to the criminals than to itself?

Yes



But how much easier is it to conduct these unlawful transactions if guns are freely available.

As easy as it is as when they are highly regulated.



No. Make bikes safer.

So why shouldn't firearm safety be encouraged?



He he, you see this comparison doesnt work. In order to prove that there is a comparison to make here, you'd have to link the rise in illegal guns to the gun laws. And the gun laws havent changed significently in a long time. The UK has never been like America, it has never been legal just to carry a gun in the street.

False. Learn your own history. The first strict regulations on UK CCW were in the late teens in fear of communists and anarchists.



I think its got less to do with the swiss shooting skills and more to do with the mountains. :rolleyes:

More like Swiss shooting skills IN the mountains. :rolleyes:

And that would explain Switzerlands low firearm crimes? And howabout the fact that firearm crime is INCREASING in the UK and was lower than the US before the bans anyway.


There are two flaws here. Firstly, gun crime in the UK is not increasing in reaction to any recent gun laws because guess what. Gun laws have not changed here in a while. The last major change was the banning of public ownership of pistols. Secondly, even if gun crime could be seen to be increasing with gun regulation (which it cant) there is a logical reason for that. Crime increases when there are more laws about that crime. Think about it. If the UK made jaywalking an offecene of course your going to see a crime increase. Since you didnt disprove my other points I'm going to repost them untill you actually offer a proper argument

Yes. But if gun ownership was against the law it would be far far harder for criminals to get guns hence a smaller number of them would use guns hence a safer place.

Yes. Because it will be far harder to get guns hence less guns on the street. For a criminal to get a gun in the US he would have to merely break into someones house who has a gun or something like that. In the UK it is far far harder to obtain a gun like that.



And yet legal firearm availability has nothing to do w/ it. Try again.

Yes it does. If fire arms are easily available legally, they are even more easily abvaible illegally. Thats plain common sense.



Another myth endorsed by the anti-rights lobby.

a gun kept in the home for self-protection was 23 times more likely to be used to shoot a family member than a criminal

A murder of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur in homes with guns than homes without them

And thats not all

When these flaws are removed, results of Lott’s own data show no significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, except to increase property crime

So, myth huh?


As easy as it is as when they are highly regulated.

Are you just going to ignore common sense. If something is more freely availble legally common sense requires it is more easaily accessable illegally.


So why shouldn't firearm safety be encouraged?

Because a firearm itself is dangerous. A bike if used properly isnt. A gun used properly is. It is designed to damage and destroy things.


False. Learn your own history. The first strict regulations on UK CCW were in the late teens in fear of communists and anarchists.

And when did the gun rise in crime start. Ah yes, 2003.


More like Swiss shooting skills IN the mountains. :rolleyes:

You cant invade switzerland. It is almost geographically impossible. The mountains would turn the place into a rocky blood bath for the Nazi's. It just wouldnt have worked.