NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of gun control, but some of the logic in the debates on it has always puzzled me.

One argument against gun control is that civilian, personal ownership of firearms is a check to authoritarianism. By allowing the populace to arm themselves, it becomes much harder for the government to erode civil liberties. Gun control is sometimes associated with very authoritarian governments.

Another is that a gun is no different to many other things: it can be lethal in the wrong hands, but so can anything. Cars kill people, knives kill people...people have died from electric discharges off their alarm clocks. So singling out guns is silly.

But, aren't these two arguments contradictory? Because it seems you can't argue one whilst accepting the other. If guns are a unique and valuable check to government power, then they must be distinct from a car or a knife. I'm not saying that justifies gun control - far from it - but it doesn't lend much credence to the idea that banning guns "is the same as" banning cars. On the other hand, if guns are simply one of many ways of checking government power, and are not in and of more dangerous than a car or a knife...then why don't we use them to overthrow governments? Many modern terrorist attacks have featured homemade bombs or tools as weapons of hijacking - a gun in itself doesn't seem to have any obvious, inate value to such actors.

So, which is it? Because I can't see how you can have both arguments being true.

(And, obviously, even if one is held to be less true or worthy of consideration, that still doesn't justify gun control - I'm not trying to start a "guns are bad" thread.)

Thoughts?

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Personally, I don't like authoritarianism, but I've read that the worst place for murder in the UK (no guns) has about 10% the number of murders of some places in the US (lots o' guns).

Guns don't kill people. Holes kill people. :)

Personally, I don't like authoritarianism, but I've read that the worst place for murder in the UK (no guns) has about 10% the number of murders of some places in the US (lots o' guns).
Well, statistics are statistics. They're useful when you're analysing something specific and you have accurate, relevant data; when you're groping for correlations, might as well make them up for all the good they'll do you.

But, that's not my point. I'm not saying that this has anything to do with murder rates.

"Guns dont kill people People kill people BUT MONKEYS DO TOO! (if theyve got a gun)"

All hail the mighty Eddie Izzard :P

Guns dont kill people the bullets do . Or the trauma...or as they say in GTA ..

Guns dont kill people DEATH kills people .

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

This is precisely right.

Guns don't kill people. People die from organ failure, blood loss and brain death, a small piece of metal isn't the problem. Besides, I only use my machine gun in the safety of my own home or car.

So, has anyone read my post? Is anyone interested in responding? Or should I go ask them to toss this into spam, so you can have some more fun?

"Guns don't kill people, annoying worthless internet spammers do."

Marvel at my undying wit!

Guns dont kill people the bullets do . Or the trauma...or as they say in GTA ..

Guns dont kill people DEATH kills people .

Bullets still need to be launched from the gun and that requires a person to pull the trigger. Hence People Kill People.

Bullets still need to be launched from the gun and that requires a person to pull the trigger. Hence People Kill People.
Whatever. That's a pathetic defence. Take guns away from people and less people will die.

Bullets still need to be launched from the gun and that requires a person to pull the trigger. Hence People Kill People.
Ah, but neither the person, the gun nor the bullet would kill anybody if it weren't for the holes they made. So obviously the real culprit is the hole. *nod*

Whatever. That's a pathetic defence. Take guns away from people and less people will die.

This is bullcrap.

Bullets still need to be launched from the gun and that requires a person to pull the trigger. Hence People Kill People.

But they do make it easier to kill people.

Look at the amount of murders per year in london, then look at the amount of murders per year in LA, then you will see why america should have never put guns into the hands of any old person. However it's to late to change things now.

my contribution for the day ...

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"

:D
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." ~Mao Tse Tung, "Selected Works of Mao Zedong"

hmmm second ammendment anyone ?


"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." ~Orrin Hatch,

hmmm answers anyone ?

"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

OMG ....Jefferson he be da man..is he a rapper ?


"For every fatal shooting, ther were roughtly three nonfatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."
—George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 14, 2001


Ummm George... WTF...I guess you been sidtracked a bit...BTW where's all my oil from Iraq..??? Dammit I want my free stolen oil damm you !! 3.00 a gallon is just not acceptable ..go invade Iran and hurry my SUV is hungry ..


"Remember when she had Tom Selleck on her program a while back? She blind-sided Tom Selleck! He's a good fella, ain't never hurt nobody, but he's in the NRA, so she hates that. She was like, 'Well, you're in the NRA. Let me tell you something, Tom: guns kill people!' Do you believe she said that? On the Rosie O'Fatass show! She looks right at him and says, 'Guns kill people!' Let me tell you something: husbands that come home early kill people! Alright?


Rosie O fatass ???? Bwaaaaahahahahaha...


The gun was just sitting there! If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil! Git-r-done!" -Larry the Cable Guy, Git-r-Done DVD


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~Mahatma Gandhi, "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238

OMG ........:eek: :eek: Run Ghandi's got a gun !!!!!!!!!!! :sniper:


Golgothastan....hows that ?

Guns don't kill people, husband who come home early do. ~Larry the Cable Guy.

Whatever. That's a pathetic defence. Take guns away from people and less people will die.

Which is why the murder/crime rate in the UK is rising while the US's is dropping, right?

Golgothastan....hows that ?
"That" completely fails to address my question. So, just as bad as the other spam really.

Nevermind.

EDIT: In fact, it's pretty fucking comical. Your Jefferson quotation is exactly what I was looking for discussion of.

Look at the amount of murders per year in london, then look at the amount of murders per year in LA, then you will see why america should have never put guns into the hands of any old person. However it's to late to change things now.

And look at the murder/crime rate rising in the UK vs the dropping rates in the US even though MORE people are owning carrying.

No causality here people, just move along.

Which is why the murder/crime rate in the UK is rising while the US's is dropping, right?
It's rising in the UK because more guns are being smuggled in there.

However, the crime-rate dropping in the US is widely regarded as a sign of the arrival of the apocalypse (much like a rain of frogs and hell freezing over).

And look at the murder/crime rate rising in the UK vs the dropping rates in the US even though MORE people are owning carrying.

No causality here people, just move along.

Yeah LA is dropping from 10 thousand a year to 9 thousand a year while london is rising from 500 a year to 600 year....

...probably....

*Gets shot*

Which is why the murder/crime rate in the UK is rising while the US's is dropping, right?

Thats government interference stopping the police from doing anything about murders rather than the amount of guns.

"That" completely fails to address my question. So, just as bad as the other spam really.

Nevermind.

EDIT: In fact, it's pretty fucking comical. Your Jefferson quotation is exactly what I was looking for discussion of.

A firearm is, in effect, a tool.

It is a tool to help keep governments in check.
It is a tool to help protect oneself.
It is a tool to help in hunting etc.

Some choose to misuse the tool to commit crimes.

So yes, it can be both. It is not necessarily a contradiction.

Yeah LA is dropping from 10 thousand a year to 9 thousand a year while london is rising from 500 a year to 600 year....

...probably....

*Gets shot*

You watch to many movies.

I would say that the latter argument makes more sense than the former. A gun was an effective weapon a long time ago against government; it isn't anymore. As I see it, the modern check on government has to be democracy and the rule of law, and that guns should take a back seat to a popular adversion to broader economic and civil control by government. As I can think of few (if any) instances where I would condone violent insurrection, I'll have to stick with being pro-gun control. This coming from a libertarian.

However, the two aren't necessarily contradictory. If you don't think the government should ban cars or knives either, it wouldn't be.

I have a general aversion to instruments of coersion, whether on a micro or macro level. In my opinion is should be a local issue, and it should be related to the crime rate. If more guns = more violent crime, I want more gun control. if more guns = less violent crime, I want less gun control.

Thats government interference stopping the police from doing anything about murders rather than the amount of guns.

Correct. The level of firearm ownership has nothing to do w/ it. Glad you accept that.

A firearm is, in effect, a tool.

It is a tool to help keep governments in check.
It is a tool to help protect oneself.
It is a tool to help in hunting etc.

Some choose to misuse the tool to commit crimes.

So yes, it can be both. It is not necessarily a contradiction.

The only use this tool has is too kill, unlike a knife which can be used to cut meat and things...

A firearm is, in effect, a tool.

It is a tool to help keep governments in check.
It is a tool to help protect oneself.
It is a tool to help in hunting etc.

Some choose to misuse the tool to commit crimes.

So yes, it can be both. It is not necessarily a contradiction.
No, you're somewhat missing my point.

If "guns don't kill people, people kill people", then the idea that "[t]he strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" (assuming 'arms' means 'firearms') is patently false, because people will be able to kill oppressive governments anyway, using other means.

The only use this tool has is too kill, unlike a knife which can be used to cut meat and things...

What? You don't blast your fishsticks with some 9mm before sticking them in the oven?

The biggest question is this; Who do you fear most? Is it the man in office or the man next door?

That, essentially, is what governs your line on gun control.

Thank you, Saladador.
I would say that the latter argument makes more sense than the former. A gun was an effective weapon a long time ago against government; it isn't anymore. As I see it, the modern check on government has to be democracy and the rule of law, and that guns should take a back seat to a popular adversion to broader economic and civil control by government. As I can think of few (if any) instances where I would condone violent insurrection, I'll have to stick with being pro-gun control. This coming from a libertarian.
I'm inclined to agree - in the case of the US and UK. But in some countries in Africa, for example, where "democracy and the rule of law" barely exists? There there is a clear case for something being necessary - perhaps even instruments of violent insurrection. All I'm saying is people can kill others with cars or bombs or knives, it suggests guns shouldn't be treated as special in this respect.

I have a general aversion to instruments of coersion, whether on a micro or macro level. In my opinion is should be a local issue, and it should be related to the crime rate. If more guns = more violent crime, I want more gun control. if more guns = less violent crime, I want less gun control.
Agreed.

I would say that the latter argument makes more sense than the former. A gun was an effective weapon a long time ago against government; it isn't anymore. As I see it, the modern check on government has to be democracy and the rule of law, and that guns should take a back seat to a popular adversion to broader economic and civil control by government. As I can think of few (if any) instances where I would condone violent insurrection, I'll have to stick with being pro-gun control. This coming from a libertarian.

However, the two aren't necessarily contradictory. If you don't think the government should ban cars or knives either, it wouldn't be.

I have a general aversion to instruments of coersion, whether on a micro or macro level. In my opinion is should be a local issue, and it should be related to the crime rate. If more guns = more violent crime, I want more gun control. if more guns = less violent crime, I want less gun control.


I'll disagree. An armed populace would be very effective against an authoritarian Gov't.

"Oh, but a handgun would do nothing against a tank". the pundits cry. That's true. But a sniper shot against the commander and a molotov cocktail do wonders.

"It won't stop a nuke", they cry. You honestly think the gov't would drop a nuke on its own territory and not expect a nationwide revolt?

However, yes, an armed populace is the LAST resort. Soapbox, ballotbox, ammobox. It must remain as a potential resort, though.

Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.

Well, people may kill people but sitting there and yelling "bang" isn't too terribly fatal.

The biggest question is this; Who do you fear most? Is it the man in office or the man next door?

That, essentially, is what governs your line on gun control.

Actually...I fear neither. But that's because we've got gun-control.

However I fear Americans, they're armed and high on cholesterol.

Which is why the murder/crime rate in the UK is rising while the US's is dropping, right?
The murder and crime rates in the UK are rising because police don't give two flying fucks about murder cases, unless an orphaned teenager's pet puppy is involved, so that they can get some good press about it, rather than people griping about the police.

The US, on the other hand, has been spending more and more on the police recently, because I imagine that the general population is close to a revolt (I imagine) and the more people on Bush's side with big guns, the better for him.

And that's not the only factor. A lot of guns are getting smuggled into the UK, so guns are actually quite responsible for this rise.

And I'd love to see the amount of murders in London compared to a USian city of the same size.

"That" completely fails to address my question. So, just as bad as the other spam really.

Nevermind.

EDIT: In fact, it's pretty fucking comical. Your Jefferson quotation is exactly what I was looking for discussion of.




There's about 50 threads a week on guns -gun controll- kiler bee's with guns ..gun soup ...guns for small children ..gun abuse ....

You get kinda burnt out after a while ...

Talk second ammendment rights and you MUST talk about Jefferson and what it means to be an American .

But try to explain why Americans think its ok to run around shooting each other for any reason under the sun... I cant .....

Guns are ok..idiots with guns is not ..gotta ban idiots with guns and criminals and we should be fine .

Maybe just shoot them for irony's sake .

The biggest question is this; Who do you fear most? Is it the man in office or the man next door?

That, essentially, is what governs your line on gun control.
Hmm, but that doesn't really address the contradiction that I [thought I had] identified. The idea of guns for personal defence against crime ("the man next door", I assume) isn't really one I'm arguing about.

Although, again, there is some room within that. One could defend oneself and one's property with other means than a gun.

----

Alright, since nobody seems interested in my original post, a follow-up question. Why are gun rights so often associated with conservatives? Why is firearms ownership a civil right...and seemingly nothing else qualifies as a right?

And I'd love to see the amount of murders in London compared to a USian city of the same size.

Can someone please look this up so we can end this debate! (not that i want it to end or anything its just um...


:mp5: )

You get kinda burnt out after a while ...
Well I wasn't forcing you to post. :)

The murder and crime rates in the UK are rising because police don't give two flying fucks about murder cases, unless an orphaned teenager's pet puppy is involved, so that they can get some good press about it, rather than people griping about the police.

The US, on the other hand, has been spending more and more on the police recently, because I imagine that the general population is close to a revolt (I imagine) and the more people on Bush's side with big guns, the better for him.

And that's not the only factor. A lot of guns are getting smuggled into the UK, so guns are actually quite responsible for this rise.

And I'd love to see the amount of murders in London compared to a USian city of the same size.

Gasp! Smuggled guns?!? DOn't these criminals have any respect for gun control laws? How are unarmed law abiding civilians supposed to protect themselves if criminals ignore gun laws?

...oh yeah. That's kind of the point, huh? :p

"Oh, but a handgun would do nothing against a tank". the pundits cry. That's true. But a sniper shot against the commander and a molotov cocktail do wonders.
There - right there - is my point. A molotov cocktail is not a gun.

No, you're somewhat missing my point.

If "guns don't kill people, people kill people", then the idea that "[t]he strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" (assuming 'arms' means 'firearms') is patently false, because people will be able to kill oppressive governments anyway, using other means.

Yeah... you go try and fight an oppressive government while armed only with knives and pitchforks.

Well, obviously there needs to be SOME control, i.e stopping dangerous nutjobs walking into a shop and asking for lots of weapons. But guns should not be illegal.

They're not contradictory.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you want to murder someone, you can do it with just about anything.

But there's a difference between murdering your neighbor and rebellion. If you're going to violently fight back against an oppressive government, they're going to be fighting you, too, and they're going to have guns. Going at them with a knife isn't going to cut it. In order for the rights to bear arms to work against tyranny, the people need to have weapons that are just as powerful as the government's.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really work anymore, since a lot of the big guns aren't available to the people in general.

Yeah... you go try and fight an oppressive government while armed only with knives and pitchforks.
Or perhaps construct a bomb, or load a car with explosives?

The murder and crime rates in the UK are rising because police don't give two flying fucks about murder cases, unless an orphaned teenager's pet puppy is involved, so that they can get some good press about it, rather than people griping about the police.

So is it the incompetant Gov't or the guns that are causing it?



The US, on the other hand, has been spending more and more on the police recently, because I imagine that the general population is close to a revolt (I imagine) and the more people on Bush's side with big guns, the better for him.

You watch to many movies.

And that's not the only factor. A lot of guns are getting smuggled into the UK, so guns are actually quite responsible for this rise.

Guns are smuggling themselves? They're firing by themselves?

And I'd love to see the amount of murders in London compared to a USian city of the same size.

And compare them over different time periods and comparing different laws. The US has always had a higher crime rate than the UK. Why don't you also throw in some countries w/ strict gun control that have higher murder rates than the US? Like Russia or Mexico? Or ones w/ higher ownership and lower murder rates? Like Canada, Switzerland, and Finland?

I'll disagree. An armed populace would be very effective against an authoritarian Gov't.

"Oh, but a handgun would do nothing against a tank". the pundits cry. That's true. But a sniper shot against the commander and a molotov cocktail do wonders.

"It won't stop a nuke", they cry. You honestly think the gov't would drop a nuke on its own territory and not expect a nationwide revolt?

However, yes, an armed populace is the LAST resort. Soapbox, ballotbox, ammobox. It must remain as a potential resort, though.
If it came to that, wouldn't there already be a nationwide revolt? I wouldn't put anything, even dropping a nuke on their own people, beyond the grasp of people desperate to retain power.

The biggest question is this; Who do you fear most? Is it the man in office or the man next door?

That, essentially, is what governs your line on gun control.


What if the answer is " BOTH " ?

And remember "a covenant without a sword is just words"

The constitution is just a bunch of wors on toilet paper without the armed and pissed off populace to enforce it if need be .

The constitution is the COVENANT the second ammendment thanks to Jefferson and others is the SWORD .

And I'll use my Mini 14 and lee enfield w scope along with my handguns and shotguns ...I dont need no nukes ...;)

Hmm, but that doesn't really address the contradiction that I [thought I had] identified. The idea of guns for personal defence against crime ("the man next door", I assume) isn't really one I'm arguing about.
Me neither. All I'm saying is that if you fear your fellow crime-committing citizens more than you do your elected officials, you would be in favour of gun control so as to prevent them from getting them, but if you were more afraid of "the man", you'd be in favour of keeping firearms in defence.

I still think the whole thing could be resolved in the near future by encouraging the development of non-lethal projectile technology, and to that end I would strongly encourage a refusal to buy conventional arms to destroy the existing market and force the manufacturers to persue personal defensive technology in order to continue to bring in a profit.

One must also take into account how firearm murders in the UK were much lower than those in the US even before the 1997 gun ban.

Guns are smuggling themselves? They're firing by themselves?


Actually they are coming mainly from Jamaica.

What if the answer is " BOTH " ?
Then you think everyone is against you and are probably a paranoid delusional. Go figure.

There - right there - is my point. A molotov cocktail is not a gun.

But it would be a necessary part of an innsurection. You also missed the first part, a shot against exposed personnel. Assuming there would be an equivalent to blackshirts, firearms would be used against infantry, helicoptors , raiding installations, etc.

Me neither. All I'm saying is that if you fear your fellow crime-committing citizens more than you do your elected officials, you would be in favour of gun control so as to prevent them from getting them, but if you were more afraid of "the man", you'd be in favour of keeping firearms in defence.
Oh I see. I misunderstood, sorry. Yes, you are correct in your assessment.

I still think the whole thing could be resolved in the near future by encouraging the development of non-lethal projectile technology, and to that end I would strongly encourage a refusal to buy conventional arms to destroy the existing market and force the manufacturers to persue personal defensive technology in order to continue to bring in a profit.
Interesting idea.

The only use this tool has is too kill, unlike a knife which can be used to cut meat and things...

Really? So clay and paper targets are living things? What about bowling pins, steel, balloons, and the various other types of targets that people use in shooting sports?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=8263
http://www.remington.com/products/clay_targets/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007LNZ9U/102-3651472-3505747?v=glance&n=3375251
http://www.arntzentargets.com/targetstyles.htm
http://www.fastdraw.org/targets/

Actually they are coming mainly from Jamaica.

By themselves?

With or without guns you will never be able to fight off an opressive government (unless you live in canada) so thats irrelivant anyway.

But it would be a necessary part of an innsurection. You also missed the first part, a shot against exposed personnel. Assuming there would be an equivalent to blackshirts, firearms would be used against infantry, helicoptors , raiding installations, etc.
I'm still not seeing them as a necessity. A useful tool, yes. But I think with enough strategic use of explosives, you could do it without them.

That said, I know nothing of military tactics, so I should stop.

By themselves?

No by gang members.

If it came to that, wouldn't there already be a nationwide revolt? I wouldn't put anything, even dropping a nuke on their own people, beyond the grasp of people desperate to retain power.

I should clarify that. I meant that actively using nukes against its own populace would turn even the fence sitters and large portions of the military (assuming they didn't already support the populace) against the gov't.

No by gang members.

So, by criminals. How then are the firearms being illegally smuggled and used, responsible?

Really? So clay and paper targets are living things? What about bowling pins, steel, balloons, and the various other types of targets that people use in shooting sports?

http://www.remington.com/products/clay_targets/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007LNZ9U/102-3651472-3505747?v=glance&n=3375251
http://www.arntzentargets.com/targetstyles.htm
http://www.fastdraw.org/targets/

Shooting clay targets is fine, you can do that in england, but when people sell a gun for that use its very strictly controlled an you need to pass different tests blah blah blah. If you buy a gun to shoot balloons then you're an idiot.

So, by criminals. How then are the firearms being illegally smuggled and used, responsible?
Because a drive-by stabbing wouldn't be very effective. And even if it was, it probably wouldn't be fatal.

With or without guns you will never be able to fight off an opressive government (unless you live in canada) so thats irrelivant anyway.

Since fighting off an oppressive government with guns is how this country was founded, and how a lot of governments change hands even now, I think it's pretty relevant.

So, by criminals. How then are the firearms being illegally smuggled and used, responsible?

In this case the gang members are responsible, in your case the government is.

Because a drive-by stabbing wouldn't be very effective. And even if it was, it probably wouldn't be fatal.

Drive-by knife throwing?

Since fighting off an oppressive government with guns is how this country was founded, and how a lot of governments change hands even now, I think it's pretty relevant.

That was years back. Things have changed now.

I'm still not seeing them as a necessity. A useful tool, yes. But I think with enough strategic use of explosives, you could do it without them.

That said, I know nothing of military tactics, so I should stop.

AH, I see what you're saying. You can't use explosives for everything. If you imagine that only 2% of the armed US populace actively took up arms, that's nearly 1.6 million people. People who are very familiar w/ thier personal arms and the territory they're in.

A firearm is not the end all be all, it's the beginning.

In this case the gang members are responsible, in your case the government is.

ORLY? And...You can directly link guns and crime with...what evidence, exactly?

In this case the gang members are responsible, in your case the government is.

The gov't is responsible for which murders?

I should clarify that. I meant that actively using nukes against its own populace would turn even the fence sitters and large portions of the military (assuming they didn't already support the populace) against the gov't.
I still believe in some forms of gun control although I do see what you are saying and it's the most legitimate reason for ownership of guns. But I think their should be stricter licensing. Closer to the drivers license system, where you get a permit and then a license. And it should be distinctive to the type of gun being used. I also feel that drinking while having a gun on your person should be a crime in itself. Needless to say, it should also be an additional crime if found in your car and you're drinking while intoxicated, whether you're licensed to carry it or not.

Anyway, do you really want a guy fighting the revolution next to you to be a first time shooter?

ORLY? And...You can directly link guns and crime with...what evidence, exactly?

....by people shooting other people?...

That was years back. Things have changed now.

It happened two years ago in Haiti, off the top of my head. Things have changed since then?

....by people shooting other people?...

Well...
1) your laws really wouldn't stop them from using guns
2) and then they may as well just grab a bat
3) or golf club
4) or knife
5) or...

Drive-by knife throwing?

I'd still prefer to have a knife chucked at me from a car to being sprayed by an uzi... Which is probably why most criminals prefer an uzi.

Then you think everyone is against you and are probably a paranoid delusional. Go figure.


so the Patriot act and the recent decisions on emminent domain and the danger of a theocracy in the US...the jumble over elections and hanging Chads...the whole political climate in general...thats a delusion ..

people like Pat Robertson in power...thats a delusion...

A policeman shot around the corner from my home trying to stop an armed robbery ...thats a delusion..

My daughter being mugged at gun point at 14 years old...thats a dellusion

Myself shooting the person who attempted to rob me ..by first trying to kill me.. with a shotgun blast into my truck...thats my delusion

The person who attempted to rob me at an ATM and ended up alive and in jail because he didnt like my glock being in his face so he gave me his gun ...thats a delusion..

The 300 + murders in My city of Philadelphia ...all delusions...

The thousands of shootings that do not result in death...all delusions..

Pal you need a primer on delusions .

Either that or you like to read your own words and feel important .

I still believe in some forms of gun control although I do see what you are saying and it's the most legitimate reason for ownership of guns. But I think their should be stricter licensing. Closer to the drivers license system, where you get a permit and then a license. And it should be distinctive to the type of gun being used. I also feel that drinking while having a gun on your person should be a crime in itself. Needless to say, it should also be an additional crime if found in your car and you're drinking while intoxicated, whether you're licensed to carry it or not.

I'm in no means advocating absolute ownership. I'm opposed to most "licensing" or "registration" systems because they have always led to stricter measures and eventually confiscation. Safety classes are a good idea. I agree on the drinking.

Anyway, do you really want a guy fighting the revolution next to you to be a first time shooter?


No, but better a "first-time shooter" than no shooter at all.

Shooting clay targets is fine, you can do that in england, but when people sell a gun for that use its very strictly controlled an you need to pass different tests blah blah blah. If you buy a gun to shoot balloons then you're an idiot.

But what if you already had a firearm, ran out of normal targets, and happened to have balloons with you? Also, due to how light they are, they make for a good random target if there's a decent wind.

BTW, I live in the US.

I'd still prefer to have a knife chucked at me from a car to being sprayed by an uzi... Which is probably why most criminals prefer an uzi.

Well...What if it was a crossbow?

I'd still prefer to have a knife chucked at me from a car to being sprayed by an uzi... Which is probably why most criminals prefer an uzi.

Only in the movies.

Criminals prefer .38 revolvers and 9mm handguns.

Well...
1) your laws really wouldn't stop them from using guns
2) and then they may as well just grab a bat
3) or golf club
4) or knife
5) or...

1) Yes it stops many people from using guns

2)3)4)5) Yes but anyone can shoot with a gun, you just aim and pull the trigger. Using a knife and a golf club is much harder psychologicly and physically.

I'm in no means advocating absolute ownership. I'm opposed to most "licensing" or "registration" systems because they have always led to stricter measures and eventually confiscation. Safety classes are a good idea. I agree on the drinking.




No, but better a "first-time shooter" than no shooter at all.
I think there can be ways to word the laws where the possibility of confiscation without actually breaking the law would be diminished.

As for your last point, well... you have a point.

Well the people with guns who claim its a "check" to authoritarianism arent doing a very good job exercizing that 2nd amendment...

If you need a gun to compensate for your penis size...just say so. Dont hide behind the second amendment. Your balls are obviously not big enough to go after the government anyway.

1) Yes it stops many people from using guns

You realize of course, how easy making a gun is right?

2)3)4)5) Yes but anyone can shoot with a gun, you just aim and pull the trigger. Using a knife and a golf club is much harder psychologicly and physically.

How about...I dunno...evidence?

1) Yes it stops many people from using guns

2)3)4)5) Yes but anyone can shoot with a gun, you just aim and pull the trigger. Using a knife and a golf club is much harder psychologicly and physically.

1) and yet you've stated that the laws are being broken and more guns are being used in crimes. Which is it?

2-5) so disarming the people who actually follow the laws is the answer?

so the Patriot act and the recent decisions on emminent domain and the danger of a theocracy in the US...the jumble over elections and hanging Chads...the whole political climate in general...thats a delusion ..

people like Pat Robertson in power...thats a delusion...

A policeman shot around the corner from my home trying to stop an armed robbery ...thats a delusion..

My daughter being mugged at gun point at 14 years old...thats a dellusion

Myself shooting the person who attempted to rob me ..by first trying to kill me.. with a shotgun blast into my truck...thats my delusion

The person who attempted to rob me at an ATM and ended up alive and in jail because he didnt like my glock being in his face so he gave me his gun ...thats a delusion..

The 300 + murders in My city of Philadelphia ...all delusions...

The thousands of shootings that do not result in death...all delusions..

Pal you need a primer on delusions .

Either that or you like to read your own words and feel important .

Wow! If this is true, you guys need to get your act together. I've never seen a pistol outside of museums and such in my lifetime in the hands of anyone but police, and I've never held one. I am never ever going to the USA.

I think there can be ways to word the laws where the possibility of confiscation without actually breaking the law would be diminished.

As for your last point, well... you have a point.

Sure there can. There can also be loopholes that certain gov'ts have and will use to prevent people from owning. Chicago and DC come to mind. They simply closed the registration offices. King Daley also is violating federal law by refusing to allow retired Chicago LEA's from having concealed carry.

I think there can be ways to word the laws where the possibility of confiscation without actually breaking the law would be diminished.

As for your last point, well... you have a point.


Ummm we have laws comming out of our ears..

THE 1968 GUN CONTROL ACT

Our nation's primary gun law is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed in the wake of the murders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert Kennedy.

Major Provisions:

Established categories of prohibited firearms purchasers and possessors.
Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship.

Licenses and set standards for gun dealers.
Establishes licensing fee schedule for manufacturers, importers, and dealers in firearms; sets record-keeping standards; requires licenses to be obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury; requires serial numbers on all guns.

Prohibits the mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition.

Prohibits the interstate sale of firearms.
A handgun purchaser may only buy a gun in the state in which he/she resides; however, long gun sales to individuals in contiguous state that did not violate either state law, were allowed. (Today, long guns may be purchased from gun dealers in any state, regardless of purchaser's state of residence).

Sets age guidelines for firearms purchased through dealers.

— Handgun purchasers must be at least 21.
— Long gun purchasers must be at least 18.

Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons.
The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law.

Sets penalties for carrying & using firearms in crimes of violence or drug trafficking.

Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i.e., parts to make machine guns).

Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms.

Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation).
This provision was adamantly opposed by the NRA. In fact, some of its most radical members did not want the McClure/Volkmer bill to pass if it contained this provision.

Immediately following the enactment of this law, the NRA announced that "its highest priority" in the next Congress would be to repeal the ban on machine guns. To date they have not introduced legislation to do this.

Prohibited the sale of parts or "conversion kits" - used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic.

Classifies silencer parts and kits as weapons falling under the National Firearm Act.




Seems to make sens right ? Plus its been made tougher since 1968...

MORE laws ???

WTF for ????

Enforce the fucking laws you have ...

Well the people with guns who claim its a "check" to authoritarianism arent doing a very good job exercizing that 2nd amendment...


A WELL REGULATED militia, being essential to the existance of a free state....


I do love the way that a lot of people try and use that as an argument AGAINST gun control. Unless that isnt how it goes.

1) and yet you've stated that the laws are being broken and more guns are being used in crimes. Which is it?

2-5) so disarming the people who actually follow the laws is the answer?

1) Hardly any guns are being used in crimes, it's actually a pretty small thing (in england).

2-5)My stance is that america should have never put guns into the hands of anyone. However its too late to take them back now.

Well the people with guns who claim its a "check" to authoritarianism arent doing a very good job exercizing that 2nd amendment...

If you need a gun to compensate for your penis size...just say so. Dont hide behind the second amendment. Your balls are obviously not big enough to go after the government anyway.

And what hundreds of thousands of women who own firearms for self-defense, hunting, sport-shooting, etc.

People made guns to specifically to kill people. So, people do kill people and so do guns.

Only in the movies.

Criminals prefer .38 revolvers and 9mm handguns.

Oh... I apologize. I'm not that big on guns.
But I'd still prefer the knife chucking to those types anyway.

People made guns to specifically to kill people. So, people do kill people and so do guns.

If you wanna be technical, the brain ceasing to function is what kills everyone.

1) Hardly any guns are being used in crimes, it's actually a pretty small thing.

Yet it's increasing due to illegal activities and it's dropping in the US. Can't have both

2-5)My stance is that america should have never put guns into the hands of anyone. However its too late to take them back now.

The only firearms the US has "put" into peoples hands are the military and police. the overwhelming majority of the rest followed the law and purchased them legally.

Criminals,however, don't follow the law.

And what hundreds of thousands of women who own firearms for self-defense, hunting, sport-shooting, etc.

Lesbians.

Sure there can. There can also be loopholes that certain gov'ts have and will use to prevent people from owning. Chicago and DC come to mind. They simply closed the registration offices. King Daley also is violating federal law by refusing to allow retired Chicago LEA's from having concealed carry.

Try the WHOLE state of New Jersey ...they have some of the toughest regs in the US.

Go walk around camden though at night. If you have a death wish .

Sure there can. There can also be loopholes that certain gov'ts have and will use to prevent people from owning. Chicago and DC come to mind. They simply closed the registration offices. King Daley also is violating federal law by refusing to allow retired Chicago LEA's from having concealed carry.

Try the WHOLE state of New Jersey ...they have some of the toughest regs in the US.

Go walk around camden though at night. If you have a death wish .


Camden, NJ Repeats as Most Dangerous City
For the second year in a row, Camden, New Jersey has edged out Detroit, Michigan as the most dangerous city, while Newton, Massachusetts also repeated as the nation's safest city, according to the new edition of City Crime Rankings.
The 12th annual Safest City Award was named by Morgan Quitno Press, a Lawrence, Kansas-based publishing and research company which bases a city's rate for six basic crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft, as reported by the FBI.

Trailing Camden on the more dangerous end of the crime rankings (in ascending order) are Detroit, MI; St. Louis, MO, Flint, MI and Richmond, VA.

"Newton outshines other cities when it comes to fighting crime," said Scott Morgan, President of Morgan Quitno Press. "With no murders, as well as the lowest overall crime and motor vehicle theft rates, it ranks as the clear winner in this year’s survey."

Joining Newton at the top of the Safest City rankings are Clarkstown, NY; Amherst, NY; Mission Viejo, CA and Brick Township, NJ. Newton is located just west of Boston.

The rankings are based on crime statistics from 369 cities with populations over 75,000. A full report for all 369 cities is available online for $4.99

You realize of course, how easy making a gun is right?

Just Google Philip Luty. He's a brit that wrote a book on how to make an expedient submachine gun. IIRC, he used hand tools to do it (made everything, including the mag and the springs). He made a prototype so he could have pictures in his book, and ended up serving a 4 year jail sentence because of it. Unfortunately, his website (http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/) is down right now.

Also feel free to check out this page for more examples: http://improvisedweapons.1colony.com/index.html

I'll disagree. An armed populace would be very effective against an authoritarian Gov't.

So should gun ownership in a country should be mandatory? I don't own a gun, nor have I ever used one. In any case the primary way for an authoritarian government to hold on to power is to isolate people from each other and keep them ignorant, not to take their guns away from them. A mobilized populace (armed or not) is a far more effective check against tyranny.

"Oh, but a handgun would do nothing against a tank". the pundits cry. That's true. But a sniper shot against the commander and a molotov cocktail do wonders.

As I understand it, a molotov cocktail consists of a glass bottle, a cotton handkerchief, and some gasoline. All pretty accessible items. Incidentally, most people don't drink out of glass bottles as much as they used to, there is an effort to move away from gasoline, and when was the last time you saw a handkerchief? I smell a conspiracy. :eek: And how many people you know that are expert snipers? I know none.

I'm from Texas BTW. :)

"It won't stop a nuke", they cry. You honestly think the gov't would drop a nuke on its own territory and not expect a nationwide revolt?

That wouldn't be the reason not to drop a nuke on ones own head. There's your own life to think about, of course. But what about tomahawks and smart bombs? Fat lot of good the average handgun would do against those.

However, yes, an armed populace is the LAST resort. Soapbox, ballotbox, ammobox. It must remain as a potential resort, though.

I like the peaceful resistance route (Ghandi style), if it comes to that. I don't like civil disobedience as a result of being pissed about some particular policy, but against a truly authoritarian government I would join wholeheartedly. Of course, the first line of defense is to demand increasing freedoms from government, limiting what it can do with laws and rules. I have a lot of confidence in individualism, knowledge, freedom, peace, and tolerance as solutions to the threat of authoritarianism. I don't need guns.

Edit: I've always interpreted the 2nd ammendment as essentially saying that states had the right to regulate guns, but the national government didn't. Remember, the Bill of Rights was written for the national government specifically. It wasn't until the 14th Ammendment that people started applying the BoR to the States.

Lesbians.

http://www.collectorsarmoury.com.au/images/Photos/Girls%20and%20Guns%20Russian%20Hat.jpg
Hmm....Believable.

A WELL REGULATED militia, being essential to the existance of a free state....


I do love the way that a lot of people try and use that as an argument AGAINST gun control. Unless that isnt how it goes.

A military organization needs rules and regulations-rank, structure, laws, etc.

"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sort of sums up that while not in the service of the militia, don't infringe.

Yet it's increasing due to illegal activities and it's dropping in the US. Can't have both

It may be increasing, but there is still a very few guns in the UK.


The only firearms the US has "put" into peoples hands are the military and police. the overwhelming majority of the rest followed the law and purchased them legally.

Criminals,however, don't follow the law.

Yes but the us government allowed the sale of guns, criminals can easily purchase the guns legally in the USA.

A WELL REGULATED militia, being essential to the existance of a free state....


I do love the way that a lot of people try and use that as an argument AGAINST gun control. Unless that isnt how it goes.

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do love the way that a lot of people keep trying to redefine people to mean state.

The Washington D.C., with a population of less than 600,000, had 194 slayings in 2005 (D. C. Area Slaying Climbed In 2005, The Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2006).

In Chicago, the number of various crimes exceeded 125,000 from January to September of 2005, including 352 murders, 11,564 robberies, 8,903 assaults and 534 arsons (http://egov.cityofchicago.org).

From January to mid-November of 2005, 334 persons were murdered in Philadelphia, exceeding the total number of murderees in the city in 2004 (Philly: 334 Killings So Far This Year, Philadelphia Daily News, Nov. 14,2005).

During the first half of 2005, 198 murders were reported in Los Angeles, 11 percent more than the same period of 2004 (Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2005).

Seventy-two people were murdered in Compton, California, with a population of only 96,000 (Compton Killings Highest in Years, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2, 2006). Camden in New Jersey has become the most dangerous city in the United States, with its homicide rate more than ten times the national average and robbery rate, more than seven times the national average (Camden, N.J., Ranked Most Dangerous U.S. City, The Washington Post, Nov. 22, 2005).

Check out the gun laws in those cities why dont ya .....


And Ghandi doesnt aggree

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ~Mahatma Gandhi, "An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth", by M.K. Gandhi, p.238

Just Google Philip Luty. He's a brit that wrote a book on how to make an expedient submachine gun. IIRC, he used hand tools to do it (made everything, including the mag and the springs. He made a prototype so he could have pictures in his book, and ended up serving a 4 year jail sentence because of it. Unfortunately, his website (http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/) is down right now.

Also feel free to check out this page for more examples: http://improvisedweapons.1colony.com/index.html

I dont think theres a market for guns in the UK from independant sellers at the moment.:rolleyes:

It may be increasing, but there is still a very few guns in the UK.

And, that means something becuase?



Yes but the us government allowed the sale of guns, criminals can easily purchase the guns legally in the USA.

Umm, not really, if they're already criminals.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of gun control, but some of the logic in the debates on it has always puzzled me.

One argument against gun control is that civilian, personal ownership of firearms is a check to authoritarianism. By allowing the populace to arm themselves, it becomes much harder for the government to erode civil liberties. Gun control is sometimes associated with very authoritarian governments.

Another is that a gun is no different to many other things: it can be lethal in the wrong hands, but so can anything. Cars kill people, knives kill people...people have died from electric discharges off their alarm clocks. So singling out guns is silly.

But, aren't these two arguments contradictory? Because it seems you can't argue one whilst accepting the other. If guns are a unique and valuable check to government power, then they must be distinct from a car or a knife. I'm not saying that justifies gun control - far from it - but it doesn't lend much credence to the idea that banning guns "is the same as" banning cars. On the other hand, if guns are simply one of many ways of checking government power, and are not in and of more dangerous than a car or a knife...then why don't we use them to overthrow governments? Many modern terrorist attacks have featured homemade bombs or tools as weapons of hijacking - a gun in itself doesn't seem to have any obvious, inate value to such actors.

So, which is it? Because I can't see how you can have both arguments being true.

(And, obviously, even if one is held to be less true or worthy of consideration, that still doesn't justify gun control - I'm not trying to start a "guns are bad" thread.)

Thoughts?

It seems to me that terrorists use bombs because they kill more people in one go than guns do, and it's faster. Plus, if they use one big bomb, they won't have to worry about running out of bullets...

You suggest that guns are a check on government power. Surely the most effective check on government power (in democratic countries, at any rate) is the ability of the electorate to hold them to account at election time, rather than the possession of guns that, unless they're planning a homicidal rampage or similar, are largely pointless? Also, aren't elections a fairer and more stable way of overthrowing governments than guns and revolution?

I live in the UK, where guns are pretty much illegal, and there is a lot of logic behind this. Guns are created with the sole purpose of destruction, whether with good intent or bad. Cars and knives are not; they are made with a productive purpose in mind. I fully accept your argument that they can also be lethal in the wrong hands, but guns are lethal even in the right hands (think of the military etc; they are there to protect the country and they do their jobs well, but that doesn't mean they don't shoot people in order to do it).

Besides, can't you perhaps argue that through gun control, authoritarian governments are only trying to protect their people? Plus, if the population is entitled to own guns, that means that the government is as well and, with all things being equal, civil liberties can still be eroded. All that is different is the 'inalienable right' of gun possession. It doesn't necessarily have to have an effect on anything else.

Sooo.... sorry for the massive rant, but you asked an interesting question, and I never was much good at saying things without rambling!

It may be increasing, but there is still a very few guns in the UK.

And yet it is increasing even though laws are tougher.



Yes but the us government allowed the sale of guns, criminals can easily purchase the guns legally in the USA.

THEY CAN!!!??? Prove it.

I dont think theres a market for guns in the UK from independant sellers at the moment.:rolleyes:

...You also realize that was about making a gun, not buying or selling it, yes?

And, that means something becuase?


It shows gun control is working.

Umm, not really, if they're already criminals.

The point is, there is next to nothing stoping them from getting guns.

Gun control is not a new idea. It has been around for a century.

Its supporters included Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and many other abusive dictators.

Without guns available, the nations under these leaders did have low crime rates. But, instead of people murdering people, the government was murdering people. By outlawing guns, the government had a monopoly on crime. It seems to be proven that firearms keep authoritative government in check.

It seems to me that terrorists use bombs because they kill more people in one go than guns do, and it's faster. Plus, if they use one big bomb, they won't have to worry about running out of bullets...

You suggest that guns are a check on government power. Surely the most effective check on government power (in democratic countries, at any rate) is the ability of the electorate to hold them to account at election time, rather than the possession of guns that, unless they're planning a homicidal rampage or similar, are largely pointless? Also, aren't elections a fairer and more stable way of overthrowing governments than guns and revolution?

I live in the UK, where guns are pretty much illegal, and there is a lot of logic behind this. Guns are created with the sole purpose of destruction, whether with good intent or bad. Cars and knives are not; they are made with a productive purpose in mind. I fully accept your argument that they can also be lethal in the wrong hands, but guns are lethal even in the right hands (think of the military etc; they are there to protect the country and they do their jobs well, but that doesn't mean they don't shoot people in order to do it).

Besides, can't you perhaps argue that through gun control, authoritarian governments are only trying to protect their people? Plus, if the population is entitled to own guns, that means that the government is as well and, with all things being equal, civil liberties can still be eroded. All that is different is the 'inalienable right' of gun possession. It doesn't necessarily have to have an effect on anything else.



I could (and have) pointed out examples of restrictive countries w/ higher murder rates and progressive countries w/ lower murder rates.

...You also realize that was about making a gun, not buying or selling it, yes?

Yes but someone tried to use that argument to show how easy it is to get guns.

It shows gun control is working.

Working gun control would make crime go down consistently, as guns are worked out.

The point is, there is next to nothing stoping them from getting guns.

...Have you tried to get a gun with a criminal record?

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Yes but someone tried to use that argument to show how easy it is to get guns.

No, they used it to support my statment on how easy it was to make guns, even when they're under "gun control".

It shows gun control is working.

By having and increase in crimes w/ firearms? Why is it dropping in the US even though less "gun control" is becoming more common?



The point is, there is next to nothing stoping them from getting guns.

Now you're dodging. You stated that they can easily and legally obtain firearms in the US. Prove it.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Or people with cars. Or steel tipped boots.




Or a laptop...not that I've tried that. >_>

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

People w/o guns also kill people. Do the Hutu's and Tutsi's ring a bell?

Seantors kill people (mainly hookers) ;)

Guns dont kill people, rappers do.

...Have you tried to get a gun with a criminal record?

Yes but that system isn't working, many shop owners are selling their guns anyway. Also the massive increase in the amount of guns circulating means that people can easily obtain them illegaly as well if they have a criminal record. However some lunatics can fake ID easily or not even have a criminal record before they start shooting at people.

People w/o guns also kill people. Do the Hutu's and Tutsi's ring a bell?

I'm not against guns or anything. I just felt like throwing that comment out there. Of course, I do believe in some forms of gun control.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

True, but guns were specifically designed for killing things at a distance.

Yes but that system isn't working, many shop owners are selling their guns anyway.

So...maybe doing something about shop owners, other than making their ware illegal?

Also the massive increase in the amount of guns circulating means that people can easily obtain them illegaly as well if they have a criminal record.

So it's illegal, but they still do it? More laws will fix that!

However some lunatics can fake ID easily or not even have a criminal record before they start shooting at people.

I could (and have) pointed out examples of restrictive countries w/ higher murder rates and progressive countries w/ lower murder rates.

Mexico and Russia? Right? :D
I don't know about mexico. But in Russia the police is practically non-existant. The Mafia runs things and people are extremely poor.

Comparing yourselves to them is like saying you can beat up a 5 year old (no wait, you'd shoot him)

Yes but that system isn't working, many shop owners are selling their guns anyway. Also the massive increase in the amount of guns circulating means that people can easily obtain them illegaly as well if they have a criminal record. However some lunatics can fake ID easily or not even have a criminal record before they start shooting at people.

It's not working even though crime is decreasing, more people have concealed carry, and there are more in circulation than ever before?

If they obtain them illegally, then they are committing a crime. Same way as in the UK.

True, but guns were specifically designed for killing things at a distance.

I've come to realize that guns are part of society and will always be with us. But, we can do something to try and keep certain weapons off the streets. Like sub machine guns and assault rifles. I don't see the point of private citizens owning those kinds of guns.

More fun with quotes....

History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." ~Adolph Hitler

"God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." ~Unknown Author

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 U.S. murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" ~Andrew Ford

“There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.” ~Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisk

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." ~Ted Nugent


"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." ~James Earl Jones


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson

I LOVE JEFFERSON.... Thank our lucky stars he was born ..

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." ~Thomas Jefferson


"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." ~Noah Webster

Way to go Webster...and what does history show us to be true ??

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." ~James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." ~Richard Henry Lee


"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." ~Thomas Paine

plug 'em full of holes Payne !! OOps I was thinking of Max...never mind ..


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." ~Joseph Story


"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." ~William Burroughs
HOW FRIKIN TRUE...just look at what happened in England..

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." ~(origin needed)
Hell yes...

"Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!" ~James Wesley, Rawles

"Gun Control: The notion that Matthew Shepard tied to a fence post in the middle of Wyoming is morally superior to Matthew Shepard explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got all those fatal bullet holes." ~Dan Weiner

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - Unknown

"Guns don't kill people, I do." - Duke Nukem
Couldnt help myself


"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." - Unknown

"You want more gun control? Use both hands." - Unknown

"I believe that guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do." - Larry the Cable Guy

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. - Mohandas Gandhi

The world would be so much nicer if people only used guns on themselves. - Johnny the Homicidal Maniac

"The first rule of firearms safety is to never mess with another man's woman" - Unknown

"Don't get in any gun fights with buffalo hunters. There ain't no such thing as cover

I feel much better now .

True, but guns were specifically designed for killing things at a distance.

Technically, some kinds of guns wouldn't work well at a distance. Also, one of the things that ake it good for hunting.

Why is it dropping in the US even though less "gun control" is becoming more common?


=

The Washington D.C., with a population of less than 600,000, had 194 slayings in 2005 (D. C. Area Slaying Climbed In 2005, The Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2006).

In Chicago, the number of various crimes exceeded 125,000 from January to September of 2005, including 352 murders, 11,564 robberies, 8,903 assaults and 534 arsons (http://egov.cityofchicago.org).

From January to mid-November of 2005, 334 persons were murdered in Philadelphia, exceeding the total number of murderees in the city in 2004 (Philly: 334 Killings So Far This Year, Philadelphia Daily News, Nov. 14,2005).

During the first half of 2005, 198 murders were reported in Los Angeles, 11 percent more than the same period of 2004 (Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2005).

Seventy-two people were murdered in Compton, California, with a population of only 96,000 (Compton Killings Highest in Years, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2, 2006). Camden in New Jersey has become the most dangerous city in the United States, with its homicide rate more than ten times the national average and robbery rate, more than seven times the national average (Camden, N.J., Ranked Most Dangerous U.S. City, The Washington Post, Nov. 22, 2005).

Check out the gun laws in those cities why dont ya .....

Mexico and Russia? Right? :D
I don't know about mexico. But in Russia the police is practically non-existant. The Mafia runs things and people are extremely poor.

Comparing yourselves to them is like saying you can beat up a 5 year old (no wait, you'd shoot him)

Right, near authoritarian gov'ts that can't/won't take care of their own people but have disarmed the ones who actually follow the law.

Now we need to mention the ones (again) with high ownership and low crime.

I don't claim absolute causality.

Technically, some kinds of guns wouldn't work well at a distance. Also, one of the things that ake it good for hunting.
Distance is a relitive term ... "AT a distance" can easily mean anything out of arms reach

Even an inaccurate pistol can be acurate enough to shoot someone out of hand weapon reach

.

Because, you know, you've proven guns are the cause of all that.

=

The Washington D.C., with a population of less than 600,000, had 194 slayings in 2005 (D. C. Area Slaying Climbed In 2005, The Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2006).

In Chicago, the number of various crimes exceeded 125,000 from January to September of 2005, including 352 murders, 11,564 robberies, 8,903 assaults and 534 arsons (http://egov.cityofchicago.org).

From January to mid-November of 2005, 334 persons were murdered in Philadelphia, exceeding the total number of murderees in the city in 2004 (Philly: 334 Killings So Far This Year, Philadelphia Daily News, Nov. 14,2005).

During the first half of 2005, 198 murders were reported in Los Angeles, 11 percent more than the same period of 2004 (Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2005).

Seventy-two people were murdered in Compton, California, with a population of only 96,000 (Compton Killings Highest in Years, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2, 2006). Camden in New Jersey has become the most dangerous city in the United States, with its homicide rate more than ten times the national average and robbery rate, more than seven times the national average (Camden, N.J., Ranked Most Dangerous U.S. City, The Washington Post, Nov. 22, 2005).

Check out the gun laws in those cities why dont ya .....

[/QUOTE]


Did you actually look at the laws in those places? Do you have a point?

I've come to realize that guns are part of society and will always be with us. But, we can do something to try and keep certain weapons off the streets. Like sub machine guns and assault rifles. I don't see the point of private citizens owning those kinds of guns.

Since they banned guns in the UK, gun-crime increased. All that a ban on guns did was stop our very fine Olympic marksmen from training.

Before the ban criminals bought guns by illegal means, nothing changes by making guns illegal.

Distance is a relitive term ... "AT a distance" can easily mean anything out of arms reach

Even an inaccurate pistol can be acurate enough to shoot someone out of hand weapon reach

Well, duh, but then most any bludegeoning object that goes beyond your arm would be included.

Or people with cars. Or steel tipped boots.




Or a laptop...not that I've tried that. >_>

I'm pretty sure more people have been murdered with guns than steel tipped boots and laptops. And I'm pretty sure more people have been shot intentionally than run over by a car intentionally.

Did you actually look at the laws in those places? Do you have a point?

You say that the crime rate is decreasing. That proved you wrong.

Since they banned guns in the UK, gun-crime increased. All that a ban on guns did was stop our very fine Olympic marksmen from training.

Before the ban criminals bought guns by illegal means, nothing changes by making guns illegal.

I'm not saying get rid of ALL guns. I'm just sayin we should try and get rid of assault rifles and sub machine guns. I know it's nearly impossible to entirely get rid of them but the government can at least try.

I'm pretty sure more people have been murdered with guns than steel tipped boots and laptops. And I'm pretty sure more people have been shot intentionally than run over by a car intentionally.

You'd think that. How about the number of people killed by thngs other than guns?

You say that the crime rate is decreasing. That proved you wrong.

What? You did like, two cities over two years. Look at the whole country, and how about some line graphs where the lines turn up after a loosening of gun control?

Technically, some kinds of guns wouldn't work well at a distance. Also, one of the things that ake it good for hunting.

Huh? What's the point of a projectile weapon that doesn't go very far.

You say that the crime rate is decreasing. That proved you wrong.

Gun crime is decreasing.

Huh? What's the point of a projectile weapon that doesn't go very far.

Medium range? Depends on what you mean by distance.

You say that the crime rate is decreasing. That proved you wrong.

Yes I did. Now if you would actually have looked at the post, the point was that in those areas, there are MORE restrictive laws in place.

And yes, the national crime rate is decreasing and has been for over 10 years.

Keep trying.

What? You did like, two cities over two years. Look at the whole country, and how about some line graphs where the lines turn up after a loosening of gun control?

Why don't you offer some evidence that the crime rate is decreasing.

I'm pretty sure more people have been murdered with guns than steel tipped boots and laptops. And I'm pretty sure more people have been shot intentionally than run over by a car intentionally.

Yet most of the deaths by firearm are using illegal firearms by convicted felons.

Well, duh, but then most any bludegeoning object that goes beyond your arm would be included.
Included in what? as far as I can tell we were not classifying a group?

I was just point out the OP was correct in what a gun was designed for without the infered stipulations.

More fodder...

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (56)



And I believe true to the origional posters idea of where this thread should be headed ?

unless by now he has run away screaming ....:D

people like Pat Robertson in power...thats a delusion...

Yes, it is. Pat Robertson is not in power.

The goverment needs to promote rsponsible gun ownership, put restrictions on certain weapons (assault rifles, sub machine guns, etc.) and crack down on the black markets for these kinds of weapons. Will that work? I don't know to tell you the truth. That's just what I think should be done.

Why don't you offer some evidence that the crime rate is decreasing.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

Why don't you offer some evidence that criminals can easily and legally obtain firearms in the US.

The goverment needs to promote rsponsible gun ownership, put restrictions on certain weapons (assault rifles, sub machine guns, etc.) and crack down on the black markets for these kinds of weapons. Will that work? I don't know to tell you the truth. That's just what I think should be done.

There have been heavy restrictions on fully automatic weapons since 1934. Most gun owners have very little problem w/ that.

Crime control must definately be addressed.

Yet most of the deaths by firearm are using illegal firearms by convicted felons.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm
From what I can tell at least in 2001 (all ages) most deaths by firearm were suicides actualy

That's why they need to crak down on the black markets on these kind of weapons. We also need to educate the public to the hazzards of these weapons, to help pevent kids from growing up to become assault rifle weilding criminals.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm
From what I can tell at least in 2001 (all ages) most deaths by firearm were suicides actualy

Yeah, I meant criminal deaths.

What we can offer...


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida ....................................United States
homicide rate -36%...................... -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37%............ +15%
handgun homicide rate -41%.......... +24%
(3)

http://www.collectorsarmoury.com.au/images/Photos/Girls%20and%20Guns%20Russian%20Hat.jpg
Hmm....Believable.

Or commies.

Why don't you offer some evidence that the crime rate is decreasing.

Well, the first thing that jumps out at me would be

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html

Why don't you offer some evidence that criminals can easily and legally obtain firearms in the US.

Ok you were right, i was wrong, crime is decreasing. However gun crime is still a huge problem. Illegally or legally, the fact that so many guns are getting produced in america means that its just so easy for criminals to get guns. For the record, it may be illegal but criminals with a record get guns all the time from gun shops with fake id's.

Yeah, I meant criminal deaths.
Ah ok ... been looking for that stat too ... but distracted by work lol

That's why they need to crak down on the black markets on these kind of weapons. We also need to educate the public to the hazzards of these weapons, to help pevent kids from growing up to become assault rifle weilding criminals.

I think a better plan would be to educate kids on the hazards of the kind of lifestyle that encourages them to grow up to be criminals.

Youth firearm safety courses are becoming more and more common. Guess who they're opposed by? The larger anti-gun groups.

Well there is also this...

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

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




the first thing that jumps out at me might get shot ;) :D

I think a better plan would be to educate kids on the hazards of the kind of lifestyle that encourages them to grow up to be criminals.

Youth firearm safety courses are becoming more and more common. Guess who they're opposed by? The larger anti-gun groups.

Larger anti-guns groups opposing them? WTF?!

What we can offer...
Nice try ... but like so many other of the people here you show no frigging data on how they effect eachother

I could show that candy sales in the US are on the rise while crime is on the fall ... does this mean candy sales have an inverse relationship with crime?

Fuck no

Quote all day your stats do not show a thing so far

Larger anti-guns groups opposing them? WTF?!

He's right.

Ok you were right, i was wrong, crime is decreasing. However gun crime is still a huge problem. Illegally or legally, the fact that so many guns are getting produced in america means that its just so easy for criminals to get guns. For the record, it may be illegal but criminals with a record get guns all the time from gun shops with fake id's.

Ey, we did our stuff. Right now you just sound like someone with hoplophobia, where's your tables and line graphs?

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

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


We win.

Nice try ... but like so many other of the people here you show no frigging data on how they effect eachother

I could show that candy sales in the US are on the rise while crime is on the fall ... does this mean candy sales have an inverse relationship with crime?

Fuck no

Quote all day your stats do not show a thing

Well, it would tell us that candy doesn't seem to increase crime, wouldn't it?

Ok you were right, i was wrong, crime is decreasing. However gun crime is still a huge problem. Illegally or legally, the fact that so many guns are getting produced in america means that its just so easy for criminals to get guns. For the record, it may be illegal but criminals with a record get guns all the time from gun shops with fake id's.

So that would be improving crime control, not restricting the rights of those who actually follow the law.

For the record, few firearms are obtained that way. Even so, there are projects in the work to curb even that.

http://www.dontlie.org/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=common/PR/&PR=012606.cfm

He's right.

I can't believe this. Oh, the hypocrasy!

We win.

Huh? That's stuff was either irrelavant, or against you.

Larger anti-guns groups opposing them? WTF?!

Yep, because they don't present firearms as others here have, that they'll jump off the table and kill you and your puppy all by themselves.

Nice try ... but like so many other of the people here you show no frigging data on how they effect eachother

I could show that candy sales in the US are on the rise while crime is on the fall ... does this mean candy sales have an inverse relationship with crime?

Fuck no

Quote all day your stats do not show a thing so far


Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.....

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

****** you should have your own cable show ******

Facts suck the problem with facts is that they can mean anything...:D

Right, near authoritarian gov'ts that can't/won't take care of their own people but have disarmed the ones who actually follow the law.

Now we need to mention the ones (again) with high ownership and low crime.

I don't claim absolute causality.

Not disarmed, most people never had guns and can't afford them. The reason for rampant crime in Russia is not the fact that most people don't have guns (and in case you haven't heard: it's very easy to obtain guns in russia).
If I have to explain to you why the Mafia runs Russia, then you're mentally challenged.

But anyway, that's not the main reason why Russia, of all places is the crappiest example you could use: Now, I realize that you most likely don't watch the news, but let's give it a try anyway. Do you remember the time they overthrew their OWN "oppressive government"? They didn't have any guns!
Yet somehow, they managed to overthrow the government with all it's tanks and machineguns? wtf? I thought that wasn't possible for anyone to accomplish without an assault-rifle and a cowboy hat?

Now we need to mention the ones with low ownership and super low crime.

...or maybe not, your weird custom of shooting each other to pieces is really none of my business.

Well, it would tell us that candy doesn't seem to increase crime, wouldn't it?
No it would tell us nothing ... they could be completely un related .... drawing two trends does not show ANY interaction between the two

Or there could be some underlying cause ... running a regression on the data would show things like Correlation Coefficient, Adjusted R^2. Variation about the mean. Trend, slope, interaction

But right now the information provided is not NEERLY enough to even begin to guess if there is actually a correlation at all

I can't believe this. Oh, the hypocrasy!

And this is exactly why the dabate is so big in the US. Things like this show that the groups don't really care about the children, or about safety, but about disarming the people who actually follow the laws.

Huh? That's stuff was either irrelavant, or against you.

I dont call this irrelavant: * In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

Ummm we have laws comming out of our ears..




Seems to make sens right ? Plus its been made tougher since 1968...

MORE laws ???

WTF for ????

Enforce the fucking laws you have ...
I'm all for more regulations regarding guns to a point. But... once again it's being proved to me that gun owners, at least ones that are able to debate about them on NS, know much more about gun law than I do.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.....



****** you should have your own cable show ******

Facts suck the problem with facts is that they can mean anything...:D
Sure can … that’s why responsible studies show things like R^2 and adjusted R^2, S^2

And if you want to be really thorough Autocorrelation on the stats.

So far you have show us two data sets without showing how they actually interact.

No it would tell us nothing ... they could be completely un related .... drawing two trends does not show ANY interaction between the two

Or there could be some underlying cause ... running a regression on the data would show things like Correlation Coefficient, Adjusted R^2. Variation about the mean. Trend, slope, interaction

But right now the information provided is not NEERLY enough to even begin to guess if there is actually a correlation at all

Exactly. Availability of guns and crime are probably completely unrelated. So...Gun Control for the sake of reducing crime would be stupid.

Look, owning a gun is good for self defense and all, but my problem with it is that we shouldnt have to.

I dont call this irrelavant:

And how many were there the year after? And the next year? Instantaneous stats aren't worth a thing.

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)
Remarkably, of the 15,289 murders and 7,927,000 violent crimes, 100% of them were committed by criminals. Let's work towards discouraging crime, not discouraging the tools of crime.

Look, owning a gun is good for self defense and all, but my problem with it is that we shouldnt have to.

Well, when you stop all crime, come back and talk.

Exactly. Availability of guns and crime are probably completely unrelated. So...Gun Control for the sake of reducing crime would be stupid.
Very possibly ... my exception in this thread has not been on one side or other of the issue. Rather on people trying to use silly stats to try to show things they dont show

All of it starts with the children. They need to be educated to stay away from guns and to tell them of the dangers. Poor children are more likely to go towards a life of crime so we need to try and improve the standard of living for poor people and get these kids a proper education so that they can gets jobs and not have to become criminals. Stopping it before it starts.

Not disarmed, most people never had guns and can't afford them. The reason for rampant crime in Russia is not the fact that most people don't have guns (and in case you haven't heard: it's very easy to obtain guns in russia).
If I have to explain to you why the Mafia runs Russia, then you're mentally challenged.


But anyway, that's not the main reason why Russia, of all places is the crappiest example you could use: Now, I realize that you most likely don't watch the news, but let's give it a try anyway. Do you remember the time they overthrew their OWN "oppressive government"? They didn't have any guns!
Yet somehow, they managed to overthrow the government with all it's tanks and machineguns? wtf? I thought that wasn't possible for anyone to accomplish without an assault-rifle and a cowboy hat?

Now we need to mention the ones with low ownership and super low crime.

...or maybe not, your weird custom of shooting each other to pieces is really none of my business.


Once again, I'm not claiming absolute causality. Please try and keep up. I've shown examples where it's easy to get guns legally and low crime, where it's hard to get guns LEGALLY and high crime. There are opposites as well.

And how many were there the year after? And the next year? Instantaneous stats aren't worth a thing.

Just because it goes down slowly each year doesn't mean that making guns less available would not have an affect on that figure.

Look, owning a gun is good for self defense and all, but my problem with it is that we shouldnt have to.

In an idealized world, yes. It would be nice.

Very possibly ... my exception in this thread has not been on one side or other of the issue. Rather on people trying to use silly stats to try to show things they dont show

Aye. Then again, when your oppnent is saying more guns = more crime, and you have things that would show Gun control = more crime, why not take the time to argue on their terms?

In an idealized world, yes. It would be nice.
Side note, you probably don't remember me, but a long time ago we had an extensive debate on the merits of gun control. You were pro-gun, I was anti-gun. Anyway, I didn't say it at the time, but you convinced me.

Aye. Then again, when your oppnent is saying more guns = more crime, and you have things that show Gun control = more crime, why not take the time to argue on their terms?
Because fudging the data really does not prove anything, it is but a temporary solution till one of them make you look bad for misusing statistics.

Just because it goes down slowly each year doesn't mean that making guns less available would not have an affect on that figure.

Apparently it seems as though it would. By making it double.
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%

Just because it goes down slowly each year doesn't mean that making guns less available would not have an affect on that figure.

And yet the UK proves that. Less legal availability yet there is still more crime.

Go after the criminals.

Actually, assault weapons (full auto or select fire) have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The term assault weapon (as it is used today) is a misnomer, as these firearms are only capable of semi auto fire (and have removable magazines). The states that still have assault weapons bans in their statutes have banned firearms that appear evil due to features that do nothing to increase the lethality of the firearms. Such features are:

a pistol grip
a collapsible or folding stock
a bayonet lug
a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher

Since grenades would be considered destructive devices (and therefore, not able to be possessed by normal citizens), having a grenade launcher on a semi auto weapon makes no difference. A flash suppressor does nothing to increase muzzle velocity or muzzle energy (and it doesn't prevent muzzle climb due to recoil, like a muzzle brake would). A bayonet lug is not sharp (it would make more sense to replace bayonet lugs with bayonets, on the list). A collapsible or folding stock does nothing that a fixed stock can't do(it may make shooting a firearm easier for an extended period of time, but it doesn't make a bullet from the firearm more dangerous).

Because fudging the data really does not prove anything, it is but a temporary solution till one of them make you look bad for misusing statistics.

How? I haven't fudged anything, I'm just arguing with them by their logic.

Side note, you probably don't remember me, but a long time ago we had an extensive debate on the merits of gun control. You were pro-gun, I was anti-gun. Anyway, I didn't say it at the time, but you convinced me.

Now I know you're lying. Nobody is ever convinced on a NS debate. :)

Have you ever gone shooting since then?

...or maybe not, your weird custom of shooting each other to pieces is really none of my business.


FINALY ...someone who GETS it !!!

Just why is it some of us feel its OK to shoot ...rob ...rape and murder at such a high rate ????

Fuck gun controll...how about IMPULSE controll ...SELF controll...CRIMINAL controll ???

Thats the biggest question..WHY do we insist in shooting each other to pieces at such an alarming rate ?

FUCKING IRAQ HAS LESS MURDERS PER CAPITA THAN SOME CITIES IN THE US !!!! ....UMMM EXCUSE ME...LESS " VIOLENT " death per capita ...WTF is wrong with that picture ?

IRAQ IS IN A FUCKING WAR ....ITS SAFER TO WALK AROUND IRAQ THAN FUCKING DETROIT OR CAMDEN N.J . ??????????

facts suck...

Now tell me there's gun controll in Iraq ?

How? I haven't fudged anything, I'm just arguing with them by their logic.
Sorry what I meant by “Fudged” is misuse and intentionally misinterpret what the data actually shows in order to take a pot shot under “their logic”

Personally I feel it is much more effective to prove them wrong in reality then in fiction (even if it is a fictional setup that they created)

Personally I feel it is much more effective to prove them wrong in reality then in fiction (even if it is a fictional setup that they created)

Well, how would you propose going about that?

Now I know you're lying. Nobody is ever convinced on a NS debate. :)

Have you ever gone shooting since then?
Heaven's no. I don't own a gun or anything, though I've shot one a few times in the past because my uncle has a collection. I just think that we should be working towards taking away people's reasons for shooting each other rather than their means to do so. Think about it this way: if there was no demand for projectile firing weapons of intimidation, we wouldn't need to worry about the supply.

Apparently it seems as though it would. By making it double.

All crime was increasing massively then anyway. Guns were getting sold in the black market loads and the police did nothing about it. If the police would do both then the problem would go away.

Also the UKs murder rate is absolutely nothing compared to america. Even if it's rising.

FINALY ...someone who GETS it !!!

Just why is it some of us feel its OK to shoot ...rob ...rape and murder at such a high rate ????

Fuck gun controll...how about IMPULSE controll ...SELF controll...CRIMINAL controll ???

Thats the biggest question..WHY do we insist in shooting each other to pieces at such an alarming rate ?

FUCKING IRAQ HAS LESS MURDERS PER CAPITA THAN SOME CITIES IN THE US !!!! ....UMMM EXCUSE ME...LESS " VIOLENT " death per capita ...WTF is wrong with that picture ?

IRAQ IS IN A FUCKING WAR ....ITS SAFER TO WALK AROUND IRAQ THAN FUCKING DETROIT OR CAMDEN N.J . ??????????

facts suck...

Now tell me there's gun controll in Iraq ?
Now those facts (assuming that they are correct) are actually used in a correct manor, (assuming again you are looking ad per-capita stats)
YAY

All crime was increasing massively then anyway. Guns were getting sold in the black market loads and the police did nothing about it. If the police would do both then the problem would go away.

...So...They didn't ban guns "correctly" you say?

Well, how would you propose going about that?
There are quite a few studies out there … they are hard to find personally (as they are published in stats journals) that will show you what the data REALLY means.

Ill try to dig up some from when I was getting my minor … I know there were a few good gun stats studies in there.

...So...They didn't ban guns "correctly" you say?
I think what he was saying is they banned the illegal sale without doing nearly enough to take out the illegal sale.

Fudge is fattening...more pesky facts...

* The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law. (24)(19)

* This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Guns manufactured before September 14th, 1994 were grandfathered. Guns manufactured after this date (for use by the military, police, and government agencies) must be marked with the date they are manufactured. (24)(41)(47)

* To identify an assault weapon, this bill uses objective criteria, along with a list of 19 specific guns. (24)

* For example, semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor. (24)

* An assault weapon, as defined by this bill, does not include fully automatic machine guns. Since 1934, a civilian must obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully automatic weapon. (3)(64)

* In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated:
"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts." (25)

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

* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet. (3)

* The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban. (22)

...So...They didn't ban guns "correctly" you say?

If you want to put it that way then yes. However i think it's too late to ban guns. the damage is done and you can't stop it.

I think what he was saying is they banned the illegal sale without doing nearly enough to take out the illegal sale.

...I'd like a source for that, personally.

...I'd like a source for that, personally.
I would agree

If you want to put it that way then yes. However i think it's too late to ban guns. the damage is done and you can't stop it.

...So...Might you be able to direct me to your point then? Or maybe I should be showing it's not damage. *shrug* Feh.

...I'd like a source for that, personally.

Have you ever heard of the mafia?

Heaven's no. I don't own a gun or anything, though I've shot one a few times in the past because my uncle has a collection. I just think that we should be working towards taking away people's reasons for shooting each other rather than their means to do so. Think about it this way: if there was no demand for projectile firing weapons of intimidation, we wouldn't need to worry about the supply.

You don't have to own one. I'ld bet NS money that if you went to a local range/shop and talked to them, they'ld rent one and provide lessons.

As for the other part, there will always be a demand for firearms, legally or illegally. In home defense, it's an equalizer. Should someone break into my home (especially when I'm away) I wouldn't expect my wife to be able to fight them off w/ her bare hands. I also wouldn't want her to get close enough to try or use a bat, etc. She knows very well how to use our shotgun. That's just one of the many uses we have them for.

As for the criminals, it's part of the criminal culture. It's a status symbol. That creates a demand right there.

Have you ever heard of the mafia?

I thnk I played a few video games where I work for 'em...and there was that set of movies...Source please?

You don't have to own one. I'ld bet NS money that if you went to a local range/shop and talked to them, they'ld rent one and provide lessons.
I think Canada's a little different. I've never even seen a gun shop, and I live in a major city.

As for the other part, there will always be a demand for firearms, legally or illegally. In home defense, it's an equalizer. Should someone break into my home (especially when I'm away) I wouldn't expect my wife to be able to fight them off w/ her bare hands. I also wouldn't want her to get close enough to try or use a bat, etc. She knows very well how to use our shotgun. That's just one of the many uses we have them for.

As for the criminals, it's part of the criminal culture. It's a status symbol. That creates a demand right there.
You're assuming the demand for crime in general will always remain constant.

You don't have to own one. I'ld bet NS money that if you went to a local range/shop and talked to them, they'ld rent one and provide lessons.

As for the other part, there will always be a demand for firearms, legally or illegally. In home defense, it's an equalizer. Should someone break into my home (especially when I'm away) I wouldn't expect my wife to be able to fight them off w/ her bare hands. I also wouldn't want her to get close enough to try or use a bat, etc. She knows very well how to use our shotgun. That's just one of the many uses we have them for.

As for the criminals, it's part of the criminal culture. It's a status symbol. That creates a demand right there.
I think he was dreaming of the bright future where we reduce the criminal culture all togeather ... without a criminal culture there would be very little need for selfdefense with one

Probably not reasonable but a noble dream none the less

I thnk I played a few video games where I work for 'em...and there was that set of movies...Source please?

Hmmm, im not sure where to find it, but the government tried to deny the mafias existance. It's been on tv countless times.

More pesky facts ...

* 1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents



Its hard to find recent figures but they must be higher ..

* Private Firearm Ownership in the U.S. as of 1993/1994:

...Households With a Gun ................Adults Owning a Gun
........Percentage 49% .................................31%
.....Total number 47,600,000 ...................59,100,000

I think Canada's a little different. I've never even seen a gun shop, and I live in a major city.

City. There ya go. Go out into a small town.


You're assuming the demand for crime in general will always remain constant.

Yes. I'm a pessimist.

Hmmm, im not sure where to find it, but the government tried to deny the mafias existance. It's been on tv countless times.

You know what else I saw on TV? There was this guy...well, not really a guy, more of a mouse...Infact, that's what they called him. Mouse. Mickey Mouse. I think he had a club. With Mouseketeers. You see, it's a portmantaeu of "Mouse" and "Musketeer".

You know what else I saw on TV? There was this guy...well, not really a guy, more of a mouse...Infact, that's what they called him. Mouse. Mickey Mouse. I think he had a club. With Mouseketeers. You see, it's a portmantaeu of "Mouse" and "Musketeer".

Can someone lead this guy to a link about the governments denial of the mafia, it's 100% true.

Guns don't kill people; ninjas kill people.

Guns don't kill people; ninjas kill people.

And Pirates kill Ninjas. Unless it's a Doctor Ninja, in which case the pirates get owned.

Guns don't kill people; ninjas kill people.

Only if Chuck Norris isn't there.

Only if Chuck Norris isn't there.

Here we go...

Can someone lead this guy to a link about the governments denial of the mafia, it's 100% true.


Who's " Government " Russia or the US ?

The FBI under Hoover at one time claimed there was no proof of a mafia..But thats long been a destroyed argument .

Russia is run by the Mafia. If you are to believe " informed " sources and the people who lived there and moved to the US because of the mafia in russia ...

But I have never been to Russia and wouldnt know a Mafia guy until he robbed me sold me stuff or shot/ stabbed/ beat me .

Who's " Government " Russia or the US ?

The FBI under Hoover at one time claimed there was no proof of a mafia..But thats long been a destroyed argument .
.

OK so there you go, at the time the FBI denied it was there and therefore did next to nothing to crack down on it.

Here we go...

Sorry, you aren't intresting enough to keep us entertained anymore...Bring in the next court jester! And give him a pie!

OK so there you go, at the time the FBI denied it was there and therefore did next to nothing to crack down on it.

And how exactly were you planning on showing that
1) the FBI wasn't doing anything
2) there was something they could have done
and
3) that doing something would have stopped the rate from doubling.

Guns should only be in the hands of the responsible which means that neither the government or the people should really have any..... :D

OK so there you go, at the time the FBI denied it was there and therefore did next to nothing to crack down on it.

Over fifty years ago. Got anything recent?

And how exactly were you planning on showing that
1) the FBI wasn't doing anything
2) there was something they could have done
and
3) that doing something would have stopped the rate from doubling.

It wouldn't stop it from doubling because the mafia was still growing along with the death rate. As well as the genral amount of criminals about. However, as i said before, the damage is done and it's too late to do anything about it now.

It wouldn't stop it from doubling because the mafia was still growing along with the death rate. As well as the genral amount of criminals about. However, as i said before, the damage is done and it's too late to do anything about it now.

Prove it.

Over fifty years ago. Got anything recent?

Ok, compare england to america, EVEN IF the murder rate is rising. It's absolutely nothing compared to the murder rate in america. With two thirds of them being gun related.

Guns don't kill people, rappers do

Guns don't kill people, rappers do

Havn't heard that one before...

Ok, compare england to america, EVEN IF the murder rate is rising. It's absolutely nothing compared to the murder rate in america. With two thirds of them being gun related.

And? The US and the UK are two very ddifferent countries. If you could show that the difference in murder rates is mostly caused by guns, instead of commited with them...

Ok, compare england to america, EVEN IF the murder rate is rising. It's absolutely nothing compared to the murder rate in america. With two thirds of them being gun related.

And round and round we go.

Translation: I really don't have anything to back up my arguement so I'll keep falling back on the "UK is lower" arguement and going LALALALALALAL even though some countries w/ higher ownership levels have lower crime/murder rates.

It wouldn't stop it from doubling because the mafia was still growing along with the death rate. As well as the genral amount of criminals about. However, as i said before, the damage is done and it's too late to do anything about it now.

No seriously, maybe like, a map leading me to the point you're making by debating here.

And? The US and the UK are two very ddifferent countries. If you could show that the difference in murder rates is mostly caused by guns, instead of commited with them...

It's common sence, it's much more easier to kill multiple people with guns then it is with a knife. Also, i consider england to be very violent, with all those chavs and that.

It's common sence, it's much more easier to kill multiple people with guns then it is with a knife. Also, i consider england to be very violent, with all those chavs and that.

ANd hence why the murder/crime rate in the UK is climbing.

Still has nothing to do w/ legal firearm ownership.

No seriously, maybe like, a map leading me to the point you're making by debating here.

That it should never have been done in the first place.

ANd hence why the murder/crime rate in the UK is climbing.

Still has nothing to do w/ legal firearm ownership.

For gods sake! For the 100000th time it's still thousands of times lower then the US. The murder rate is rising because more and more guns are being imported.

That it should never have been done in the first place.

Mind-blowing. Now, considering that was never in dispute....why are you here again?

For gods sake! For the 100000th time it's still thousands of times lower then the US. The murder rate is rising because more and more guns are being imported.

Prove it.