NationStates Jolt Archive

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.

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

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!

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

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.

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

Interesting little slogans that I found while researching for my debate case :p (Explanations are my little musings.)

Hark! Do I hear the ravings of a North American Hoplophobe? Or is it one of the European breeds?

Hark! Do I hear the ravings of a North American Hoplophobe? Or is it one of the European breeds?

Yes, it's a hoplophobe.

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.

One who thinks we've had huge increases in murder, rape, and robbery (even though there's been a 65 percent decline over the past 10 years). And this occurred while there was a 50 % increase in the number of guns owned, and a doubling of the number of states that allowed easy concealed carry permit acquisition.

Yes, another ignoramous.

You forgot one:

"Hitler was for gun control"

Hoplophobe is a stretch. I'm not afraid of weapons; I just dislike them.

You forgot one:

"Hitler was for gun control"


Damn, well, he was also anti-smoking, too, now that you mention it.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people because of SIN"

That's my favourite; though not officially an NRA slogan it was displayed in an opinion piece featured at their website :)

Yes, it's a hoplophobe.

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.

One who thinks we've had huge increases in murder, rape, and robbery (even though there's been a 65 percent decline over the past 10 years). And this occurred while there was a 50 % increase in the number of guns owned, and a doubling of the number of states that allowed easy concealed carry permit acquisition.

Yes, another ignoramous.


You're calling ME ignorant when you:

A. Can't cite statistics because you have no clue where I'm from
B. Claim to be clairvoyant in knowing what /else/ I think

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.
.

Lol yeah i like not telling the truth as well.


One who thinks we've had huge increases in murder, rape, and robbery (even though there's been a 65 percent decline over the past 10 years).

Lol, again, its pretty fun not telling the truth but maybe you should stop.


And this occurred while there was a 50 % increase in the number of guns owned, and a doubling of the number of states that allowed easy concealed carry permit acquisition.
Yes, another ignoramous.

Ok thats enough lies, time for truth telling next time.

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.
Just curious, do you have a source for that? And did you mean US or worldwide, or what?

Computers don't start stupid threads; people do.

You're calling ME ignorant when you:

A. Can't cite statistics because you have no clue where I'm from
B. Claim to be clairvoyant in knowing what /else/ I think

Now you're going to look like an ass. I've quoted these statistics MANY times before.

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

Just curious, do you have a source for that? And did you mean US or worldwide, or what?
In the US.

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

Gun control is using both hands. Now that one is true (I use both hands when I shoot!)


Bleh, you gun control people need to go away. If you want to get rid of guns so much, why don't you pay a trip to my house and try? :eek:

Yes, it's a hoplophobe.

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.

One who thinks we've had huge increases in murder, rape, and robbery (even though there's been a 65 percent decline over the past 10 years). And this occurred while there was a 50 % increase in the number of guns owned, and a doubling of the number of states that allowed easy concealed carry permit acquisition.

Yes, another ignoramous.
Oh please posting correlations without a measure of their accuracy is pure masturbation.

I might as well say that “candy sales are on the rise the last 10 years while violent crimes are on the decline so candy sales have an inverse effect on violent crime statistics”

It is worthless without a gauge to correlation.

Now you're going to look like an ass. I've quoted these statistics MANY times before.

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


I'm so sorry that I forgot to check my records of all of your postings. I'll make sure to do that next time!


Additionally, those statistics are from the United States Dept. of Justice. Just because I'm "raving" about the NRA does not mean that I live in the United States.

Lol yeah i like not telling the truth as well.



Lol, again, its pretty fun not telling the truth but maybe you should stop.



Ok thats enough lies, time for truth telling next time.

Fact: Crime in the US has been dropping for over a decade.
Fact: Firearm ownership levels have increased in the US
Fact: Firearm laws restricting those who follow it have been relaxed

Go to any US gov website.

Absolute causality? No

Guns=crime? No

Oh please posting correlations without a measure of their accuracy is pure masturbation.

I might as well say that “candy sales are on the rise the last 10 years while violent crimes are on the decline so candy sales have an inverse effect on violent crime statistics”

It is worthless without a gauge to correlation.



Peach-Os were deemed to be the most effective of all fruit flavoured candies when fighting violent crime.

Additionally, those statistics are from the United States Dept. of Justice. Just because I'm "raving" about the NRA does not mean that I live in the United States.

Of course not, because second only to football, US bashing is the favourite pasttime of non-US citizens. :rolleyes:

Oh please posting correlations without a measure of their accuracy is pure masturbation.

I might as well say that “candy sales are on the rise the last 10 years while violent crimes are on the decline so candy sales have an inverse effect on violent crime statistics”

It is worthless without a gauge to correlation.

And yet the OP made correlations, red-herrings, and slippery-slopes galore w/o a bit of evidence to support. Why not include him?

Fact: Crime in the US has been dropping for over a decade.
Fact: Firearm ownership levels have increased in the US
Fact: Firearm laws restricting those who follow it have been relaxed

Go to any US gov website.

Absolute causality? No

Guns=crime? No



If you had actually bothered to read anything that I have wrote, you would find that I am not claiming that guns turn ordinary individuals into foaming serial killers; I said that guns merely make it much easier to kill/ commit violent crime. They escalate disagreements.

Yes, it's a hoplophobe.

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.

One who thinks we've had huge increases in murder, rape, and robbery (even though there's been a 65 percent decline over the past 10 years). And this occurred while there was a 50 % increase in the number of guns owned, and a doubling of the number of states that allowed easy concealed carry permit acquisition.

Yes, another ignoramous.

Have collation methods been change in the last 10 years at all? After all, the American government wouldn't be the first to tweak statistics to show themselves in a more favourable light would they?

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.
The point of the slogan is that it's foolish to attempt to legislate a tool, when one should legislate against the user of said tool who uses it in an unlawful way.
The saying means that without a person, a gun is useless. That part is still very true.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!
The point of this slogan is that once legislation is passed outlawing guns, law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the only ones left with guns will be those who don't follow the law in the first place.
In effect punishing the ones who follow the law, and leave the law breakers alone.

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.
Now who's being idiotic? Show me any pro-2nd ammendment person who argues for personal ownership of nuclear arms...
Every human on the planet has the basic human right to self defense. A gun is simply a tool of self defense, therefor every human on the planet should have the right to own a gun.

Interesting little slogans that I found while researching for my debate case :p (Explanations are my little musings.)
It would help if you could understand the meaning behind the slogan. Make for a more intelligent debate. Don't you think?

I'm so sorry that I forgot to check my records of all of your postings. I'll make sure to do that next time!


Additionally, those statistics are from the United States Dept. of Justice. Just because I'm "raving" about the NRA does not mean that I live in the United States.

Other facts about the NRA:

Provides firearm safety education to childred
provides safety and proficiency training to law enforcement
provides firearm safety and proficiency to non-law enforcement, especially self defense classes for women
Assists those who have been improperly arrested or had property illegally confiscated in firearm related cases.

These evil bastards must be stopped.

Of course not, because second only to football, US bashing is the favourite pasttime of non-US citizens. :rolleyes:


Okay, along the lines of generalisations:


All United States citizens are borderline-retarded, warmongering, arrogant, fundamentalist, gun-toting rednecks.

If you had actually bothered to read anything that I have wrote, you would find that I am not claiming that guns turn ordinary individuals into foaming serial killers; I said that guns merely make it much easier to kill/ commit violent crime. They escalate disagreements.

And yet even w/ an increase in ownership, there have been less "escalated disagreements".

They also make it much easier to defend against violent crime.

Yes, it's a hoplophobe.

One who is remarkably ignorant of the fact that 94 percent of violent crime is committed without firearms.

One who thinks we've had huge increases in murder, rape, and robbery (even though there's been a 65 percent decline over the past 10 years). And this occurred while there was a 50 % increase in the number of guns owned, and a doubling of the number of states that allowed easy concealed carry permit acquisition.

Yes, another ignoramous.
What is a hoplophobe?

Have collation methods been change in the last 10 years at all? After all, the American government wouldn't be the first to tweak statistics to show themselves in a more favourable light would they?
No, these statistics are pretty constant across the US, whether the data is collected by the states, the Feds, or other agencies.

What is a hoplophobe?
Someone who hates guns/gun owners

Fact: Crime in the US has been dropping for over a decade.
Fact: Firearm ownership levels have increased in the US
Fact: Firearm laws restricting those who follow it have been relaxed

Go to any US gov website.

Absolute causality? No

Guns=crime? No

Fact: most types of violent crime CAN'T be commited with a gun. (Rapes, punching in the face... etc..) so that statistic is flawed. A more apropiate statistic to use would be:

2/3 of all murders in the US are with guns.

Fact: the fact that more firearms being sold and crime is decreasing is not mutualy exclusive.

What is a hoplophobe?

Fear of firearms. Ussually attributed to those who know absolutely nothing about firearms except from the movies but still think they should set policy.

And yet the OP made correlations, red-herrings, and slippery-slopes galore w/o a bit of evidence to support. Why not include him?
Because the OP did not make a claim that stats supported his position. Having no evidence is not nearly as intresting lol

The point of the slogan is that it's foolish to attempt to legislate a tool, when one should legislate against the user of said tool who uses it in an unlawful way.
The saying means that without a person, a gun is useless. That part is still very true.


** Somehow, I remember the NRA being against regulations on gun owners. See: Waiting periods, databases, etc.


The point of this slogan is that once legislation is passed outlawing guns, law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the only ones left with guns will be those who don't follow the law in the first place.
In effect punishing the ones who follow the law, and leave the law breakers alone.

**Or, by outlawing all guns, the supply is drastically decreased; thence, prices rise due to supply and demand, and the black market substantially shrinks. Unless, of course, all old guns are grandfathered, which, in that case, there would need to be a buy-off by the government to prevent a flourishing black market.


Now who's being idiotic? Show me any pro-2nd ammendment person who argues for personal ownership of nuclear arms...
Every human on the planet has the basic human right to self defense. A gun is simply a tool of self defense, therefor every human on the planet should have the right to own a gun.

** /Sarcasm. I obviously don't advocate nuclear proliferation; I was merely pointing out the logical lapses in the argument of how gun control is an unfair burden to the average "law-abiding gun owner".


It would help if you could understand the meaning behind the slogan. Make for a more intelligent debate. Don't you think?


See: Above.

Edit: Comments set off by astericies are my own.

Okay, along the lines of generalisations:


All United States citizens are borderline-retarded, warmongering, arrogant, fundamentalist, gun-toting rednecks.


Ahh, but the difference is, most non-americans' favorite pastime IS america-bashing. At least on these forums that's the impression conveyed. Same with the Atheist-And-Proud-Of-It #1 hobby being baiting Christians.

Okay, along the lines of generalisations:


All United States citizens are borderline-retarded, warmongering, arrogant, fundamentalist, gun-toting rednecks.

Why I oughtta... I'ma gonna go get mah shotgun and invade ya ass 'cause Jesus wants me to! Now where'd I park mah tractor?

No, these statistics are pretty constant across the US, whether the data is collected by the states, the Feds, or other agencies.

You misunderstand me, the comparison is being made over a period of time so I need to know if the methods used to collect and interpret the data has changed at all otherwise the comparsion becomes meaningless.

Ahh, but the difference is, most non-americans' favorite pastime IS america-bashing. At least on these forums that's the impression conveyed. Same with the Atheist-And-Proud-Of-It #1 hobby being baiting Christians.


So you're saying that generalisations are accurate when they insult a group other than your own?

Please correct me if I assumed, incorrectly, that you were an American.

See: Above.

Edit: Comments set off by astericies are my own.

1: The NRA is not against all regulations (see NCIS) They are opposed to regulations that only effect those who affect those who follow the law in the first place and have no recognizable effect escept to restrict/hinder private ownership (see waiting periods, databases)

2. Just like in the UK where gun crime has INCREASED since the latest ban, the black market has increased and the populace is helpless.

3. The "logical lapse" is the slippery-slope of firearms=nukes.

You misunderstand me, the comparison is being made over a period of time so I need to know if the methods used to collect and interpret the data has changed at all otherwise the comparsion becomes meaningless.

Data collection info:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

Someone who hates guns/gun owners
Strange, neither wikitionary nor thefreedictionary.com nor dictionary.com have a listing for it. I guess hoplo- comes from the ancient greek hoplites. And since anti-gay people started getting called homophobes people seem to think -phobe means hate. Silly people.

Fact: most types of violent crime CAN'T be commited with a gun. (Rapes, punching in the face... etc..) so that statistic is flawed. A more apropiate statistic to use would be:

2/3 of all murders in the US are with guns.
Incorrect. There isn't a violent crime that can't be commited with a gun. As long as the one doing the crime is threatening with the gun, it's involved in the crime.

Fact: the fact that more firearms being sold and crime is decreasing is not mutualy exclusive.
The point being that the more guns does not mean more crime, just as more guns does not mean less crime.

1: The NRA is not against all regulations (see NCIS) They are opposed to regulations that only effect those who affect those who follow the law in the first place and have no recognizable effect escept to restrict/hinder private ownership (see waiting periods, databases)


No effect as determined by whom? The NRA? What would some of those restrictions be that would fall under that umbrella of "ownership discouragement"?


2. Just like in the UK where gun crime has INCREASED since the latest ban, the black market has increased and the populace is helpless.

Helpless is a great stretch. Also, prove a direct correlation. To which ban are you referring? Because, usually ownership increases right before a ban, then, those newly-bought guns are sold into the black market; hence, a short-term increase in crime. That's why statistics as such are viewed in the long term, to analyse trends.


3. The "logical lapse" is the slippery-slope of firearms=nukes.

They're both arms, aren't they? The second amendment of the US constitution protects the right to "bear arms," doesn't it?

So you're saying that generalisations are accurate when they insult a group other than your own?

Please correct me if I assumed, incorrectly, that you were an American.


Nah, i'm from the good ol' U of K. And I'm not Christian either. I'm just saying that the impression given by a lot of people who aren't American on these boards fits very neatly into such generalisations. So I think he can be forgiven for making them in the first place.

The point being that the more guns does not mean more crime, just as more guns does not mean less crime.

It does mean that it's much easier to murder so the murder rate will increase as a result.

They're both arms, aren't they? The second amendment of the US constitution protects the right to "bear arms," doesn't it?
LOL. You obviously know nothing about the Second Amendment. You see, in the late eighteenth century it was quite fashionable to wear bear fur on jacket sleeves, thus "bear arms", and the framers of the amendment refused to allow the right to wear them to be infringed. Do some research next time, before you make ridiculous claims.

Nah, i'm from the good ol' U of K. And I'm not Christian either. I'm just saying that the impression given by a lot of people who aren't American on these boards fits very neatly into such generalisations. So I think he can be forgiven for making them in the first place.


I digress on your nationality, then.


Though, Nationstates isn't the most accurate of representative demographic samples. :p

It does mean that it's much easier to murder so the murder rate will increase as a result.


If you really, REALLY want to murder someone, you'll find a way, gun or no gun. We used to fight wars without them, remember?

** Somehow, I remember the NRA being against regulations on gun owners. See: Waiting periods, databases, etc.
Then you are mistaken. The NRA has never been for complete unrestricted gun ownership. They support instant background checks among other reasonable requirements for gun ownership.
**Or, by outlawing all guns, the supply is drastically decreased; thence, prices rise due to supply and demand, and the black market substantially shrinks. Unless, of course, all old guns are grandfathered, which, in that case, there would need to be a buy-off by the government to prevent a flourishing black market.
Again, you really don't know what you are talking about. Outlawing all guns would have little or no effect on the number of guns in circulation. In fact I believe it would increase the number. Look at prohibition.
** /Sarcasm. I obviously don't advocate nuclear proliferation; I was merely pointing out the logical lapses in the argument of how gun control is an unfair burden to the average "law-abiding gun owner".

See: Above.

Edit: Comments set off by astericies are my own.
You didn't point out anything of the sort. The argument is, every human has the right to self defense. A gun is a tool of self defense. Every human should have the right to own a gun, until such time as they give up that right themselves, i.e. use a gun to commit a crime.

In the UK in crime surveys the method of "counting" crimes has altered in recent years.

For example previously if a group of, say, three people were threatened/attacked by one person it would count as one crime (because there was one criminal). But now it would count as three crimes (as there were three victims).

The government over here assures us that crime is on the decrease too. :)

Can I just ask (out of genuine curiosity) where the crime statistics you are using come from? Is it police statistics or maybe it's the British Crime Survey (which is quite an interesting source of information)?

If you really, REALLY want to murder someone, you'll find a way, gun or no gun. We used to fight wars without them, remember?
What about the people who only kind of want to murder someone?

If you really, REALLY want to murder someone, you'll find a way, gun or no gun. We used to fight wars without them, remember?


But, think about it. Are you more likely to murder someone when all that you have to do is pull a trigger, or, when you have to bloody them with your bare hands?

They're both arms, aren't they? The second amendment of the US constitution protects the right to "bear arms," doesn't it?



1. No, effect as determined by numerous studies by the CDC, DOJ, FBI, LOC, etc.

Forcing people to purchase thousand dollar safes for $100 handguns. Warrantless inspections, outragous fees, liscensing, etc. Restricted registration, etc. All things that have been done.

2. Now since you've previously made the comment of "not reading what I wrote", Why don't you go back and read what I've written on causality. Why don't you show the ownership levels in the UK right before the ban? You've already claimed that it should have decreased the supply and black market.

3.No, that would be ordinance. "Arms" are considered to be man-portable small arms.

It does mean that it's much easier to murder so the murder rate will increase as a result.

And yet it hasn't happened in the US.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!


That's true.

Somehow I think that speech and gun use take different spots on the necessity scale.

It does mean that it's much easier to murder so the murder rate will increase as a result.
Incorrect assumption, and one that has been proven wrong. The murder rate has not risen in proportion with gun ownership. Infact it has dropped.
More guns does not mean more murder.
More guns does not mean less murder.
It's pretty simply really.

In the UK in crime surveys the method of "counting" crimes has altered in recent years.

For example previously if a group of, say, three people were threatened/attacked by one person it would count as one crime (because there was one criminal). But now it would count as three crimes (as there were three victims).

The government over here assures us that crime is on the decrease too. :)

Can I just ask (out of genuine curiosity) where the crime statistics you are using come from? Is it police statistics or maybe it's the British Crime Survey (which is quite an interesting source of information)?

This is exactly what I was getting at, Kecibukia the site you linked me to just has the number and not how the data was collated.

Incidentally, it also shows no comparison between the numbers of guns in circulation and the violent crime rate.

You misunderstand me, the comparison is being made over a period of time so I need to know if the methods used to collect and interpret the data has changed at all otherwise the comparsion becomes meaningless.
Well not meaningless there are ways to gauge change across datum … its not easy but it can be done

This is exactly what I was getting at, Kecibukia the site you linked me to just has the number and not how the data was collated.

Incidentally, it also shows no comparison between the numbers of guns in circulation and the violent crime rate.

I didn't do the direct link. The collection methods are in .pdf's at the bottom plus in the various years.

But, think about it. Are you more likely to murder someone when all that you have to do is pull a trigger, or, when you have to bloody them with your bare hands?


what's the difference? As far as i can work out, the only way that more guns could = more murders is by accident - i.e. the ease of killing someone with a gun, as opposed to whatever. But someone prepared to intentionally murder someone else for whatever reason - if that reason's strong enough to kill, would not having a gun really dissaude them?

And yet it hasn't happened in the US.
Do you have a source for the murder rates immediately before and after the US constitution was written?

Well not meaningless there are ways to gauge change across datum … its not easy but it can be done

True, my post was unclear. I want to know the changes in collection and interpretation methods. Only then can a meaningful comparison be made.

Then you are mistaken. The NRA has never been for complete unrestricted gun ownership. They support instant background checks among other reasonable requirements for gun ownership.

I didn't use the words "complete" and "unrestricted". I said: that they are generally in disfavour of regulations, gun control, etc.


Again, you really don't know what you are talking about. Outlawing all guns would have little or no effect on the number of guns in circulation. In fact I believe it would increase the number. Look at prohibition.

Please, tell me how curbing the production of guns would not effect the number of guns in circulation. Prohibition was a failure due to lax enforcement. Furthermore, I don't ever remember saying that we should outlaw all guns. I am, personally, for: a ban on handguns, save when dire circumstances call, ban on assault weapons (uzis, etc.), and, one must get a federal permit, and, for greater enforcement on our gun control laws for rifles.


You didn't point out anything of the sort. The argument is, every human has the right to self defense. A gun is a tool of self defense. Every human should have the right to own a gun, until such time as they give up that right themselves, i.e. use a gun to commit a crime.


A gun is, and has been proven to be, not merely a tool of self defence, but, additionally, a favoured tool of murder.

I digress on your nationality, then.


Though, Nationstates isn't the most accurate of representative demographic samples. :p

That's my point man. The people here who most whine about generalisations always seem to be the ones that they most fit. Um present company excepted.

Incorrect assumption, and one that has been proven wrong. The murder rate has not risen in proportion with gun ownership. Infact it has dropped.
More guns does not mean more murder.
More guns does not mean less murder.
It's pretty simply really.
Incorrect conclusion. His assumption has not been proven wrong. In fact, neither side of the assumption has been proven. The worldwide data has, in fact, been terribly inconclusive as to the correlation between gun ownership and crime rate.

But your conclusion is more in line with the data than his, I'll give you that.

A gun is, and has been proven to be, not merely a tool of self defence, but, additionally, a favoured tool of murder.
Your point is?
The number of defensive gun uses dwarfs the number of gun crimes.
Direct your energies to enforcing gun use laws and you will see a much better return on your investment than if you legislate a tool.

A gun is, and has been proven to be, not merely a tool of self defence, but, additionally, a favoured tool of murder.

And there are more cases of self-defense alone (not to mention all the other legal uses) than there are murders. The fact is is that the majority of murders are by people who don't legally own the firearms in the first place so further restrictions on those who legally own them would just be another piece proving that the laws are just restrictions on those who follow them.

1. No, effect as determined by numerous studies by the CDC, DOJ, FBI, LOC, etc.

Forcing people to purchase thousand dollar safes for $100 handguns. Warrantless inspections, outragous fees, liscensing, etc. Restricted registration, etc. All things that have been done.

2. Now since you've previously made the comment of "not reading what I wrote", Why don't you go back and read what I've written on causality. Why don't you show the ownership levels in the UK right before the ban? You've already claimed that it should have decreased the supply and black market.

3.No, that would be ordinance. "Arms" are considered to be man-portable small arms.


Definitions of arms on the Web:

weaponry: weapons considered collectively
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


I do believe that you brought up the U.K. Ban. Show me something that I can refute. Additionally, curbing it only decreases the supply; strict enforcement deters the black market.

Do you have a source for the murder rates immediately before and after the US constitution was written?
What the hell? Do you think that the ratification of the Constitution changed the murder rate at all? Wouldn't it be more rational to think that the Consitution just codified the existing state of affairs?

True, my post was unclear. I want to know the changes in collection and interpretation methods. Only then can a meaningful comparison be made.
Yeah throws the whole thing off if the data was autocorrolated or had exponential smoothing (or de-seasonalized)

That's my point man. The people here who most whine about generalisations always seem to be the ones that they most fit. Um present company excepted.


So, anytime a foreigner says something negative about America, then, they are partaking in "an America-bashing pasttime."?

Incorrect conclusion. His assumption has not been proven wrong. In fact, neither side of the assumption has been proven. The worldwide data has, in fact, been terribly inconclusive as to the correlation between gun ownership and crime rate.

But your conclusion is more in line with the data than his, I'll give you that.
Oh god, not you again.
His assumption was that more gun ownership = more murders.
Since that hasn't been the case, it's been proven that correlation doesn't exist, otherwise everywhere there is more gun ownership the murder rate would rise.

Your point is?
The number of defensive gun uses dwarfs the number of gun crimes.
Direct your energies to enforcing gun use laws and you will see a much better return on your investment than if you legislate a tool.


Enforcement certainly does play a role, I won't deny that; but, as I have said, banning handguns would decrease their use, obviously, because law enforcement would merely need to see one in someone's possession, not worry about permits, local ordinances, location (in some jurisdictions, you can have it in the glove compartment, others, only in the trunk.), etc.

1. If guns kill people then I can blame misspelled words on my pen.

2. Without the Seconed Amendment the First means nothing.

Enforcement certainly does play a role, I won't deny that; but, as I have said, banning handguns would decrease their use, obviously, because law enforcement would merely need to see one in someone's possession, not worry about permits, local ordinances, location (in some jurisdictions, you can have it in the glove compartment, others, only in the trunk.), etc.
You make an assumption that is simply not valid. There is no reason to believe that banning handguns would decrease their presense, or their use in criminal activites. The only use that would be affected is law abiding use. Again, back the the NRA slogan, if guns were outlawed, then all you are doing is disarming the law abiding population and preventing some of them from exercising their right to self defense.

If you had actually bothered to read anything that I have wrote, you would find that I am not claiming that guns turn ordinary individuals into foaming serial killers; I said that guns merely make it much easier to kill/ commit violent crime. They escalate disagreements.

The presence of a firearm escalates disagreements now?

And there are more cases of self-defense alone (not to mention all the other legal uses) than there are murders. The fact is is that the majority of murders are by people who don't legally own the firearms in the first place so further restrictions on those who legally own them would just be another piece proving that the laws are just restrictions on those who follow them.


You have a good point about criminals not using guns that they have purchsed in their name; but:

a. A handgun ban would solve that, because it would not matter to whom the gun belonged, it would be illegal to possess, manufacture, sell, import, or, export. --Handguns are, heavily, the favoured weapon in crimes which use a gun.

b. How do those criminals get the guns? They buy them from a friend, who bought it from someone who could legally buy one. I.E. Straw purchaser. While an outright handgun ban would be much simpler, there have been regulations to prevent such purchasing: at gun shows (where, sometimes, one does not even need a straw purchaser), or, ordinances that allow gun shop clerks to refuse sale to those who are suspected of straw purchasing. I.E. people who are being directed by others on what to buy.

Enforcement certainly does play a role, I won't deny that; but, as I have said, banning handguns would decrease their use, obviously, because law enforcement would merely need to see one in someone's possession, not worry about permits, local ordinances, location (in some jurisdictions, you can have it in the glove compartment, others, only in the trunk.), etc.

And yet it didn't decrease in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map

And didn't increase in the US.

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

1. If guns kill people then I can blame misspelled words on my pen.

2. Without the Seconed Amendment the First means nothing.


So, freedom of speech, press, and, religion is irrelevant unless one is waving a gun around?

If you had actually bothered to read anything that I have wrote, you would find that I am not claiming that guns turn ordinary individuals into foaming serial killers; I said that guns merely make it much easier to kill/ commit violent crime. They escalate disagreements.
And since without turning into a totalitarian police state that would make 1984 look like the fucking city on the hill you wouldn't be able to eradicate guns in america the solution is the reverse. Mandate them and train the citizens in their use.

The presence of a firearm escalates disagreements now?


No, I believed that I used the word 'facilitate'. As in: guns facilitate the escalation of crime.

You have a good point about criminals not using guns that they have purchsed in their name; but:

a. A handgun ban would solve that, because it would not matter to whom the gun belonged, it would be illegal to possess, manufacture, sell, import, or, export. --Handguns are, heavily, the favoured weapon in crimes which use a gun.

And yet they're getting through via smuggling in the UK. An island nation.



b. How do those criminals get the guns? They buy them from a friend, who bought it from someone who could legally buy one. I.E. Straw purchaser. While an outright handgun ban would be much simpler, there have been regulations to prevent such purchasing: at gun shows (where, sometimes, one does not even need a straw purchaser), or, ordinances that allow gun shop clerks to refuse sale to those who are suspected of straw purchasing. I.E. people who are being directed by others on what to buy.

And straw purchasing is illegal. Selling to someone who can't legally own one is illegal. Once again, it has no bearing on the level of crime. If criminals want one, they will manage to get one.

You make an assumption that is simply not valid. There is no reason to believe that banning handguns would decrease their presense, or their use in criminal activites. The only use that would be affected is law abiding use. Again, back the the NRA slogan, if guns were outlawed, then all you are doing is disarming the law abiding population and preventing some of them from exercising their right to self defense.


Coupled with actual enforcement of a handgun ban, yes, a ban would be effective in decreasing the amount of handguns avaliable.

You have a good point about criminals not using guns that they have purchsed in their name; but:

a. A handgun ban would solve that, because it would not matter to whom the gun belonged, it would be illegal to possess, manufacture, sell, import, or, export. --Handguns are, heavily, the favoured weapon in crimes which use a gun.

b. How do those criminals get the guns? They buy them from a friend, who bought it from someone who could legally buy one. I.E. Straw purchaser. While an outright handgun ban would be much simpler, there have been regulations to prevent such purchasing: at gun shows (where, sometimes, one does not even need a straw purchaser), or, ordinances that allow gun shop clerks to refuse sale to those who are suspected of straw purchasing. I.E. people who are being directed by others on what to buy.
How do criminals get them?
They make them.
They steal them.
They buy them from someone who stole them.
They buy them from someone who made them.
They buy them from someone who smuggled them into the country.
They smuggled them into the country.
They steal them from someone who smuggled them into the country.
They steal them from law enforcement.

Again, there is no reason to believe that banning handguns would have any effect on the use of guns in criminal activities.
A solution that won't do anything shouldn't be tried.

No, I believed that I used the word 'facilitate'. As in: guns facilitate the escalation of crime.

And yet that isn't proven either. 48 states have or have enacted concealed carry laws. It did not help bring about any escalation.

I'm not going to quote any statistics, or pretend i know anythin about gun crime in america other than what i saw in bowling for columbine. But im still thinkin giving the public guns asks for disaster. Why is the constitution necessarily right anyway? How old is it? I know most things older than 100 years arent taken so literally these days, so why not the constitution...?

And yet it didn't decrease in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map

And didn't increase in the US.

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



Article 1: "Mr Letwin blamed the increase on young hard drug addicts and called on the government to provide better rehabilitation for them as well as putting 40,000 more police officers on the streets."

"We can only tackle it effectively by measures to reduce the supply of illegal weapons and a demand fuelled by a macho, glamorised gun culture," he said."


It seems that enforcement is the idea in the UK. Let me get through reading the other one.

If you had actually bothered to read anything that I have wrote, you would find that I am not claiming that guns turn ordinary individuals into foaming serial killers; I said that guns merely make it much easier to kill/ commit violent crime. They escalate disagreements.
No, I believed that I used the word 'facilitate'. As in: guns facilitate the escalation of crime.
No you didn't.

I'm not going to quote any statistics, or pretend i know anythin about gun crime in america other than what i saw in bowling for columbine. But im still thinkin giving the public guns asks for disaster. Why is the constitution necessarily right anyway? How old is it? I know most things older than 100 years arent taken so literally these days, so why not the constitution...?

Now read up on how "factual" BFC was.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Has anyone here mentioned "giving the public guns"? No? Didn't think so.

Incorrect conclusion. His assumption has not been proven wrong. In fact, neither side of the assumption has been proven. The worldwide data has, in fact, been terribly inconclusive as to the correlation between gun ownership and crime rate.

But your conclusion is more in line with the data than his, I'll give you that.
Not quite true. Two countries that mandate gun ownership, Israel and switzeland, tend to have very little gun crime. Does Finland mandate ownership as well? I don't remember

Article 1: "Mr Letwin blamed the increase on young hard drug addicts and called on the government to provide better rehabilitation for them as well as putting 40,000 more police officers on the streets."

"We can only tackle it effectively by measures to reduce the supply of illegal weapons and a demand fuelled by a macho, glamorised gun culture," he said."


It seems that enforcement is the idea in the UK. Let me get through reading the other one.

I think we have some common ground here. I am a strong supporter of enforcement. I think the penalties for those who misuse firearms should be severe and the courts should not be revolving doors.

And since without turning into a totalitarian police state that would make 1984 look like the fucking city on the hill you wouldn't be able to eradicate guns in america the solution is the reverse. Mandate them and train the citizens in their use.


I am going to avoid comments about gun owners and their governmental paranoia; but, no: did I ever say that we should turn America into a 1984 Big Brother police state? (They're doing a good job of it on their own :p)

Look at nations like Japan, their gun crime rate is nothing compared to the United States. They crack down on gun possession, and, they have a lower gun crime rate as a result.

I'm not going to quote any statistics, or pretend i know anythin about gun crime in america other than what i saw in bowling for columbine. But im still thinkin giving the public guns asks for disaster. Why is the constitution necessarily right anyway? How old is it? I know most things older than 100 years arent taken so literally these days, so why not the constitution...?
Do NOT take your information from Bowling for Columbine.

You're right, of course. Let's get rid of all those pesky, so called "rights".
No need for freedom of speech/press/religion.
No need for freedom from unlawful search and seizure.
No need for freedom of any kind for that matter... Life would be so much easier for those in power without all those freedoms hanging around.

geese sorry lol. I didnt mean literally giving the public guns...

After reading through this thread here is my conclusion:

"Crime has gone down whilst gun ownership has gone up, therefor guns don't have an affect on crime."

The two are not mutually exclusive because most of the gun owners arn't criminals.

"Look at the UK, gun crime has gone up."

There is an extremely small amount of gun crime in the UK. Im not saying that, because the UK never put guns into the public, there is no guncrime. Im saying that it will make it extremely small. Weather or not it is rising it will still only be tiny.

I feel that I do not think you should ban guns, but you should be proud of the fact of the immense amount of damage that has happened to america by making so easy for criminals to get guns.

No you didn't.


Native Quiggles II
Member


Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 336 Stupid NRA Slogans:

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

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.

I think we have some common ground here. I am a strong supporter of enforcement. I think the penalties for those who misuse firearms should be severe and the courts should not be revolving doors.


Of course laws should be enforced, otherwise, they're useless. I do, wholeheartedly, agree with those statements, though.

I am going to avoid comments about gun owners and their governmental paranoia; but, no: did I ever say that we should turn America into a 1984 Big Brother police state? (They're doing a good job of it on their own :p)

Look at nations like Japan, their gun crime rate is nothing compared to the United States. They crack down on gun possession, and, they have a lower gun crime rate as a result.
They are also a small island nation, which allows them to control imports much easier, and they have a very ingrained sense of social obedience in their culture. The social differences make your comparison irrational at best. Not to mention their suicide rate is extremely nasty.

addendum - Not to mention their in house general machining ability is near nil. They can't make their own.

Do NOT take your information from Bowling for Columbine.

You're right, of course. Let's get rid of all those pesky, so called "rights".
No need for freedom of speech/press/religion.
No need for freedom from unlawful search and seizure.
No need for freedom of any kind for that matter... Life would be so much easier for those in power without all those freedoms hanging around.


Let's not forget the right to shoot innocent people and defenceless animals!! :eek:

They escalate disagreements.
We can do this all day long.

Here's my stance-Guns should be legal, but not ones with goddamn armor piercing rounds, high powered snipers that do the same job, and fully automatic. Why do people need those guns?


Ban the high powered snipers and other rifles, and also assult weapons. :sniper: :mp5: Otherwise leave them alone

They are also a small island nation, which allows them to control imports much easier, and they have a very ingrained sense of social obedience in their culture. The social differences make your comparison irrational at best. Not to mention their suicide rate is extremely nasty.


I think that I would know about Britain. I lived there for five years. Now, I live in the States. Anyway, yes, island nations do have an easier job with regulating imports, and, of course, societies differ; but, the right types of gun prohibition/control are effective anywhere.

Let's not forget the right to shoot innocent people and defenceless animals!! :eek:
The only one who said anything about shooting innocent people was you.
No one else even suggested that.

So far, all we have discussed (of the law abiding uses) is the use of guns in self defense situations. We haven't even begun to discuss the other types of legitimate uses, such as hunting, target shooting, competition shooting, plinking etc.

So, anytime a foreigner says something negative about America, then, they are partaking in "an America-bashing pasttime."?

On this board? 9 out of 10 times, yeah, i would say they were. Thankfully it seems to be dying down a bit lately as the bandwagon falls apart through sheer overuse. I can't wait for "Atheism vs. Religion: Which is Better?" to go the same way.

We can do this all day long.

1. Please don't take tidbits out of context.
2. I can't do this all day, I'm going over to my friend Courtney's to watch some movies soon. :p

I think that I would know about Britain. I lived there for five years. Now, I live in the States. Anyway, yes, island nations do have an easier job with regulating imports, and, of course, societies differ; but, the right types of gun prohibition/control are effective anywhere.
Bull, fucking, shit. Not unless you want to step all over the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments to the constitution.

The only one who said anything about shooting innocent people was you.
No one else even suggested that.

So far, all we have discussed (of the law abiding uses) is the use of guns in self defense situations. We haven't even begun to discuss the other types of legitimate uses, such as hunting, target shooting, competition shooting, plinking etc.


I believe that we discussed "shooting inncoent people" when we were talking about gun crime and, furthermore, when we were discussing that one incident in which a Japanese individual was shot and killed.

Here's my stance-Guns should be legal, but not ones with goddamn armor piercing rounds, high powered snipers that do the same job, and fully automatic. Why do people need those guns?


Ban the high powered snipers and other rifles, and also assult weapons. :sniper: :mp5: Otherwise leave them alone
Please, inform us what a high powered sniper rifle is?

Are you arguing that they shuld ban all rifles with the "and other rifles"? Even single shot bolt action rifles? What about hunting? Should that not be allowed?

And why ban assault weapons? What is it about them that needs banning? Their looks? That's all the supposed assault weapon ban did.

The two are not mutually exclusive because most of the gun owners arn't criminals.

Which is why there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding people.

WTF people .... you don't argue in gun threads, you make jokes about bears and naked people.

Bull, fucking, shit. Not unless you want to step all over the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments to the constitution.


Try to get your point across without the use of expletives; it really aids you in making your point.

Second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Well-Regulated: As in regulated by the government
Milita= Hint: you're not in one
People: What people? What about the rights for felons to have guns? Or the mentally handicapped? Or the mentally insane?
Arms: What Arms? Uzis? Grenade Launchers? Pistols?

I believe that we discussed "shooting inncoent people" when we were talking about gun crime and, furthermore, when we were discussing that one incident in which a Japanese individual was shot and killed.
Let's not forget the right to shoot innocent people and defenceless animals!!
When I made the sarcastic post about doing away with the various freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution you included the quote about the right to shoot innocent people. Implying that pro-gun ownership people felt they have a right to shoot innocent people.
Pretty intellecutally dishonest, isn't it?

Which is why there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding people.

It doesn't matter how many people have guns, as long as guns are easily available with loads of gang members having them etc.. That means that the murder rate will always be high, weather its dropping or increasing.

Which is why there's ABSOLUTELY NO POINT taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding people.


Show me a person who has never broken any law (moral or physical), and I'll buy them a gun.


Hint: There isn't one. So, stop using "law-abiding citizen" to refer to the morality and responsability of gun owners as Jesus-like.

When I made the sarcastic post about doing away with the various freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution you included the quote about the right to shoot innocent people. Implying that pro-gun ownership people felt they have a right to shoot innocent people.
Pretty intellecutally dishonest, isn't it?


I do believe that I was keeping with the mode of sarcasm. As in: I don't believe that there is a right of people to shoot other innocent individuals.

See: verbal irony

Show me a person who has never broken any law (moral or physical), and I'll buy them a gun.


Hint: There isn't one. So, stop using "law-abiding citizen" to refer to the morality and responsability of gun owners as Jesus-like.
I'll have you know that being a good Christian means you have a right to a Remington bolt-action rifle. After all, who else will fight off the dinosaurs and the homosexuals?!

Try to get your point across without the use of expletives; it really aids you in making your point.

Second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Well-Regulated: As in regulated by the government
Milita= Hint: you're not in one
People: What people? What about the rights for felons to have guns? Or the mentally handicapped? Or the mentally insane?
Arms: What Arms? Uzis? Grenade Launchers? Pistols?
Wow, you really missed the target on that one... must come with you're not having sufficient practice at the shooting range.
Well-regulated, in 18th century language means well equipped.
Militia, means every abled body male 18-45 (I believe those ages are correct). So, if you are in the US now... You are in one.
People, individual people can give up their rights to own guns... felons do that by commiting crimes. As for the other two catagories you mentioned... again you are making the assumption that those on the opposite side from you are advocating that there shoudl be complete unrestricted gun ownership. No one has said any such thing.
Arms... Firearms/weapons. Not ordinance.

I'll have you know that being a good Christian means you have a right to a Remington bolt-action rifle. After all, who else will fight off the dinosaurs and the homosexuals?!

:p

I just realised that I spelled 'responsibility' incorrectly. How...embarrassing. :headbang:

Wow, you really missed the target on that one... must come with you're not having sufficient practice at the shooting range.
Well-regulated, in 18th century language means well equipped.
Militia, means every abled body male 18-45 (I believe those ages are correct). So, if you are in the US now... You are in one.
People, individual people can give up their rights to own guns... felons do that by commiting crimes. As for the other two catagories you mentioned... again you are making the assumption that those on the opposite side from you are advocating that there shoudl be complete unrestricted gun ownership. No one has said any such thing.
Arms... Firearms/weapons. Not ordinance.


Definitions of militia:

organized armed forces of an area subject to a call to arms in an emergency.
www.arkansasresearch.com/g-gloss.html

a part of the organized armed forces of a country called upon in times of crisis
sln.fi.edu/franklin/glossary.html

a group of civilians trained as soldiers who serve full time only in emergencies
www3.newberry.org/k12maps/glossary/



"People, individual people can give up their rights to own guns... felons do that by commiting crimes."

Felons choose to give up their rights, or, is the right being stripped away in retrobution?



"As for the other two catagories you mentioned... again you are making the assumption that those on the opposite side from you are advocating that there shoudl be complete unrestricted gun ownership. No one has said any such thing."

I'm merely pointing out that: "Where do you draw the line?" Do you interpret it literally, that: guns can only be regulated and that there should be no other restrictions on any form of arms? Or, do you use common sense?



Definition of Arms:

weaponry: weapons considered collectively
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

1: The NRA is not against all regulations (see NCIS) They are opposed to regulations that only effect those who affect those who follow the law in the first place and have no recognizable effect escept to restrict/hinder private ownership (see waiting periods, databases)

2. Just like in the UK where gun crime has INCREASED since the latest ban, the black market has increased and the populace is helpless.

3. The "logical lapse" is the slippery-slope of firearms=nukes.

Gun crime has increased since the latest ban, it has also been on a steady increase for more than a decade as guns have gradually become more available in inner city areas.

Please, inform us what a high powered sniper rifle is?

Are you arguing that they shuld ban all rifles with the "and other rifles"? Even single shot bolt action rifles? What about hunting? Should that not be allowed?

And why ban assault weapons? What is it about them that needs banning? Their looks? That's all the supposed assault weapon ban did.

I'm sorry about the confusion. What I was talking about was snipers that are meant for Military uses. Rifles that use armor piercing rounds should not be legal. However ones meant for taking out deer n such should not be banned.

I also see your point in the assualt weapons. But they do what their name suggests, assault. However with bans major problem was that Clinton signed it, and he being a idiot, didnt actually bother and enforce it.

And it depends on what kind of bolt action rifle. Accuracy International AE sniper rifle should not be legal. A winchester meant for hunting should.

Oh as it comes to hunting; definately allow it. Any animal rights activist who tells you otherwise should be ignored

Your point is?
The number of defensive gun uses dwarfs the number of gun crimes.
Direct your energies to enforcing gun use laws and you will see a much better return on your investment than if you legislate a tool.

"Defensive gun uses"? What's the difference? You pull the trigger and BAM, somebody's dead. Sure, you live becouse you managed to pull the trigger first, but still, there's a body. These kind of problems don't exist if there is no guns.

Even if I don't like the fact that there's guns on the streets, I'm pretty much against banning them. They just shouldn't be available or they should be very restricted. Ultimately I hope that people wouldn't believe that they "needed" guns in some way.

"Defensive gun uses"? What's the difference? You pull the trigger and BAM, somebody's dead. Sure, you live becouse you managed to pull the trigger first, but still, there's a body. These kind of problems don't exist if there is no guns.

Even if I don't like the fact that there's guns on the streets, I'm pretty much against banning them. They just shouldn't be available or they should be very restricted. Ultimately I hope that people wouldn't believe that they "needed" guns in some way.
The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not even involve the pulling of a trigger. That's the whole point. Defensive gun use does not mean "BAM somebody's dead."

The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not even involve the pulling of a trigger. That's the whole point. Defensive gun use does not mean "BAM somebody's dead."

He's right. I've got a good story about an incident like this.

A few weeks ago, I was visiting one of my sisters and her boyfriend in Maryland. We decided to go for a walk in Baltimore. We're walking along by the shore, when out of nowhere a crazy screaming girl starts throwing a hissy fit because she ran out of cigarrettes. She runs up to my sister, trying to start a fight. My sister's boyfriend adjusts his shirt ever so slightly, and the girl notices the pistol hanging from his holster. She then decided it'd be a good idea to go fuck with someone else.

I'm sorry about the confusion. What I was talking about was snipers that are meant for Military uses. Rifles that use armor piercing rounds should not be legal. However ones meant for taking out deer n such should not be banned.

I also see your point in the assualt weapons. But they do what their name suggests, assault. However with bans major problem was that Clinton signed it, and he being a idiot, didnt actually bother and enforce it.

And it depends on what kind of bolt action rifle. Accuracy International AE sniper rifle should not be legal. A winchester meant for hunting should.

Oh as it comes to hunting; definately allow it. Any animal rights activist who tells you otherwise should be ignored
Did you know that the favored "sniper" rifle used by Carlos Hatchcock, USMC sniper in Vietnam, was the model 70 Winchester hunting rifle?

To let you in on a little secret, there is no difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle.

The assault weapon ban's problem wasn't that it wasn't inforced... it was that it only dealt with cosmetic differences. There were guns that were functionally identical to ones that were on the ban list, but since they had a wooden stock and looked like a hunting rifle, they were not banned.

Assault weapon is a horrible term. It doesn't mean anything really. Usually cosmetic differences over other perfectly legal versions.

"Defensive gun uses"? What's the difference? You pull the trigger and BAM, somebody's dead. Sure, you live becouse you managed to pull the trigger first, but still, there's a body. These kind of problems don't exist if there is no guns.

Even if I don't like the fact that there's guns on the streets, I'm pretty much against banning them. They just shouldn't be available or they should be very restricted. Ultimately I hope that people wouldn't believe that they "needed" guns in some way.

What if they use a knife, or a other deadly object other than a gun? You would die. Or if you somehow kill him without a gun? He's still dead. Murder and self defense issues have been around alot longer than guns. Blaming murder all on guns is flawed theory at best.

Also look at one the first thing a tyrannical government tends to do; take away peoples weapons so they cant fight back. The Nazis did it, the U.S.S.R did it, and the Chinese are doing it now.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not even involve the pulling of a trigger. That's the whole point. Defensive gun use does not mean "BAM somebody's dead."

Okay, my bad. But my point was that if there were less guns in general, there wouldn't be need for defensive uses of guns or any other weapons. Having gun around reminds people of violence and numbs them to it. With constant reminders of violence, people are more ready to resort to it.

Also look at one the first thing a tyrannical government tends to do; take away peoples weapons so they cant fight back. The Nazis did it, the U.S.S.R did it, and the Chinese are doing it now.

Yes... But I'm feeling unusually optimistic today. Maybe the goverment doesn't plan for world dominance or tyranny over us.

Did you know that the favored "sniper" rifle used by Carlos Hatchcock, USMC sniper in Vietnam, was the model 70 Winchester hunting rifle?

To let you in on a little secret, there is no difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle.

The assault weapon ban's problem wasn't that it wasn't inforced... it was that it only dealt with cosmetic differences. There were guns that were functionally identical to ones that were on the ban list, but since they had a wooden stock and looked like a hunting rifle, they were not banned.

Assault weapon is a horrible term. It doesn't mean anything really. Usually cosmetic differences over other perfectly legal versions.

Good point on the assault weapons, and on the rifles.
However their is one area I still stand by; Armor piercing rounds
Otherwise you convinced me

"Defensive gun uses"? What's the difference? You pull the trigger and BAM, somebody's dead. Sure, you live becouse you managed to pull the trigger first, but still, there's a body. These kind of problems don't exist if there is no guns.

Even if I don't like the fact that there's guns on the streets, I'm pretty much against banning them. They just shouldn't be available or they should be very restricted. Ultimately I hope that people wouldn't believe that they "needed" guns in some way.

So... do we clean up the massive knife problem in the UK by the same method? Wake me up when we get around to debating banning circular saws, I need to build a deck one of these days first...

Okay, my bad. But my point was that if there were less guns in general, there wouldn't be need for defensive uses of guns or any other weapons. Having gun around reminds people of violence and numbs them to it. With constant reminders of violence, people are more ready to resort to it.
Alright, here's a situation for you:

A 300 lb ex-humband is threatening his 110 lb ex-wife.
This man has put his wife in the hospital on numerous occasions.
He has never used a weapon of any kind, just his hands.

Now, are you saying that she should not have access to a simple tool that would help tip the scales in her favor?

Yes... But I'm feeling unusually optimistic today. Maybe the goverment doesn't plan for world dominance or tyranny over us.
Im assuming that is sarcasm. Because history most definately repeats itself

Good point on the assault weapons, and on the rifles.
However their is one area I still stand by; Armor piercing rounds
Otherwise you convinced me
I 100% agree with you on that one. And fully automatic weapons.

So... do we clean up the massive knife problem in the UK by the same method? Wake me up when we get around to debating banning circular saws, I need to build a deck one of these days first...
Wasn't it the UK that banned sharp pointed kitchen knives?

I 100% agree with you on that one. And fully automatic weapons.


At least I got something right. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Wasn't it the UK that banned sharp pointed kitchen knives?

Dunno. Might have been Australia. I can't wait until people start carrying around a bag of golf clubs for self defense... :D

"Look out, John! He drew his 6-Iron!"

Alright, here's a situation for you:

A 300 lb ex-humband is threatening his 110 lb ex-wife.
This man has put his wife in the hospital on numerous occasions.
He has never used a weapon of any kind, just his hands.

Now, are you saying that she should not have access to a simple tool that would help tip the scales in her favor?

In Finland we call it the police or restraint order.

Im assuming that is sarcasm. Because history most definately repeats itself

I was sincerely being sarcastic. And optimistic, I really believe that world is going forwards, towards something better. Not that it always looks like it.

Mr Larson: Hey Shooter! You forgot your nine iron!

At least I got something right. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
You didn't get anything wrong, you simply had an opinion.
Opinions aren't wrong as they a personal thing.

Unless it's in my wifes view my opinions are always wrong ;)

In Finland we call it the police or restraint order.
And if said ex-husband were breaking down the wifes door? Do you really think he would bother complying with a restraining order? Do you really think the police would respond before he had already killed her?

Police are good at somethings, like investigation and apprehension.
They are not so good at other things... like prevention of crime.

But, think about it. Are you more likely to murder someone when all that you have to do is pull a trigger, or, when you have to bloody them with your bare hands?

I vote for bloody hands!

Backed up by 350+pounds of angry me!

Or my knife with the 9" tanto blade.

Or even my knife with the 4" tanto blade!:p

By the time any police arrived, I would be long gone...

Yippee!! Another anti-gun thread. :rolleyes:

You have a good point about criminals not using guns that they have purchsed in their name; but:

a. A handgun ban would solve that, because it would not matter to whom the gun belonged, it would be illegal to possess, manufacture, sell, import, or, export. --Handguns are, heavily, the favoured weapon in crimes which use a gun.

b. How do those criminals get the guns? They buy them from a friend, who bought it from someone who could legally buy one. I.E. Straw purchaser. While an outright handgun ban would be much simpler, there have been regulations to prevent such purchasing: at gun shows (where, sometimes, one does not even need a straw purchaser), or, ordinances that allow gun shop clerks to refuse sale to those who are suspected of straw purchasing. I.E. people who are being directed by others on what to buy.

A handgun ban would solve nothing. Just making it illegal to manufacture, posess, sell, import, or export, will not stop criminals from doing those things. Maybe that's why they're criminals. On other anti-gun threads (or threads that have turned into anti-gun threads), I've shown webpages that deal with manufacturing homemade firearms. If you have the will (and a few tools), a handgun isn't really that hard to make. Ban the handgun ammo, you say? Guess what, ammo isn't rocket science to make, either.

Straw purchasing is illegal already, and a ban would only hurt responsible, law abiding owners. BTW, have you ever gone to a gun show? I have, and there were a lot of state troopers present, not only to prevent shoplifting (which happened, although the guy was caught), but also to take care of the paperwork involved with purchasing a firearm. They even had the ability to perform the NICS check (instant background check).

I better get off and do homework. :(

If you really, REALLY want to murder someone, you'll find a way, gun or no gun. We used to fight wars without them, remember?
But guns allow the impulse murder much more easily. That's why you get things like people killing their roommates for using up the toilet paper and not replacing the roll. If they needed to find a more difficult way to kill their roommate, they'd probably realize that it's stupid to kill them in the first place.

Okay, my bad. But my point was that if there were less guns in general, there wouldn't be need for defensive uses of guns or any other weapons. Having gun around reminds people of violence and numbs them to it. With constant reminders of violence, people are more ready to resort to it.

Then maybe you should start censoring the media. Can't let those nasty violent games and movies poision our minds! :eek: :eek: :eek:

And less guns doesn't mean less need for defense. Unless everyone is kept away from all heavy, blunt, or pointy objects, and are always restrained, then the need for defense will remain.

Oh please posting correlations without a measure of their accuracy is pure masturbation.

I might as well say that “candy sales are on the rise the last 10 years while violent crimes are on the decline so candy sales have an inverse effect on violent crime statistics”

It is worthless without a gauge to correlation.


You don't understand... as more people get obese ... violent crimes are on the decrease... think about this.

People arent in as good shape
People can't fight as well
People don't bother fighting for fear of heart attacks.

So, the question is... violent crime or a bad diet... who do we choose?

And if said ex-husband were breaking down the wifes door? Do you really think he would bother complying with a restraining order? Do you really think the police would respond before he had already killed her?

Police are good at somethings, like investigation and apprehension.
They are not so good at other things... like prevention of crime.

That is also true and the wife shouldn't be helpless, but I feel that the whole situation could be avoided entirely. I think that if people tried just a little bit, they could avoid most violence or the circumstances that create violence. But it also seems that most people aren't willing to do that effort or just don't know how. In my opinion, that's the whole issue.

Meh, I collect hand to hand weapons. I have nothing against legitimate gun owners, but firearms aren't my style. I'm an avid martial artist/weapons collector.

And a gun in the diskworld series did kill people. It levitated and fired itself.

Then maybe you should start censoring the media. Can't let those nasty violent games and movies poision our minds! :eek: :eek: :eek:

And less guns doesn't mean less need for defense. Unless everyone is kept away from all heavy, blunt, or pointy objects, and are always restrained, then the need for defense will remain.

Let's not forget about these horrible forums we have here! The huge amount of material promoting the needs of personal arms! We can't have that, can we? Let's shut the whole place down. Let's shut the damn internet while we're at that!

That is also true and the wife shouldn't be helpless, but I feel that the whole situation could be avoided entirely. I think that if people tried just a little bit, they could avoid most violence or the circumstances that create violence. But it also seems that most people aren't willing to do that effort or just don't know how. In my opinion, that's the whole issue.

Ah, how naive.

There will always be violent, reckless people. It's a fact of life. And because there are those people, the need to protect yourself arises. Avoiding situations that might cause violence is very difficult. As Benjamin Franklin said "If the press didn't print anything until it was absolutely sure it would offend no one, then not much would get printed."

Okay, there are two lawful uses for a gun:

1. Hunting/Shooting targets

2. Self-defense

Okay, if crime is decreasing, why do you need it for self defense?

Then, hunting. Why would you hunt? Are you a rugged woodsmen, venturing forth in his ford pickup, bravely shooting a deer, that could have easily mauled you were you not 500 feet away?

This is my standard argument for hunters: If the animals could shoot back, would you still do it? Answer: No, you probably wouldn't.

Also, it has been proven that people with guns in their cars drive more aggresively. See? Guns do cause aggressiveness, at least in drivers.

Now if you want to hunt, why not make it difficult? Use a bow and arrow, or an atatl.

But guns allow the impulse murder much more easily. That's why you get things like people killing their roommates for using up the toilet paper and not replacing the roll. If they needed to find a more difficult way to kill their roommate, they'd probably realize that it's stupid to kill them in the first place.
If that were the case, then as gun ownership increases the murder rate would increase as well.
That isn't happening.
So your argument is invalid.

Ah, how naive.

There will always be violent, reckless people. It's a fact of life. And because there are those people, the need to protect yourself arises. Avoiding situations that might cause violence is very difficult. As Benjamin Franklin said "If the press didn't print anything until it was absolutely sure it would offend no one, then not much would get printed."

*sigh* I know I'm being naive. But I like that. I need to believe in some utopia where everything is fine so that I can try to change this world to resemble that place a little bit more. If enough people do that, maybe we'll live in a nice world someday.

And about the situations being very difficult to avoid... They are also worth the effort of avoiding them. I know I don't want to fight, I rather run away than fight.

In Finland we call it the police or restraint order.



I was sincerely being sarcastic. And optimistic, I really believe that world is going forwards, towards something better. Not that it always looks like it.

Oh? And those restraining orders magically make that "nasty" stay away? Personally, I think we should have something like a restraining order, except that it should also have the provision that if she sees him, she should be able to shoot that "nasty" without legal reprecusion... basically, I can't help but wonder what the heck all you gun-control nut jobs were drinking when you came up with your arguements.

Things that should be NRA slogans:

You can take away my gun - when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands.
The only free people is an armed people.
Without the right to bear arms, none of the other rights mean anything, as they could all be denied by a government that controls the only coercive force.
Bullets always win over debates - therefore, make sure that the people have the first to back up the second.

There, I've said my piece, now lay into me like the hypocritical psychos you are.

Okay, there are two lawful uses for a gun:

1. Hunting/Shooting targets

2. Self-defense

Okay, if crime is decreasing, why do you need it for self defense?

Then, hunting. Why would you hunt? Are you a rugged woodsmen, venturing forth in his ford pickup, bravely shooting a deer, that could have easily mauled you were you not 500 feet away?

This is my standard argument for hunters: If the animals could shoot back, would you still do it? Answer: No, you probably wouldn't.

Also, it has been proven that people with guns in their cars drive more aggresively. See? Guns do cause aggressiveness, at least in drivers.

Now if you want to hunt, why not make it difficult? Use a bow and arrow, or an atatl.
Crime is decreasing, but it isn't gone. Until there is no violent crime, ever, there will still be a need for self defense.

You are going to have to provide some kinda evidence to back up your claim that guns cause aggressiveness in drivers. Cuz I have to call BS on that one until you do.

Nothing wrong with hunting. You don't like it? Don't do it.

And there still is target shooting, competition shooting.

I say ban guns because well... they're just so boring.
Think about it this way.
IF (and i know its an if) guns were removed from the killing spree equation, serious criminals would suddenly find themselves with a huge problem... they'd have to think about how to kill their target or intimidate them, and while i do believe it would result in *sigh* short flick blades, we can always hope that they become inventive in choice of weapons. And as such, they will give themselves a lot more choice... so it would take longer for them to kill someone... so the police have more time to turn up AND NOT SHOOT THEM.
Plus they'd get more exercise which would help combat obesity :p

I hate guns too, but I say let legitimate people have them. You hold onto your M1 Garand, and let me hold onto my tonfas, nunchaku, and manrikigusari. You defend yourself your way, I'll defend myself my way.

*sigh* I know I'm being naive. But I like that. I need to believe in some utopia where everything is fine so that I can try to change this world to resemble that place a little bit more. If enough people do that, maybe we'll live in a nice world someday.

And about the situations being very difficult to avoid... They are also worth the effort of avoiding them. I know I don't want to fight, I rather run away than fight.
lol, nothing wrong with hoping for utopia. I can only wish that were possible.
But one should also be somewhat of a realist. Sometimes, violence can't be avoided. It's a shame, but it's a fact of life.

I hate guns too, but I say let legitimate people have them. You hold onto your M1 Garand, and let me hold onto my tonfas, nunchaku, and manrikigusari. You defend yourself your way, I'll defend myself my way.

Just gotta wonder how much use those would be against a guy with an AK...

I say ban guns because well... they're just so boring.
Think about it this way.
IF (and i know its an if) guns were removed from the killing spree equation, serious criminals would suddenly find themselves with a huge problem... they'd have to think about how to kill their target or intimidate them, and while i do believe it would result in *sigh* short flick blades, we can always hope that they become inventive in choice of weapons. And as such, they will give themselves a lot more choice... so it would take longer for them to kill someone... so the police have more time to turn up AND NOT SHOOT THEM.
Plus they'd get more exercise which would help combat obesity :p

Yes, ban all guns! We all know how respectful of laws criminals are! They'll curse your clever schemes as they line up to turn in their weapons! They would never think of keeping their own hidden away, or turning to the black market for new ones and ammunition.

It's not like an AK can hit the broad side of a barn. I've always especially hated automatics. And I may dislike guns, but I can fire them. I have incredible aim.

Oh? And those restraining orders magically make that "nasty" stay away? Personally, I think we should have something like a restraining order, except that it should also have the provision that if she sees him, she should be able to shoot that "nasty" without legal reprecusion... basically, I can't help but wonder what the heck all you gun-control nut jobs were drinking when you came up with your arguements.

Things that should be NRA slogans:

You can take away my gun - when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands.
The only free people is an armed people.
Without the right to bear arms, none of the other rights mean anything, as they could all be denied by a government that controls the only coercive force.
Bullets always win over debates - therefore, make sure that the people have the first to back up the second.

There, I've said my piece, now lay into me like the hypocritical psychos you are.

I haven't once said that weapons should be banned. I dislike anyone or anything deciding things for me, even if I would choose the same way. It's my choice. What I've said, is that we need change in the very way the people think. It's like fighting windmills, only much harder, but eventually, maybe in a millenia or two, we wont have guns becouse we don't want to have them. When I say we, I mean whole human, and possibly any other, race.

Yes, ban all guns! We all know how respectful of laws criminals are! They'll curse your clever schemes as they line up to turn in their weapons! They would never think of keeping their own hidden away, or turning to the black market for new ones and ammunition.
I think he was being somewhat sarcastic.

I haven't once said that weapons should be banned. I dislike anyone or anything deciding things for me, even if I would choose the same way. It's my choice. What I've said, is that we need change in the very way the people think. It's like fighting windmills, only much harder, but eventually, maybe in a millenia or two, we wont have guns becouse we don't want to have them. When I say we, I mean whole human, and possibly any other, race.

An admirable sentiment.

lol, nothing wrong with hoping for utopia. I can only wish that were possible.
But one should also be somewhat of a realist. Sometimes, violence can't be avoided. It's a shame, but it's a fact of life.

But when it comes to violence, I don't want guns anywhere near me. Nor knives or fist irons or heavy blunt items, but especially not guns.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.

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

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!

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

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.

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

Interesting little slogans that I found while researching for my debate case :p (Explanations are my little musings.)

I'm sure you're joking, but at any rate:

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!

An outlaw's ability to speak is far less dangerous than his ability to shoot you in your own home, rape you or your spouse, steal all your things, etc. Poor analogy.

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.

The point of the argument is that cops are not nearly fast enough to be able to prevent violent crime most of the time. It's probably better to shoot the perp than to allow him to chase you around your kitchen with a chef's knife while you have talk to a 9-1-1 operator on your cell phone.

hehe

I haven't once said that weapons should be banned. I dislike anyone or anything deciding things for me, even if I would choose the same way. It's my choice. What I've said, is that we need change in the very way the people think. It's like fighting windmills, only much harder, but eventually, maybe in a millenia or two, we wont have guns becouse we don't want to have them. When I say we, I mean whole human, and possibly any other, race.
I think we should all strive for that ideal. Just because we can't reach a goal, doesn't mean the goal isn't worth reaching for.

serious NRA bumper sticker recommendation:

REAL MEN OWN GUNS


and


Pussies hate guns, and assholes shit on them. Don't be a pussy.


hehe

I'd like to see a chef's knife hold up against my tonfas. I never need them anyway, they're just for martial arts practice. The crime rate of my little town is a big goose egg.

I think we should all strive for that ideal. Just because we can't reach a goal, doesn't mean the goal isn't worth reaching for.

Excactly. Now I'm going to reach for some sleep and I think I'll just manage it. Hopefully anyone won't shoot me.

Personally I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.

A common theme that runs through this and other threads I've been reading here (New NS participant, btw....be gentle!!) is that of rights.

Rights and the concept of freedom are sort of weird (and somewhat illusory), and alot of people seem to think they have the right to do any damned thing they want. Usually it is backed up by some self-serving justification for why they deserve that right.

Here's the thing that gets me though... In this particular debate, the idea of legalised firearms as being a right (as in facilitating the right to defend yourself) seems utterly flawed.

Certainly, we SHOULD all have the right to defend ourselves against those who would threaten us. BUT(!) firearms aren't really a measure in self defence. They are (or at least have always appeared to me, despite numerous arguments) to be aggressive rather than defensive. Can we argue that they are deterents? That doesn't really work either because if it were a deterant, America ought to be the safest nation in the world. So many Guns, and yet people still commit crime. It does not deter.

Handguns are anti-personnel weapons. They have no other purpose (beyond shooting tin cans, but you can do that with an air rifle/pistol if that's were you get your kicks). So, does the 'right to defend yourself' mean you are entitled to kill? Is murder acceptible under certain circumstances?

I know those of you who are pro-firearms will point out that you can take out limbs and so forth, but that does take a degree of skill, and even with that skill, there is no certainty that wounds will not be fatal.

Furthermore, it is a ranged weapon. That seems a little odd when talking about self defence. It means that you can kill a person as they run away from your house if the red mists come in, or you can kill a person if they look like they might threaten you if they come any closer, or you can kill an innocent bystander because or poor aim / ricochet / bullet passing through target and on to an innocent / hitting a volatile material....etc

A handgun in domestic circumstances is a tool for the frightened. The frightened and edgy shouldn't be holding a firearm.

This is all before we consider the gun as (heaven forbid) a tool of aggression.

There does seem to be something remiss about a mentality that would have such a dangerous 'tool' in their homes or about their person in case they are attacked. Supremely ironic, indeed!

Something that I'd be interested in knowing from anyone out there who knows about American Law: Though issues of public liability even in domestic environments have come up here in the UK, I understand that your litigious nation is rife with claims for personal injury anywhere and everywhere. This is inclusive (I'm lead to understand) where an intruder might cut themselves whilest breaking and entering and can make a claim against the householder as the injury occurred on their property. So where does the Law stand if you shoot and injure (or even take a stab at) the intruder? If the intruder escapes the scene and beat you to the solicitor, can they claim against you for injuries incurred on your property? Can they Press charges for Assault/GBH/ABH? How screwed up is your legal system?

I know ours is screwed up. I heard once of a man trying to defend his property against an intuder and slashed at the intruders leg as he left through a window giving him a deep gash on his calf. The intruder pressed charges against the home owner and succeeded as the injury was incurred as the intruder was leaving the property and so was TECHNICALLY no further threat. That seems somewhat demented to me!

Imagine if we were allowed to have guns here under those circumstances and he popped a shot through the guys chocolate starfish!! His feet wouldn't have touched the ground!




Kin Wicked of Wikaedia





PS
Just to the point about gun crime being unrelated to gun ownership. I have to agree with the comment about accessibility to guns being pretty vital in the argument. A gun is a killing tool. Make it more accessible and more people will die through they're use. You don't buy a hammer if you don't intend hitting a few nails.

PPS
Sorry - I know this is disorganised but.....
I rather liked the comment from Chris Rock (I think I saw it on Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine'). It went something like: "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do! If every bullet cost $5,000 youd virtually stop all gun deaths over night. You really have to hate someone to want to shoot them!"

Personally I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.

nobody grows up wanting to be an asshole, but some become assholes (criminals... in this case, criminals with guns).

A common theme that runs through this and other threads I've been reading here (New NS participant, btw....be gentle!!) is that of rights.

Rights and the concept of freedom are sort of weird (and somewhat illusory), and alot of people seem to think they have the right to do any damned thing they want. Usually it is backed up by some self-serving justification for why they deserve that right.

Here's the thing that gets me though... In this particular debate, the idea of legalised firearms as being a right (as in facilitating the right to defend yourself) seems utterly flawed.

Certainly, we SHOULD all have the right to defend ourselves against those who would threaten us. BUT(!) firearms aren't really a measure in self defence. They are (or at least have always appeared to me, despite numerous arguments) to be aggressive rather than defensive. Can we argue that they are deterents? That doesn't really work either because if it were a deterant, America ought to be the safest nation in the world. So many Guns, and yet people still commit crime. It does not deter.

Handguns are anti-personnel weapons. They have no other purpose (beyond shooting tin cans, but you can do that with an air rifle/pistol if that's were you get your kicks). So, does the 'right to defend yourself' mean you are entitled to kill? Is murder acceptible under certain circumstances?

I know those of you who are pro-firearms will point out that you can take out limbs and so forth, but that does take a degree of skill, and even with that skill, there is no certainty that wounds will not be fatal.

Furthermore, it is a ranged weapon. That seems a little odd when talking about self defence. It means that you can kill a person as they run away from your house if the red mists come in, or you can kill a person if they look like they might threaten you if they come any closer, or you can kill an innocent bystander because or poor aim / ricochet / bullet passing through target and on to an innocent / hitting a volatile material....etc

A handgun in domestic circumstances is a tool for the frightened. The frightened and edgy shouldn't be holding a firearm.

This is all before we consider the gun as (heaven forbid) a tool of aggression.

There does seem to be something remiss about a mentality that would have such a dangerous 'tool' in their homes or about their person in case they are attacked. Supremely ironic, indeed!

Something that I'd be interested in knowing from anyone out there who knows about American Law: Though issues of public liability even in domestic environments have come up here in the UK, I understand that your litigious nation is rife with claims for personal injury anywhere and everywhere. This is inclusive (I'm lead to understand) where an intruder might cut themselves whilest breaking and entering and can make a claim against the householder as the injury occurred on their property. So where does the Law stand if you shoot and injure (or even take a stab at) the intruder? If the intruder escapes the scene and beat you to the solicitor, can they claim against you for injuries incurred on your property? Can they Press charges for Assault/GBH/ABH? How screwed up is your legal system?

I know ours is screwed up. I heard once of a man trying to defend his property against an intuder and slashed at the intruders leg as he left through a window giving him a deep gash on his calf. The intruder pressed charges against the home owner and succeeded as the injury was incurred as the intruder was leaving the property and so was TECHNICALLY no further threat. That seems somewhat demented to me!

Imagine if we were allowed to have guns here under those circumstances and he popped a shot through the guys chocolate starfish!! His feet wouldn't have touched the ground!




Kin Wicked of Wikaedia





PS
Just to the point about gun crime being unrelated to gun ownership. I have to agree with the comment about accessibility to guns being pretty vital in the argument. A gun is a killing tool. Make it more accessible and more people will die through they're use. You don't buy a hammer if you don't intend hitting a few nails.

PPS
Sorry - I know this is disorganised but.....
I rather liked the comment from Chris Rock (I think I saw it on Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine'). It went something like: "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do! If every bullet cost $5,000 youd virtually stop all gun deaths over night. You really have to hate someone to want to shoot them!"


1. Hundreds of thousands of crimes each year are prevented by defensive firearm uses.

2. Most states are enacting legislation to prevent lawsuits by criminals against defenders.

3. The number of firearms in a population =/= correlate to crime levels

1. Hundreds of thousands of crimes each year are prevented by defensive firearm uses.

2. Most states are enacting legislation to prevent lawsuits by criminals against defenders.

3. The number of firearms in a population =/= correlate to crime levels
To expound a little bit... Wikaedia's post was too long to go point by point.

Most defensive gun uses doesn't even involve the discharge of the gun. It does deter. Quite effectively.

Most gun wounds do not result in death. That's a myth that Hollywood helps promote. But still a myth.

Handguns are not solely designed to kill. Smith and Wessen Model 52. Not good at killing at all.

Again, if one were to compare all the legitimate uses of guns vs. all the criminal activites even remotely involving a gun, the ratio would lean heavily on the side of legitimate gun uses.

A common theme that runs through this and other threads I've been reading here (New NS participant, btw....be gentle!!) is that of rights.

Rights and the concept of freedom are sort of weird (and somewhat illusory), and alot of people seem to think they have the right to do any damned thing they want. Usually it is backed up by some self-serving justification for why they deserve that right.

Here's the thing that gets me though... In this particular debate, the idea of legalised firearms as being a right (as in facilitating the right to defend yourself) seems utterly flawed.

Certainly, we SHOULD all have the right to defend ourselves against those who would threaten us. BUT(!) firearms aren't really a measure in self defence. They are (or at least have always appeared to me, despite numerous arguments) to be aggressive rather than defensive. Can we argue that they are deterents? That doesn't really work either because if it were a deterant, America ought to be the safest nation in the world. So many Guns, and yet people still commit crime. It does not deter.

Handguns are anti-personnel weapons. They have no other purpose (beyond shooting tin cans, but you can do that with an air rifle/pistol if that's were you get your kicks). So, does the 'right to defend yourself' mean you are entitled to kill? Is murder acceptible under certain circumstances?

I know those of you who are pro-firearms will point out that you can take out limbs and so forth, but that does take a degree of skill, and even with that skill, there is no certainty that wounds will not be fatal.

Furthermore, it is a ranged weapon. That seems a little odd when talking about self defence. It means that you can kill a person as they run away from your house if the red mists come in, or you can kill a person if they look like they might threaten you if they come any closer, or you can kill an innocent bystander because or poor aim / ricochet / bullet passing through target and on to an innocent / hitting a volatile material....etc

A handgun in domestic circumstances is a tool for the frightened. The frightened and edgy shouldn't be holding a firearm.

This is all before we consider the gun as (heaven forbid) a tool of aggression.

There does seem to be something remiss about a mentality that would have such a dangerous 'tool' in their homes or about their person in case they are attacked. Supremely ironic, indeed!

Something that I'd be interested in knowing from anyone out there who knows about American Law: Though issues of public liability even in domestic environments have come up here in the UK, I understand that your litigious nation is rife with claims for personal injury anywhere and everywhere. This is inclusive (I'm lead to understand) where an intruder might cut themselves whilest breaking and entering and can make a claim against the householder as the injury occurred on their property. So where does the Law stand if you shoot and injure (or even take a stab at) the intruder? If the intruder escapes the scene and beat you to the solicitor, can they claim against you for injuries incurred on your property? Can they Press charges for Assault/GBH/ABH? How screwed up is your legal system?

I know ours is screwed up. I heard once of a man trying to defend his property against an intuder and slashed at the intruders leg as he left through a window giving him a deep gash on his calf. The intruder pressed charges against the home owner and succeeded as the injury was incurred as the intruder was leaving the property and so was TECHNICALLY no further threat. That seems somewhat demented to me!

Imagine if we were allowed to have guns here under those circumstances and he popped a shot through the guys chocolate starfish!! His feet wouldn't have touched the ground!




Kin Wicked of Wikaedia





PS
Just to the point about gun crime being unrelated to gun ownership. I have to agree with the comment about accessibility to guns being pretty vital in the argument. A gun is a killing tool. Make it more accessible and more people will die through they're use. You don't buy a hammer if you don't intend hitting a few nails.

PPS
Sorry - I know this is disorganised but.....
I rather liked the comment from Chris Rock (I think I saw it on Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine'). It went something like: "Guns don't kill people. Bullets do! If every bullet cost $5,000 youd virtually stop all gun deaths over night. You really have to hate someone to want to shoot them!"

Handguns have more than an anti-personnel purpose. Ever hear of handgun hunting? Here's what google finds when you look up the term: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=R7h&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=handgun+hunting&spell=1 Therefore, you're wrong.

You say, " There does seem to be something remiss about a mentality that would have such a dangerous 'tool' in their homes or about their person in case they are attacked. Supremely ironic, indeed!". It is only dangerous if misused. A circular saw is also dangerous if misused. A sabre-saw is, too. Is our mentality in question, for having those tools in our household?

BTW, Chris Rock's comment means nothing, as people have produced their own ammunition before (it's not rocket science). In fact, many people that cast their own bullets recycle old wheel weights, instead of buying new lead. Gunpowder can be made (hell, the formula is somewhere on the 'net), and the casings can be reused (a certain number of times) or made from metal stock (casings are usually made from brass, but can also be made from steel or aluminum).

1. Hundreds of thousands of crimes each year are prevented by defensive firearm uses.

Any stats on that? I can also prevent a crime without a firearm: choose my friends, chose the location of my whereabouts, not resisting when someone wants to steal my wallet (hell, it's only property), always chose my life and health instead of property.

2. Most states are enacting legislation to prevent lawsuits by criminals against defenders.

So you'll only have to "prove" someone tresspassed your property and you can shoot him dead?

3. The number of firearms in a population =/= correlate to crime levels

Absolutely untrue. When someone tresspasses your home and he notices you have a handgun, it's more likely he'll use his firearm. He sure as hell won't shoot you when you are no threat to him. And you don't want someone with a gun being afraid or start being nervous. Because it's than that accidents happen.

Why the hell do you even need guns? Make gun legislation a lot tougher and people who commit crime will have it a lot tougher to get a gun either!

Because in the end, it's your health that counts.

BTW: you need a license to drive a car, you can only drink this much alcohol, but for owning a gun you wouldn't need a lot of regulations? Were's the logic in that?

I still didn't see a valid reason for owning guns. Protection is ruled out, because every person should know, that when you don't act agressively, you have a lot less chance to have people act agressively towards you. Of course that doesn't rule out that you will never be aggressed. You're talking about lives when using guns. What's worse than that?

Ow, and don't talk about owning guns equals freedom. You should know that your freedom should stop where another man's freedom begins. Owning a gun is a major threat to the freedom of other people, namely their live.

Sure, if you handle a weapon correctly you shouldn't have "accidents". But I remeber about a year ago a story on NS where a NS user shot himself accidently. (Dante?) It could have been prevented if he just didn't have a gun.

Damn, well, he was also anti-smoking, too, now that you mention it.


While you're at it, don't forget he also liked small children and puppies, and he was a vegetarian....

Oh please posting correlations without a measure of their accuracy is pure masturbation.

I might as well say that “candy sales are on the rise the last 10 years while violent crimes are on the decline so candy sales have an inverse effect on violent crime statistics”

It is worthless without a gauge to correlation.


:eek:
What?! You mean we can't have world peace just by feeding chocolate bars to the whole world? Rats! I was about to use that idea to get my Nobel Peace Prize. Now what'll I do?
:(

Of course not, because second only to football, US bashing is the favourite pasttime of non-US citizens. :rolleyes:


"US bashing"? Awww, diddums... if you can't stand the heat stop blowing up other people's kitchens.

Seriously, we can't keep strutting around the world like self-appointed, uninvited planetary policemen and then be surprised when some people dislike us for not minding our own business. Even real policemen have to grow some skin. Whining on about how they're "bashing" us just makes us look like wimps with BFGs. How sad is that? Just makes it easier for them to imagine a group of Marines trying to re-enact My Lai in Iraq --- they think the Marines were "taking it out" on the Iraqi civilians because they can't face criticism.

IT's not my intent to spend hours attempting to re-itterate myself, so I'll try and keep this brief. (BTW - I know I ramble - sorry - it's just me - I'll stop now - ok)

One or two things you picked on were the Chris Rock thing - I'd added that as an aside rather than an argument. I'm no comedian so didn't put it across as well as CR did. It was just amusing and semi-relevant. Already used too many words justifying that, so lets move on.

Naturally, you're not inside my head so I can't expect you to get my position on this without me using lots, lots more words. Basically though:

Dangerous Tools:
There are lots of dangerous tools around me. Power tools. Kitchen Knives. Heavy vases in elevated positions. etc. The point I was making was that these other tools have 'legitimate', everyday uses. It was not so much to say, tools which can also be dangerous, but tools of dangerous and damaging intent. Which bring me on to:

Handguns/Killing machines/Anti personnel:
Whether guns are designed to hunt, kill, mame, target shoot, etc etc etc - they are entirely destructive. You say that guns rarely kill and not all wounds are fatal. I know what part of my first rant you are refering to, but my point was that whether due to malfunction, human error, or extenuating circumstance, the bullet might not find it's non-vital target and may infact hit somewhere that would lead to a fatality. As I say, Guns are destructive, whatever argument you make. Therefore - ownership to defend oneself is ironic. Particularly where I've seen arguments on here that amount to "I wouldn't need my gun if there were no violent crimes" when one has to consider that the somewhat fear-motivated response of gun ownership comes down to "if he has a gun, I have to have one too!" It basically points to a huge sense of personal insecurity and mistrust that is self-proliferating!!

Hunting:
This isn't my whole argument about hunting - and this isn't a hunting debate really - so this is a side rant and just a bit of thinking aloud. And I'm whole heartedly aware I'm using too many words again....stuff it!

OK - I know it always sounds dumb to start talking about things you've seen in a film when talking about a more serious subject - but I've just been watching a film that raised a lateral theme in my mind and that's why I share it with you here:

I've just been watching Alien-vs-Predator and was quite pleased with the degree of loyalty to both stories that this spin off acheived. But in it (If you've not seen it) the idea is that the Predator species has either engineered or harnessed the Alien species to become a formidable prey in a rite of passage. So, the Predator is the hunter against the Alien. Predator comes along with directed energy weapons, near-unbreakable garrotes and garotte netting, stealth/cloak device, super-strong knives and spears, and if it all goes wrong, a big damn bomb to destroy everything. The Alien species has no weapons beyond its own strength, acidic blood, and tough exo-skeleton.

The film was a bit of fun, but I started to think about how the story would be evolved - how the Predator brings technology to the fight, and though strong in itself, still relies on devices to aid it in its victory. If the Aliens win, then the preditor blows everything up. Either way, the Alien is not permitted to win. It occurred to me that it was an unfair fight, however you looked at it and didn't really prove anything other than the Predator is in control.

But then, I thought of things like fox hunting here and it occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons so many people find it objectionable apart from the unnecessary cruelty is that it is called unting, but the 'hunters' set dogs on the fox and ride a horse all the way. How's about a fair face off? Strip down to your where-with-alls and go one on one with the fox. Could the Country-fops take a fox down head to head? Would they wear their scars and bite marks with pride?

Given the fox is not a mighty foe, why not go head to head with a stag or something? Sure it's dangerous, but there's real testosterone there. You're not hiding behind a peice of technology - you're taking on another beast in a fair fight and you might not be the one who comes off better for it. There's the rush!!

Alright - I know how stupid that is, but these days we farm our livestock. We don't NEED to hunt in traditional terms to eat. So if you do it for kicks, however objectionable the idea of getting kicks out of killing another living thing is to me personally, why not get a real big kick out of it. Go bare-ass-stag-wrestling!! Go on - let's see what you're REALLY made of!

As I say, I know it's an extreme and daft thing to say, but my point is that I fail to see the need to shoot at things that draw breath unless you are farming them, or there is a survival issue in terms of genuine pest control (again, though I don't like the idea - I concede to its necessity).

I've probably missed a load of point that (I think two of you made) so sorry about that.

I hope I've explained my position on guns to you a little better.


One other thing I'd like to add though - the question is asked alot of people in here - which is "What would you do if..." basically you and your loved ones were being threatened with violence.

I've always considered myself a pacifist, though never have I had such murderous feelings as I have since I was forced away from my partner, child and home and she started seeing other guys. In that bad state of mind - if I had guns and lived in a country where it was legal to bear them, I would probably have made some irrational choices. And that's without there being any genuine physical threat being directed at me or my family! I'm glad in that regard that I come from the culture I do.

What would I do though if I or they were threatened? I don't know in truth. I can only guess that I would defend to the best of my ability at the given time. Would a gun help? I don't believe so! Suppose the aggressor had a gun and I drew mine - then in a stand off, all we're doing is playing chicken and someone's going to get hurt. If they didn't have a gun I would have no need for one.

I suppose what I'm driving at is that Guns in a practical sense to me are useless and amount to no more than and alpha-male penis extension. I don't need one of those. I'm secure.


Kin Wicked

LOL. You obviously know nothing about the Second Amendment. You see, in the late eighteenth century it was quite fashionable to wear bear fur on jacket sleeves, thus "bear arms", and the framers of the amendment refused to allow the right to wear them to be infringed. Do some research next time, before you make ridiculous claims.

Thanks for this. I badly needed a smile today. Bad day. Finding that there's someone here who can make sense of the second amendment has given me a 6 foot grin.

Now, where did I leave my "bear arms"?

You forgot one:

"Hitler was for gun control"


http://cooltools.wolfram-studios.com/tools/internetarguingchecklist/default.aspx?c=2

Zing


And I can't post images for some reason :headbang:


Lower end post limit I take it?

Any stats on that? I can also prevent a crime without a firearm: choose my friends, chose the location of my whereabouts, not resisting when someone wants to steal my wallet (hell, it's only property), always chose my life and health instead of property.

If someone tells you to give him your wallet, he's commiting a crime. You prevent nothing by just handing it over to him.

[QUOTE=Needless to say]So you'll only have to "prove" someone tresspassed your property and you can shoot him dead?

Well, you would have to prove self defense to avoid criminal charges. The laws are to protect the person(s) that have had to defend themselves from civil suits.

[QUOTE=Needless to say]Absolutely untrue. When someone tresspasses your home and he notices you have a handgun, it's more likely he'll use his firearm. He sure as hell won't shoot you when you are no threat to him. And you don't want someone with a gun being afraid or start being nervous. Because it's than that accidents happen.

You're assuming the intruder will have a firearm.

Why the hell do you even need guns? Make gun legislation a lot tougher and people who commit crime will have it a lot tougher to get a gun either!

I am in the process of building my AR in order to target shoot, and to familiarize myself with the mechanics of shooting (although if I get good enough, I wouldn't mind competing in target competitions). Eventually, I want to start hunting (what can I say, I like the taste of deer meat).

Because in the end, it's your health that counts.

I do agree that if you don't have your health, you don't have anything.

BTW: you need a license to drive a car, you can only drink this much alcohol, but for owning a gun you wouldn't need a lot of regulations? Were's the logic in that?

Actually, in many states, you need to take a course and submit to a background check in order to get a CCW. To hunt, you need to pass a hunter's safety course and a background check.

Any stats on that? I can also prevent a crime without a firearm: choose my friends, chose the location of my whereabouts, not resisting when someone wants to steal my wallet (hell, it's only property), always chose my life and health instead of property.

If someone tells you to give him your wallet, he's commiting a crime. You prevent nothing by just handing it over to him.

[QUOTE=Needless to say]So you'll only have to "prove" someone tresspassed your property and you can shoot him dead?

Well, you would have to prove self defense to avoid criminal charges. The laws are to protect the person(s) that have had to defend themselves from civil suits.

[QUOTE=Needless to say]Absolutely untrue. When someone tresspasses your home and he notices you have a handgun, it's more likely he'll use his firearm. He sure as hell won't shoot you when you are no threat to him. And you don't want someone with a gun being afraid or start being nervous. Because it's than that accidents happen.

You're assuming the intruder will have a firearm.

Why the hell do you even need guns? Make gun legislation a lot tougher and people who commit crime will have it a lot tougher to get a gun either!

I am in the process of building my AR in order to target shoot, and to familiarize myself with the mechanics of shooting (although if I get good enough, I wouldn't mind competing in target competitions). Eventually, I want to start hunting (what can I say, I like the taste of deer meat).

Because in the end, it's your health that counts.

I do agree that if you don't have your health, you don't have anything.

I still didn't see a valid reason for owning guns. Protection is ruled out, because every person should know, that when you don't act agressively, you have a lot less chance to have people act agressively towards you. Of course that doesn't rule out that you will never be aggressed. You're talking about lives when using guns. What's worse than that?

As others and I have pointed out many times, there are more uses to a firearm than to kill someone. Therefore, the line about us talking about lives when we use guns is wrong. If you're just referring to the self defense issue when you make that statement, then I tell you I'd rather be alive and feel bad the rest of my life than to be dead.

Ow, and don't talk about owning guns equals freedom. You should know that your freedom should stop where another man's freedom begins. Owning a gun is a major threat to the freedom of other people, namely their live.

The reverse is also true: Another person's freedom (life) ends where mine begins. If I end up taking someone's freedom (life) with a firearm, you can be rest assured it was because they were trying to take my freedom (life) away.

Sure, if you handle a weapon correctly you shouldn't have "accidents". But I remeber about a year ago a story on NS where a NS user shot himself accidently. (Dante?) It could have been prevented if he just didn't have a gun.

It could have also been prevented if that person followed proper safety proceedures. If firearms owners would take a firearms safety course (I have), they would know how to prevent firearms accidents.

How about we compromise? Gun ownership should be completely unrestricted and unregulated --- ditto armour piercing rounds and all the rest --- and all gun owners should be allowed to carry any gun concealed that they can, without the need for a permit or license or any permission whatever.

BUT, reclassify all forms of gunpowder under prevention of terrorism legislation as "contraband terrorist material" and outlaw it altogether, with Draconian penalties for owning gunpowder in any form and in any quantity. Thirty years in solitary mandatory sentencefor a first offence should be enough.

That way, gun owners can point out that nobody's taking their guns from them, and anti-gun folks can point out equally that the guns are safe. Everybody wins something, and no one has to feel like they didn't get something they really care about or like they lost face.

Ow, and don't talk about owning guns equals freedom. You should know that your freedom should stop where another man's freedom begins. Owning a gun is a major threat to the freedom of other people, namely their live.

Yeah! That's another thing that bugged me! The freedom argument!

Ok - I've already said that I think freedom is an illusory concept. For every 'freedom' you obtain comes another responsibility. Most people's arguments, not just about guns but ALL freedoms, seem to revolve around them thinking they have the right not to be responsible for their actions and certainly not responsible for the rights they choose to excercise. It often feels as though people think a right means you can do something consequence free. Odd that.

Anyhow - I'm getting off-topic.

All I really wanted to say is that for those comments that do kind of boil down to GUNS = FREEDOM (whatever their justifications), you really need to realise the contradiction there.

How free are you when you need to carry a destructive tool in order to feel free? What you have is a placebo-freedom. Your freedom is in fact hampered by your fear, the fear of others, mistrust, dependance on the manufacture of arms and ammunition...

Complete freedom is impossible because it does not exist. If it did exist, it would be called Chaos. And Chaos is not free!


Kin Wicked

I have never understood how people can place all the blame on an inanimate object, while the person who is controlling that object is blameless.

I have never understood how people can place all the blame on an inanimate object, while the person who is controlling that object is blameless.

Has anyone made that claim?

OK then, lets keep the guns but outlaw people. One or the other has to go, surely! ;)

I have never understood how people can place all the blame on an inanimate object, while the person who is controlling that object is blameless.
Who is saying the shooter is blameless?

How about we compromise? Gun ownership should be completely unrestricted and unregulated --- ditto armour piercing rounds and all the rest --- and all gun owners should be allowed to carry any gun concealed that they can, without the need for a permit or license or any permission whatever.

BUT, reclassify all forms of gunpowder under prevention of terrorism legislation as "contraband terrorist material" and outlaw it altogether, with Draconian penalties for owning gunpowder in any form and in any quantity. Thirty years in solitary mandatory sentencefor a first offence should be enough.

That way, gun owners can point out that nobody's taking their guns from them, and anti-gun folks can point out equally that the guns are safe. Everybody wins something, and no one has to feel like they didn't get something they really care about or like they lost face.

You're forgetting some things. Criminals don't follow the law, so all this will do is affect law abiding gun owners. Another is 30 years in solitary confinement could be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. Also, you'd have to ban matches. The reason is that the match heads, when ground into a powder, could be used as a (weak) bullet propellant.

You want to stop all the gun crime? Ban the criminals. There are somewhere around 30,000 outstanding arrest warrants in Connecticut alone. Maybe if these warrants were served, instead of the pols making useless feel-good legislation, we'd finally see a reduction of crime.

You'r forgetting some things. Criminals don't follow the law, so all this will do is affect law abiding gun owners. Another is 30 years in solitary confinement could be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. Also, you'd have to ban matches. The reason is that the match heads, when ground into a powder, could be used as a (weak) bullet propellant.

You want to stop all the gun crime? Ban the criminals. There are somewhere around 30,000 outstanding arrest warrants in Connecticut alone. Maybe if these warrants were served, instead of the pols making useless feel-good legislation, we'd finally see a reduction of crime.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel this is something of a circular argument. Don't ban guns because criminals will not respect the ban and keep their guns. So if the criminals have guns then I need guns to defend myself.

BUT!!!!!! A gun is offensive!!! not DEfensive! It doesn't offer a big bullet deflecting shield. It just fires these lethal little pips the same as the criminals gun does. What does that acheive?

Criminalise firearms and the moment you find someone in posession of one, they can be taken in by the police and convicted accordingly.

I know that seems like an impossible notion, but it works alright here in the UK. YES! People do get their hands on firearms illegally and they DO use them to kill people. However, they are not widely available! They are difficult to get hold of and expensive. Certain branches of the police force carry firearms, the military have firearms, and those with the necessary liscence can have firearms but with very strict rules on where they are stored, how they can be transported and where they can be used. In short, Gun crime in the UK just isn't worth the bother. I understand that our gun crime rates are significantly lower proportionally than that in the states.

In contrast to all that I have said, I suspect that those of you who are pro-gun aren't too fond of Mr. Michael Moore. But one of the points he makes in his film "Bowling for Columbine" is that other nations who have relaxed gun laws similar to America have incredibly low gun crime statistics - the one that stands out in my mind being Canada. I was surprised that any society with permissive gun legislation could boast such figures. As Moore pointed out, it had to be something else in American culture that creates the levels of gun crime it suffers from.

Certainly, prohibition of firearms might be the way to go where there appears to be something of a national character flaw that other nations do not apparently suffer from.

Here's one way to look at it. America took it upon itself to rid Iraq of WMDs that they supposedly believed they had. Since America can boast an armourment of WMD's of their own in the name of self defence, one can only assume that they took their authority from the fact that they made these loose connections between al-qaida and Iraq and may have taken the 'moral ground' that maybe Hussein and Iraq were not responsible enough to be armed in this way. Well, what if the rest of the world examine the statistics relating to gun crime and deaths and injuries relating to firearms and compared them to similarly permissive countries who are at peace at least within their own borders. Suppose the rest of the world felt that America is just not responsible enough to bear such arms, but could have them back when they could show they could behave like the good boys and girls of say (with my admittedly limited frame of reference) Canada.

All I'm saying is that while you make the argument that people with guns ought to use them properly, you have to face the fact that there are alrming numbers of misuses of guns. That's facing the reality of it. Just like you point out the reality of taking the guns away means that criminals will do as criminals do and get their hands on guns illegally. It's the reality of it.

BTW, I like "Ban the criminals." I thought that was hilarious! Criminals by their very nature and title ARE banned!! Pointing out the authorities innability to catch every criminal is just another of those realities. You and any others toting a gun is simply provocational, and while you may feel inclined to call it defence, you run the risk of turning yourself into a criminal whether you agree with it or not.


Kin Wicked


PS - yes - wordy again. Sorry

I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel this is something of a circular argument. Don't ban guns because criminals will not respect the ban and keep their guns. So if the criminals have guns then I need guns to defend myself.

BUT!!!!!! A gun is offensive!!! not DEfensive! It doesn't offer a big bullet deflecting shield. It just fires these lethal little pips the same as the criminals gun does. What does that acheive?

Criminalise firearms and the moment you find someone in posession of one, they can be taken in by the police and convicted accordingly.

I know that seems like an impossible notion, but it works alright here in the UK. YES! People do get their hands on firearms illegally and they DO use them to kill people. However, they are not widely available! They are difficult to get hold of and expensive. Certain branches of the police force carry firearms, the military have firearms, and those with the necessary liscence can have firearms but with very strict rules on where they are stored, how they can be transported and where they can be used. In short, Gun crime in the UK just isn't worth the bother. I understand that our gun crime rates are significantly lower proportionally than that in the states.

In contrast to all that I have said, I suspect that those of you who are pro-gun aren't too fond of Mr. Michael Moore. But one of the points he makes in his film "Bowling for Columbine" is that other nations who have relaxed gun laws similar to America have incredibly low gun crime statistics - the one that stands out in my mind being Canada. I was surprised that any society with permissive gun legislation could boast such figures. As Moore pointed out, it had to be something else in American culture that creates the levels of gun crime it suffers from.

Certainly, prohibition of firearms might be the way to go where there appears to be something of a national character flaw that other nations do not apparently suffer from.

Here's one way to look at it. America took it upon itself to rid Iraq of WMDs that they supposedly believed they had. Since America can boast an armourment of WMD's of their own in the name of self defence, one can only assume that they took their authority from the fact that they made these loose connections between al-qaida and Iraq and may have taken the 'moral ground' that maybe Hussein and Iraq were not responsible enough to be armed in this way. Well, what if the rest of the world examine the statistics relating to gun crime and deaths and injuries relating to firearms and compared them to similarly permissive countries who are at peace at least within their own borders. Suppose the rest of the world felt that America is just not responsible enough to bear such arms, but could have them back when they could show they could behave like the good boys and girls of say (with my admittedly limited frame of reference) Canada.

All I'm saying is that while you make the argument that people with guns ought to use them properly, you have to face the fact that there are alrming numbers of misuses of guns. That's facing the reality of it. Just like you point out the reality of taking the guns away means that criminals will do as criminals do and get their hands on guns illegally. It's the reality of it.

BTW, I like "Ban the criminals." I thought that was hilarious! Criminals by their very nature and title ARE banned!! Pointing out the authorities innability to catch every criminal is just another of those realities. You and any others toting a gun is simply provocational, and while you may feel inclined to call it defence, you run the risk of turning yourself into a criminal whether you agree with it or not.


Kin Wicked


PS - yes - wordy again. Sorry


It's not a circular argument. It's a matter of not punishing the innocent for the transgressions of the guilty.

So, a homeowner racking a shotgun and scaring away an intruder is offensive? It's an offensive situation when the thug with a knife runs away when a law abiding citizen points a gun at him? Is a woman using a firearm in an offensive manner when she grabs the gun from her nightstand and uses it to stop an attacker from raping her?

I'd say no, those were DEFENSIVE uses of a firearm.

If foriegn troops tried to set foot in (invade) the US to take away our firearms, they'd have to get them one bullet at a time.

Also, I have some questions for you. Why is it you neglect to address the hunting aspect of firearms ownership? Why haven't you acknowledged the target shooting side of shooting? What about the person who inherited the WWII war trophy Mauser that their grandfather brought back from Europe? A firearms ban would deprive these people of an activity/sport that they enjoy. Hunting puts meat on the table (if the hunter is good enough), target shooting is in the Olympics, and a collectible firearm like mentioned above may have significant sentimental value.


Hey, since you said you live in the UK, do me a favor. Get on Google and look up Philip Luty for me. :D

BUT!!!!!! A gun is offensive!!! not DEfensive! It doesn't offer a big bullet deflecting shield. It just fires these lethal little pips the same as the criminals gun does. What does that acheive?

Criminalise firearms and the moment you find someone in posession of one, they can be taken in by the police and convicted accordingly.



Kin Wicked


PS - yes - wordy again. Sorry


Once again. Your whole concept of "offensive"/"defensive" is flawed. Firearms ARE used hundreds of thousands of times each year DEFENSIVELY against criminals, armed or not. You assume that a criminal will not harm you if you give them your property. This is false. The myth of passiveness leads to nowhere but more confident criminals.

You want stats, here:

http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Maybe you didn't read my post as to all the flaws in BFC. There are numerous contries w/ relaxed firearm laws that have low crime. There are countries w/ strict firearm laws that have high crime rates. Once again, the criminals don't care about the law and there is no correlation between private ownership and crime levels.

The majority of the "misuses" of firearms as you put it are done by people who don't legally have them in the first place. The 80 million plus people that do have them responsibly shouldn't be punished because of that.

Any stats on that? I can also prevent a crime without a firearm: choose my friends, chose the location of my whereabouts, not resisting when someone wants to steal my wallet (hell, it's only property), always chose my life and health instead of property.

Not resisting works so well. It gives the criminals confidence. Good job. WOuld you resist a rapist? Howabout when they're raping your wife or daughter?



So you'll only have to "prove" someone tresspassed your property and you can shoot him dead?

That's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes: Any more stupid questions?



Absolutely untrue. When someone tresspasses your home and he notices you have a handgun, it's more likely he'll use his firearm. He sure as hell won't shoot you when you are no threat to him. And you don't want someone with a gun being afraid or start being nervous. Because it's than that accidents happen.

Any proof of this? How is it that hundreds of thousands of crimes are prevented each year w/o this happening? How is it that ownership has increased and accidents have decreased?

Why the hell do you even need guns? Make gun legislation a lot tougher and people who commit crime will have it a lot tougher to get a gun either!

And gun crime has increased in the UK then why? Because the police are doing such a good job?

Because in the end, it's your health that counts.

And a firearm has the potential to keep you healthy.

BTW: you need a license to drive a car, you can only drink this much alcohol, but for owning a gun you wouldn't need a lot of regulations? Were's the logic in that?

Do you need a criminal background check to own a car? Do you need a license to purchase a car? Do you need a license to drive a car on private property?

I still didn't see a valid reason for owning guns. Protection is ruled out, because every person should know, that when you don't act agressively, you have a lot less chance to have people act agressively towards you. Of course that doesn't rule out that you will never be aggressed. You're talking about lives when using guns. What's worse than that?

Your lack of imagination and myths of how criminals respond to passive behavior are worse than that.

Ow, and don't talk about owning guns equals freedom. You should know that your freedom should stop where another man's freedom begins. Owning a gun is a major threat to the freedom of other people, namely their live.

No it's not. THat's your personal opinion that has no bearing on reality.

Sure, if you handle a weapon correctly you shouldn't have "accidents". But I remeber about a year ago a story on NS where a NS user shot himself accidently. (Dante?) It could have been prevented if he just didn't have a gun.

Because no other accidents ever happen. Get rid of all pools.

. Criminals don't follow the law, so all this will do is affect law abiding gun owners.
This statement makes it seem like criminals all go to Villainy Headquarters after a big job. Many criminals were law abiding citizens when they bought the gun. I'm not really going against the other things you were saying, had that headache and I just don't have enough knowledge on the subject, but that type of statement always bothered me.

This statement makes it seem like criminals all go to Villainy Headquarters after a big job. Many criminals were law abiding citizens when they bought the gun. I'm not really going against the other things you were saying, had that headache and I just don't have enough knowledge on the subject, but that type of statement always bothered me.
But the vast majority of gun owners are responsible owners and never become criminials.
Only a small percentage either have their guns stolen or use them in the commission of a crime.
Criminals have already proven that they disregard the law, so by definition they would simply disregard any gun law passed.
All gun regulations do is affect law abiding citizens. You would strip them of their self defense and do nothing to criminals.
How does that make any sense?

Has anyone made that claim?

OK then, lets keep the guns but outlaw people. One or the other has to go, surely! ;)
Why?
You seem to always equate gun ownership with a threat to your safety. That's simply not true. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible owners. You probably know some yet never know they own one.

Guns are used defensively, that's a fact.
1million to 2.5 million times each year in the US a gun is used defensively. Most of those never even involve pulling the trigger.

Don't like guns? Don't own one. Move to Japan or somewhere like that. Let me exorcize my right as I see fit.

<---Big time Gun owner. Still no crimes, not even a ticket after getting my first rifle at age 18. If anything, it's made me more law abiding...I always want to keep that right.

Oh, and for those who say just comply with the demands of a burglar/robber/home invader...there is a thread in the General forum for you

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11102241#post11102241

Now who's being idiotic? Show me any pro-2nd ammendment person who argues for personal ownership of nuclear arms...
Every human on the planet has the basic human right to self defense. A gun is simply a tool of self defense, therefor every human on the planet should have the right to own a gun.


It would help if you could understand the meaning behind the slogan. Make for a more intelligent debate. Don't you think?

So I have the right to own a Tank? It's a tool for self defense and protection, especially on the road. Hey, I have a case! The roads can be dangerous out there, and no one will crash into me for malicious purposes. It's a possibility, right?

Some misconceptions here...
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

While guns don't levitate and randomly discharge, guns facilitate violence and allow it to be escalated; guns merely make the action of murder easier, safer, and, less personal.actually, Guns don't don't make the action of murder easier... it's them pesky bullets inside them.

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

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak![Mental telepathy]and what you say is true...[/mental Telepathy]

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

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.actually, a nuclear weapon can kill just by sitting there... should the casing get a crack... or the sealants leak... the radation itself can be leathal even without the weapon being used.

after all, you must remember, that all nuclear weapons were built by the LOWEST bidder.

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

Interesting little slogans that I found while researching for my debate case :p (Explanations are my little musings.)Good luck on that case. what's the resoultion debated?

So I have the right to own a Tank? It's a tool for self defense and protection, especially on the road. Hey, I have a case! The roads can be dangerous out there, and no one will crash into me for malicious purposes. It's a possibility, right?
and it's safe. I mean, how many cases have you heard of someone accidentally shooting themselves while cleaning a Tank?

provides safety and proficiency training to law enforcement


You mean like that officer in the video talking about gun safety befopre shooting himself in the leg? :p

They also make it much easier to defend against violent crime.

I would argue that it more or less doesn't make things that much better. Rules of escalation and all that. Something new occurs that makes committing a crime harder, criminals get stuff to counter that or level the playing field. If more people start sporting guns, more criminals will apply shoot first rules and/or get body armor.

Will it increase/decrease crime rates? Not really, crime is usually determined by how effective law enforcement is and the local economy. People with decent jobs usually don't commit armed felonies. I say usually because it won't do much about those commit crimes for reasons other than lining their pockets.

So I have the right to own a Tank? It's a tool for self defense and protection, especially on the road. Hey, I have a case! The roads can be dangerous out there, and no one will crash into me for malicious purposes. It's a possibility, right?

People do own their own tanks. They are demilled, but they can be available (not often though, I'd imagine).

You mean like that officer in the video talking about gun safety befopre shooting himself in the leg? :p

The class can only tell you what not to do. It was the officer's fault for not following what he was taught. Of course, we don't know if he took an NRA safety course, but he went through the police academy, so he did get SOME firearms safety training.

Once again. Your whole concept of "offensive"/"defensive" is flawed. Firearms ARE used hundreds of thousands of times each year DEFENSIVELY against criminals, armed or not. You assume that a criminal will not harm you if you give them your property. This is false. The myth of passiveness leads to nowhere but more confident criminals.


How is what you describe not an offensive use of a gun. Sure, you use it to defend your property, but you use it in an offensive manner. When you pull the trigger, it's not like it generate a force field that protects you. It is used to hurt someone.

How is what you describe not an offensive use of a gun. Sure, you use it to defend your property, but you use it in an offensive manner. When you pull the trigger, it's not like it generate a force field that protects you. It is used to hurt someone.

Actually, when I've used a gun defensively, I never had to fire a shot. So it did act like a force field that protected me. It also made the perpetrator suddenly acquire good manners.

I didn't hurt anyone. So stuff that in your shirt.

Actually, when I've used a gun defensively, I never had to fire a shot. So it did act like a force field that protected me. It also made the perpetrator suddenly acquire good manners.

I didn't hurt anyone. So stuff that in your shirt.

So what happens if your opponent also has a gun?

Actually, when I've used a gun defensively, I never had to fire a shot. So it did act like a force field that protected me. It also made the perpetrator suddenly acquire good manners.
Now, THAT is an example of using a gun defensively. But what the other guy siad was definitively not.


I didn't hurt anyone. So stuff that in your shirt.
Oh, go fuck yourself. Can't we have a proper conversation without you resorting to derogatory comments? I realize this is a sensitive issue for you but we're not all out to grab your guns away from you. As long as you don't act civilized, I'll say screw you. Call me when you can talk like a rational adult.

So what happens if your opponent also has a gun?

Then it's a matter of who is willing to do what the other will not.

It's quite unlikely in the US that your opponent will have a gun. 94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a firearm. So the odds are definitely in my favor.

I would argue that it more or less doesn't make things that much better. Rules of escalation and all that. Something new occurs that makes committing a crime harder, criminals get stuff to counter that or level the playing field. If more people start sporting guns, more criminals will apply shoot first rules and/or get body armor.

Then why hasn't it happened? 48 states w/ concealed carry laws. Body armor is also bulky and varies in the level of protection.

Will it increase/decrease crime rates? Not really, crime is usually determined by how effective law enforcement is and the local economy. People with decent jobs usually don't commit armed felonies. I say usually because it won't do much about those commit crimes for reasons other than lining their pockets.

There are lots of factors involved in crime rates. I don't claim that widespread CCW/ownership will absolutely reduce crime rates. I also reject the claims that it increases crime or the lethality of crimes.

94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a firearm. So the odds are definitely in my favor.

So does this take the stuffing out of the argument that if we ban guns only criminals will have them? Since it seems the majority of criminals don't have them to begin with?

At any rate, I'm curious about some of these statistics.

Someone was giving the statistic that an increase in gun ownership shows no increase in the rates of lethality. However, given that crime rates overall are decreasing, shouldn't there actually be a decrease in lethality, rather than remaining at the same level? Or am I interpreting that person's statistic incorrectly? (Without access to the original statistic they're quoting, it's difficult to tell)

If as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down but lethality remains the same, does this not suggest a valid correlation in the OPs point of escalation being facilitated by gun use?

Personally, I feel guns should be entirely banned, but non-lethal, incapacitating weaponry (such as tasers) made readily available.

So does this take the stuffing out of the argument that if we ban guns only criminals will have them? Since it seems the majority of criminals don't have them to begin with?

Just because not all of them use them doesn't mean that none do. If you take them away from all the non-criminals, then only the criminals will have them left.

At any rate, I'm curious about some of these statistics.

Someone was giving the statistic that an increase in gun ownership shows no increase in the rates of lethality. However, given that crime rates overall are decreasing, shouldn't there actually be a decrease in lethality, rather than remaining at the same level? Or am I interpreting that person's statistic incorrectly? (Without access to the original statistic they're quoting, it's difficult to tell)

If as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down but lethality remains the same, does this not suggest a valid correlation in the OPs point of escalation being facilitated by gun use?

And yet the murder rates have gone down.

Personally, I feel guns should be entirely banned, but non-lethal, incapacitating weaponry (such as tasers) made readily available.

And yet firearms have other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things.

Personally, I feel guns should be entirely banned, but non-lethal, incapacitating weaponry (such as tasers) made readily available.
That's acceptable. Ban all of your guns.

I'll choose to keep mine thank you very much.

To each his own.

And yet firearms have other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things.
I'm curious as to those uses. Could you enlighten me, please?

Just because not all of them use them doesn't mean that none do. If you take them away from all the non-criminals, then only the criminals will have them left.
So you're arguing if enforcement isn't perfect there shouldn't be any enforcement at all? Interesting. Given this logic, it naturally follows that all saftey regulations should be eliminated as well. Why have stop-lights, as only the law abiding citizens obey them?

And yet the murder rates have gone down.Of course they have. As the general crime rate has gone down, murder rates will of course follow. The question is, has the rate of gun lethalities gone down at the same rate as that of crime as a whole?

And yet firearms have other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things.Ah, well if you're not going to be using it for self defense, then you obviously don't need something capable of delivering lethal force, correct? Purchase a paint-ball gun for your target shooting -- get more use from the same target, even.

So you're arguing if enforcement isn't perfect there shouldn't be any enforcement at all? Interesting. Given this logic, it naturally follows that all saftey regulations should be eliminated as well. Why have stop-lights, as only the law abiding citizens obey them?

Did I make that false dichotomy? No I did not. Try again.

Of course they have. As the general crime rate has gone down, murder rates will of course follow. The question is, has the rate of gun lethalities gone down at the same rate as that of crime as a whole?

Yes

Ah, well if you're not going to be using it for self defense, then you obviously don't need something capable of delivering lethal force, correct? Purchase a paint-ball gun for your target shooting -- get more use from the same target, even.

Which is only one use. Howabout collecting, varmint control, hunting, etc. Maybe I just don't like paint balling.

So does this take the stuffing out of the argument that if we ban guns only criminals will have them? Since it seems the majority of criminals don't have them to begin with?

At any rate, I'm curious about some of these statistics.

Someone was giving the statistic that an increase in gun ownership shows no increase in the rates of lethality. However, given that crime rates overall are decreasing, shouldn't there actually be a decrease in lethality, rather than remaining at the same level? Or am I interpreting that person's statistic incorrectly? (Without access to the original statistic they're quoting, it's difficult to tell)

If as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down but lethality remains the same, does this not suggest a valid correlation in the OPs point of escalation being facilitated by gun use?

Personally, I feel guns should be entirely banned, but non-lethal, incapacitating weaponry (such as tasers) made readily available.


Gun ownership over the period of this data (about 10 years) went up by 50%.

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

The violent crime plummeted about 65 percent. The murder rate by firearms also plummeted over the same period.

So, death by firearm plummeted while firearm ownership radically increased.

Gun ownership over the period of this data (about 10 years) went up by 50%.

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

The violent crime plummeted about 65 percent. The murder rate by firearms also plummeted over the same period.

So, death by firearm plummeted while firearm ownership radically increased.
AS pointed out before … candy sales

Maybe gun ownership has no correlation with violent crime… or maybe some common motivating factor caused both effects (such as continued economic growth, which HAS shown the ability to reduce crime)

I'm curious as to those uses. Could you enlighten me, please?
bump as nobody answered me.

What other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things do firearms have?

bump as nobody answered me.

What other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things do firearms have?
Well I have a grenade as a paper weight … I suppose a gun would do the job as well

AS pointed out before … candy sales

Maybe gun ownership has no correlation with violent crime… or maybe some common motivating factor caused both effects (such as continued economic growth, which HAS shown the ability to reduce crime)

That's my point - that gun ownership is not correlated with violent crime. I.E., I do not buy the idea that "more guns equals more crime".

I do, however, believe that the plummet in violent crime overall, and hence the plummet in firearm crime, is based on the dismantling of the welfare housing projects - i.e., the decentralization of the urban poor starting in 1993.

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

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Yeah, and when speech is outlawed, only outlaws will speak!

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

"Guns are necessary so that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. ... Don't punish all gun owners for the actions of a few."

You're right! Why should I, a legitimate nuclear weapons collector, be punished because terrorists misuse them? Remember: nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people.

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


http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/cartoon/mrdid.jpg

bump as nobody answered me.

What other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things do firearms have?
What, do we have to answer you within a certain time period?

Firearms are a hobby, and useful as entertainment.

A large percentage of Olympic sports events involve shooting.

During the Summer Games, for instance, the majority of the US Olympic Team is shooters.

Firearms are an instrument of power. They do not have to be fired in order to be effective (although that helps sometimes).

What, do we have to answer you within a certain time period?
No but I figured it might have been lost in the shuffle.


Firearms are a hobby, and useful as entertainment.

A large percentage of Olympic sports events involve shooting.

During the Summer Games, for instance, the majority of the US Olympic Team is shooters.

Firearms are an instrument of power. They do not have to be fired in order to be effective (although that helps sometimes).
Again, what other use is there for a firearm besides incapacitating thing?

The fact that it's a hobby changes nothing to the fact that the hobby involves incapacitating thing.

No but I figured it might have been lost in the shuffle.

Again, what other use is there for a firearm besides incapacitating thing?

The fact that it's a hobby changes nothing to the fact that the hobby involves incapacitating thing.

Shooting paper or electronic targets in Olympic competition has nothing to do with incapacitating.

yes it does. it incapacitates the target as it is no longer complete and cannot fulfill his original role.

Face it, a firearms is designe for offensive purpose only. Either it is used to incapacitate or as a deterrent. The deterrent effect is a direct cause of the offensive purpose or a firearm. If you show as spoon to a would-be thief, he will not reconsider as a spoon has not an ability to incapacitate him.

Not that it should in any way be relevant to the gun-control issue, mind you (after all, many other offensive weapons are not controled like baseball bat) but to say that guns are not designed to hurt is purely delusionnal.

yes it does. it incapacitates the target as it is no longer complete and cannot fulfill his original role.

Face it, a firearms is designe for offensive purpose only. Either it is used to incapacitate or as a deterrent. The deterrent effect is a direct cause of the offensive purpose or a firearm. If you show as spoon to a would-be thief, he will not reconsider as a spoon has not an ability to incapacitate him.

Not that it should in any way be relevant to the gun-control issue, mind you (after all, many other offensive weapons are not controled like baseball bat) but to say that guns are not designed to hurt is purely delusionnal.
The delusional part is you simple not accepting evidence posted contrary to your prejudices.

Smith and Wessen Model 52. It's designed as a target pistol only. It doesn't incapacitate a paper target (that's just being stupid). It cuts very clean holes in targets. The target can still be used. The very design that cuts clean holes in targets minimizes the damage that is done to tissue.
It's not designed for offensive purposes only.
It's not designed for defensive purposes only.
It's only designed for target shooting.

yes it does. it incapacitates the target as it is no longer complete and cannot fulfill his original role.

Face it, a firearms is designe for offensive purpose only. Either it is used to incapacitate or as a deterrent. The deterrent effect is a direct cause of the offensive purpose or a firearm. If you show as spoon to a would-be thief, he will not reconsider as a spoon has not an ability to incapacitate him.

Not that it should in any way be relevant to the gun-control issue, mind you (after all, many other offensive weapons are not controled like baseball bat) but to say that guns are not designed to hurt is purely delusionnal.

Tell you what EC, if you are ever in my area stop in and go shooting with me. While I do own several military grade rifles that I have never used in a offencive or defencive manor. If nothing elce, you can come and get first hand experience with the things you are against.

Did'nt read trougth 16 page to see if someone mentionned it.

"God created man, Colt made them equal" :rolleyes:

I see by going to this page on the same site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

That actual homicides involving handguns have remained at about the same level since 1976 despite every other type of homicide decreasing and crime as a whole decreasing.

From 1985 to 1993, homicide by handgun increased dramatically, while homicide by other means decreased.

More interesting, if you look at the bit of the graph after 2000, homicide by both handguns and other guns is now increasing, despite other methods staying flat or decreasing.

Of course, I'm unaware of what the legislation was or is that may have caused or affected these trends. Was significant gun legislation imposed in 1985 and subsequently removed in 1993? That would suggest those in the pro-gun camp may have something. Of course, given that 1981 - 1993 were all republican years, I tend to think that an increase in handgun legislation didn't happen, while in 1993 a democrat got in, and handgun legislation was thereafter imposed.

I'm in agreement with those that say the presence or absence of gun legislation does not affect the incidence of crime conclusively one way or another. I do tend to feel that absence of gun control does, however, increase the chances of a crime committed being lethal.

Try to get your point across without the use of expletives; it really aids you in making your point.

Second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Well-Regulated: As in regulated by the government
Milita= Hint: you're not in one
People: What people? What about the rights for felons to have guns? Or the mentally handicapped? Or the mentally insane?
Arms: What Arms? Uzis? Grenade Launchers? Pistols?
Detailed knowledge of grammar in a language you speak is a useful skill to aquire. The first half of the sentence is subordinate to the second. This means that the second half does not hinge on the existence of the first. Not to mention that my point was that your so-called 'proper' enforcement of the laws needed to stop the gun trafficking would violate the listed amendments, and had nothing to do with the 2nd itself.

I'm sorry about the confusion. What I was talking about was snipers that are meant for Military uses. Rifles that use armor piercing rounds should not be legal. However ones meant for taking out deer n such should not be banned.

And it depends on what kind of bolt action rifle. Accuracy International AE sniper rifle should not be legal. A winchester meant for hunting should.

Oh as it comes to hunting; definately allow it. Any animal rights activist who tells you otherwise should be ignored
Um, no. Most hunting rounds are armor piercing. In fact, AP ammo for rifles of .308/7.62 caliber and above is pretty rare. Not to mention that given the cost of AI's rifles, it's highly flipping doubtful that someone's going to buy one to kill a bunch of people with. They price between 3-13 grand. Unless you're hiding behind steel plate more than 10 mm thick, most rifles will penetrate.

Also, it has been proven that people with guns in their cars drive more aggresively. See? Guns do cause aggressiveness, at least in drivers.

'Proven'. Interesting wording that. I know exactly what 'study' you're talking about.

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2006_01_29_geekwitha45_archive.html#113890905456896325


Public Policy and discourse is being guided and informed by "the color of science", and science is becoming increasingly tainted with agenda and money.

I recall a conversation I had with a left leaning friend, wherein I bemoaned the fact that "science" continues to enjoy a respect it often no longer deserves.

He misinterpreted my comments, and believing me to be under the spell of some sort of right wing IQ reducing, knuckle dragging potion. "How can you abandon belief in SCIENCE?" he nearly screamed, perhaps fending off the edges of hysteria.

I assured him that my commitment to the rigorous application of the scientific method remained as strong as ever, and that to the extent that our physical world can be described, it can and ought to be done empirically.

What I doubted, I clarified, was whether these methods were actually being applied with anything approximating integrity.

"What about peer review?" he asked.

I shook my head, momentarilly at a loss for an answer. Peer review, the supposed guardian process that ensures that what passes for science actually IS science often does not fulfill its purpose.

Marshalling my thoughts, I relayed to him the experience that first opened my eyes. Durling my training in experimental methodology and statistical analysis for the social sciences, our professor spent the first year entirely training us in discerning "science from voodoo". As far as human behavior goes, science, he asserted, looked like well constructed double blind studies of single, relevant factors. The less it looked like that, the more likely it was that the study was in fact, "voodoo".

At the beginning of the second year, after reviewing all that had gone on the prior year, the professor would randomly pull either a copy of Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine from the shelf, and randomly select a study from within it. "This", he would say, "Is what the world considers to be premier, peer reviewed science. Let's see if we agree, shall we?". He'd hand the journal to the nearest student, along with his key to the photocopier. While the copies were being made, we talked about what we might find. Filled with awe and respect for science, the general concensus was that we might find a few subtle, arguable points, but little else. After all, this was world respected, premier, peer reviewed science. This was the work product of wise professionals, who sat around contemplating the truth of th universe all day.

We pored over the study for the next hour, digesting it. Gradually, the hands started shooting up. "Uh, it looks like the team that replicated the study was half populated by members of the team that did the first study. That's not kosher, is it?" "Um, this study is entirely dependent on another study, done by mostly the same group. Isn't quoting yourself considered to be bad form?" "Uh, wait a minute! The hypothesis can't be falsified!"

On it went. In class after class, study after study, we compared what we knew to be rock solid scientific methodology against what was published, and time after time we found deep structural problems with the methodology, and profound problems with the analysis of the results. Sure, the math was right, but the formulas were WRONG.

To be certain, not every study revealed flaws large enough to drive a truck through, but so many of them did that we could never accept on trust, the word of "science" again, without checking it for ourselves.

When we voiced that sentiment to the professor, he smiled. "My work here is done. I have taught you what science is, what it is not, and how to discriminate one from the other. Class is dismissed. Go forth, and be wary in the world."

UPDATE

A Reader who has not cleared me to mention him by name has shared the study with me. He has not cleared me to release it, and if anything, I guard the confidences with which I am entrusted. This Reader also pointed out a few things.

I've given it a skim, and this is what I sent to that Reader in reply:

Quote:
-----------------
Thanks so much!

Holy Smokes!

You're quite right:

While they repeatedly claim that "that riding with a firearm in the vehicle appears to be a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.", they also admit that "we do not know whether there was a gun in the vehicle at the time the road rage incident(s) occurred.", and that "Our study had only two measures of road rage – making obscene gestures and aggressively following – and these have not been validated."

Summary: "We have no idea what we're talking about, but we sound great saying it."

That, plus political editorialization that has NO PLACE in papers of scientific substance, plus the final damning phrase "This research was supported in part by the Joyce Foundation." I judge to be sufficient grounds to dismiss the report as utter crap.


I used to spend a lot of time poring over studies like this to "fisk" them, but it's not something I have the luxury of time to do anymore. This is a shame, really, because I'm a firm believer in the notion that in the spirit of academic integrity calls for thorough rebuttal of assertions made.

Unfortunaly, in debate, accepting that onus means that the scrupulous wind up being put at inherent disadvantage: generating BS is inherently less resource consuming than debunking it. We could spend days thoroughly marshalling a case against this particular study, only to have the rebuttal buried in a tarry debate. Meanwhile the authors forge ahead with more press releases on their next iteration.


Regards,

GWA.45
-----------------


Update 2!

John Lott joins the fray

Interesting highlights:

-Hemenway also gets Soros, Pew, and Robert Wood Johnson money, in addition to Joyce Foundation.

-Hemenway won't hand over the data, as of posting time.

Yep 'proven' all right.

Um, no. Most hunting rounds are armor piercing. In fact, AP ammo for rifles of .308/7.62 caliber and above is pretty rare. Not to mention that given the cost of AI's rifles, it's highly flipping doubtful that someone's going to buy one to kill a bunch of people with. They price between 3-13 grand. Unless you're hiding behind steel plate more than 10 mm thick, most rifles will penetrate.

HP hunting ammo sucks for punching through steel, although it WILL do it. ball ammo is better, and steel core AP ammo is even better. What you are thinking of is ammo that will go through a "Bullet proof vest".

ANY centerfire rifle/pistol that shoots a bullet OVER 2000FPS WILL SLICE THROUGH A VEST like a hot knife through butter unless it has hard plates.

ETA: I have some norinco Steel core ammo I'm keeping in reserve should the SHTF and I need to perforate some armored cars...could come in handy. It's hard to find, although normal 3006 ball will do just as good a job.

yes it does. it incapacitates the target as it is no longer complete and cannot fulfill his original role.

Face it, a firearms is designe for offensive purpose only. Either it is used to incapacitate or as a deterrent. The deterrent effect is a direct cause of the offensive purpose or a firearm. If you show as spoon to a would-be thief, he will not reconsider as a spoon has not an ability to incapacitate him.

Not that it should in any way be relevant to the gun-control issue, mind you (after all, many other offensive weapons are not controled like baseball bat) but to say that guns are not designed to hurt is purely delusionnal.

I use mine to shoot paper targets. Therefore I am killing paper-is that delusional? The only time they're ever used for offensive purposes if hunting feral hogs, deer, and coyotes, and the occasional burglar. I'm purely a target shooter.

I see by going to this page on the same site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

That actual homicides involving handguns have remained at about the same level since 1976 despite every other type of homicide decreasing and crime as a whole decreasing.

From 1985 to 1993, homicide by handgun increased dramatically, while homicide by other means decreased.

More interesting, if you look at the bit of the graph after 2000, homicide by both handguns and other guns is now increasing, despite other methods staying flat or decreasing.

Of course, I'm unaware of what the legislation was or is that may have caused or affected these trends. Was significant gun legislation imposed in 1985 and subsequently removed in 1993? That would suggest those in the pro-gun camp may have something. Of course, given that 1981 - 1993 were all republican years, I tend to think that an increase in handgun legislation didn't happen, while in 1993 a democrat got in, and handgun legislation was thereafter imposed.

I'm in agreement with those that say the presence or absence of gun legislation does not affect the incidence of crime conclusively one way or another. I do tend to feel that absence of gun control does, however, increase the chances of a crime committed being lethal.
# of deaths is unimportant, only rate is important when discussing statistics, unless sample is small.

Lol yeah i like not telling the truth as well.



Lol, again, its pretty fun not telling the truth but maybe you should stop.



Ok thats enough lies, time for truth telling next time.

Oh, so you like statistics......

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

Don't click it, unless you are afraid of having YOUR reality challenged.

The delusional part is you simple not accepting evidence posted contrary to your prejudices.

Smith and Wessen Model 52. It's designed as a target pistol only. It doesn't incapacitate a paper target (that's just being stupid). It cuts very clean holes in targets. The target can still be used. The very design that cuts clean holes in targets minimizes the damage that is done to tissue.
It's not designed for offensive purposes only.
It's not designed for defensive purposes only.
It's only designed for target shooting.
Damage is still done to the tissue. Face it, a firearm is offensive. It's very design is to damage something (flesh, paper or what have-you).

Saying there are other use for a firearm is pathetic. What do you use it for? Making laundry?

Tell you what EC, if you are ever in my area stop in and go shooting with me. While I do own several military grade rifles that I have never used in a offencive or defencive manor. If nothing elce, you can come and get first hand experience with the things you are against.
If I ever go the wherever you are (which is apparently anywhere between 30,000 and 35,000 feet) I'll certainly take you up on that offer.

I realized I look like a gun-control advocate because I oppose statements made by pro-gun posters. I can assure you I'm not. It's just that the blatant lies made by the anti-gun crown were debunked whereas the pro-gun lies weren't. I don't like lies.

Unless someone can show me a use for a gun that is not damaging it's target, the statement:
And yet firearms have other uses besides self-defense that don't involve "incapacitating" things.
is a lie. Let's not kid ourselves to the purpose of guns now. It's not like there are a vital tool for building a fence of closing the lights.

As far as gun-control is concerned, I used to be for it. Some arguments convinced me to rethink my stance. I'm now ambivalent. Certainly, gun-control is necessary as I don't like the idea of having an AK-47 in every home. But on the other hand, I don't think that an agressive gun-control policy is useful. There's not much use in banning small arms and hunting rifles.
Basically, what can cause a rampage and massive dammage in downtown should be restricted somewhat. We don't let everybody use every explosive device, and neither should we let everybody use every gun conceived. Am I making more sense?

Damage is still done to the tissue. Face it, a firearm is offensive. It's very design is to damage something (flesh, paper or what have-you).

Saying there are other use for a firearm is pathetic. What do you use it for? Making laundry?

There is also "collecting".

Most collectors NEVER fire their purchases, because that ruins the collectable value.

Some guns are worth as much as 5 million dollars.

Some are even artwork.

The delusional part is you simple not accepting evidence posted contrary to your prejudices.

Smith and Wessen Model 52. It's designed as a target pistol only. It doesn't incapacitate a paper target (that's just being stupid). It cuts very clean holes in targets. The target can still be used. The very design that cuts clean holes in targets minimizes the damage that is done to tissue.
It's not designed for offensive purposes only.
It's not designed for defensive purposes only.
It's only designed for target shooting.

Damage to a target is a function of the ammo design, and has almost nothing to do with the weapon. Any bullet will punch nice clean holes in paper: AP, HP, FMJ, tracer, etc. HP doesn't deform until it encounters a "target", and a piece of paper would not likely cause any change. The size of the 'tear' in a paper target will have more to do with range, barrel twist, and velocity.

There is also "collecting".

Most collectors NEVER fire their purchases, because that ruins the collectable value.

Some guns are worth as much as 5 million dollars.

Some are even artwork.
So the function of a firearm,
the thing the maker had in mind when he made it,
the very nature of the thing,
is to get hung on a wall and never used?

Surely, you jest!

I've never heard of a rare, foil and mint-condition firearms. Is there an ultra-rare version of the Desert Eagle you can find? Where can I find the rarity of my Smith & Wesson 9 mm? Should I invest in the Upper Deck '06 collection or am I better with the Topps?

So the function of a firearm,
the thing the maker had in mind when he made it,
the very nature of the thing,
is to get hung on a wall and never used?

Surely, you jest!

I've never heard of a rare, foil and mint-condition firearms. Is there an ultra-rare version of the Desert Eagle you can find? Where can I find the rarity of my Smith & Wesson 9 mm? Should I invest in the Upper Deck '06 collection or am I better with the Topps?

Not all firearms are collectible. But if you are interested, there are some that are collectible merely because they were at one time in a certain battle, or belonged to a certain person, or were made one of a kind (in terms of decorations on the firearm), or were prototypes.

As an example, the Luger was made in 45 ACP for US Army tests (other pistols in the test were the M1911 and a few others). Only three prototypes were made, and only one is known to exist. It is valued at over 5 million dollars.

No collector who owned such a piece would fire it, because of the risk of breaking or wearing out something of historical value.

Not all firearms are collectible. But if you are interested, there are some that are collectible merely because they were at one time in a certain battle, or belonged to a certain person, or were made one of a kind (in terms of decorations on the firearm), or were prototypes.

As an example, the Luger was made in 45 ACP for US Army tests (other pistols in the test were the M1911 and a few others). Only three prototypes were made, and only one is known to exist. It is valued at over 5 million dollars.

No collector who owned such a piece would fire it, because of the risk of breaking or wearing out something of historical value.
I am well aware of how a gun can become valuable to collectors. Although the tidbit about a 5 millions dollars gun was cool, the fact of the matter is that guns aren't made to be collected like baseball cards are.

So, I repeat:
What else does a gun is made for besides making holes into things?

I am well aware of how a gun can become valuable to collectors. Although the tidbit about a 5 millions dollars gun was cool, the fact of the matter is that guns aren't made to be collected like baseball cards are.

So, I repeat:
What else does a gun is made for besides making holes into things?

Wrong. Some are made specifically to be collected, from the moment they are conceived.

Wrong. Some are made specifically to be collected, from the moment they are conceived.
Can you give me an example?
A link would be welcomed.

Can you give me an example?
A link would be welcomed.
http://www.aaengraving.com/

Most of the products worked on by this company are in working condition (i.e., they may be fired), but you would be destroying their collectible value by firing a single shot.

Some are as ornate as high-end jewelry.

Their motto:
"If it doesn’t say A&A, Just take it out and shoot it"® is more than just a motto, we believe that no other commemorative is in the same league with ours.

Although private ownership of guns in Australia is severly limited, I have no real problem with people who collect them, or restrict their use to a firing range (or similiar situation, eg target shooting).

Generally I fail to see the validity of the "self defence" argument. Granted there are many instances where it could be usefull in such case, I'll use the all familiar home-invasion concept as an example.

I highly doubt people keep a firearm on them while they are in their own home (and those that do should really reconsider their nerves) so if someone brandishing any kind of weapon, for the sake of things it will be a knife, breaks into your home and starts demanding money and other valuables, are you going to risk personal safety in an attempt to run to your gun and hope that you can get a shot off before they are on top of you and trying to kill you?

If you think you would, you have then validated that point that guns escalate the level of violence, if you had been nice and just handed over what was required. Everything would've been fine and that "self defence" claim is pointless since it was never used.

Now, had it been on you at the time, chances are the intruder would've left. But then you have to wonder, the other of weapons in some cases. If said intruder had a gun aswell, and theirs was already drawn and they saw you go to draw yours - I'd say you'd be the one bleeding and again your self defence claim just put you into a worse situation.

All that side, self defence is circumstantial. While it may work, there is also the risk that it wont. Most of the times if there is nothing that is threatending someone threatening you, if you stay calm, it'll be fine. And while you may come out of a situation with less material possessions, at least you didn't lose something which can't be replaced.


I'm not big on the whole 'collecting' issue either, but I've always been under the impression that since they have no intention of firing their collectables, they don't carry ammunition for them either; and without that the gun is effectively useless.

And target shooting / ranges; it you only want to go out and fire off some rounds like that. Good stuff. I do it myself, and it isn't all that bad. In many cases I find it rather enjoyable to challenge myself to do better than the last time, while the motivation for others is most likely different - that is mine.

As for hunting, given the country I live in; I can understand property owners who deal with stock and pests having one. They have a legitimate reason to hunt. But if someone only wants to go out pop a deer or something (using US here since it is the main country of debate), why? Is it actively posing a threat to your livelyhood? Destroying income, eating food you live off? Does the concept of going out, shooting something from x meters and going "yea, i rule" actually mean something to you? As was mentioned before, if they could shoot back - I highly doubt you'd go out and do it.


Anyhow, onto the type of guns I don't exactly care about using, pistol and bolt action rifles. How powerfull they are is debatable. The purpose of the weapon will alter from case to case. If you claim you need an automatic weapon in order to hunt, then you need to reconsider if you should be. One bullet should be enough, not 30. Same deal with "self defence". A glock might not have stopping power, but it'll be effective enough to put them at a disadvantage in hand-to-hand.

Basically, gun ownership is circumstantial. Ban it, allow it, whatever. Either way someone is going to come off second best in an encounter involving one. How bad the situation is depends on how both parties act and who is/are in posestion of a gun when it starts.


In regards to murder, if someone is pissed off at someone enough to want to kill them, they'll find a way. Like someone said a while ago in that topic about the UK and some knife blitz or whatnot...
The government wants to restrict death to those who take the time to learn it as a skill, and fair play to them, I reckon. Any stupid bastard can kill with a sword or cleaver; it takes real finesse to do it with a bottle opener.

http://www.aaengraving.com/

Most of the products worked on by this company are in working condition (i.e., they may be fired), but you would be destroying their collectible value by firing a single shot.

Some are as ornate as high-end jewelry.

Their motto:
well... I'll be...

Then I change my statement to most guns are designed to inflict damage.

Although private ownership of guns in Australia is severly limited, I have no real problem with people who collect them, or restrict their use to a firing range (or similiar situation, eg target shooting).

Generally I fail to see the validity of the "self defence" argument. Granted there are many instances where it could be usefull in such case, I'll use the all familiar home-invasion concept as an example.

I highly doubt people keep a firearm on them while they are in their own home (and those that do should really reconsider their nerves) so if someone brandishing any kind of weapon, for the sake of things it will be a knife, breaks into your home and starts demanding money and other valuables, are you going to risk personal safety in an attempt to run to your gun and hope that you can get a shot off before they are on top of you and trying to kill you?

in comparison to just taking the risk and "hoping" they won't hurt you?

If you think you would, you have then validated that point that guns escalate the level of violence, if you had been nice and just handed over what was required. Everything would've been fine and that "self defence" claim is pointless since it was never used.

Now, had it been on you at the time, chances are the intruder would've left. But then you have to wonder, the other of weapons in some cases. If said intruder had a gun aswell, and theirs was already drawn and they saw you go to draw yours - I'd say you'd be the one bleeding and again your self defence claim just put you into a worse situation.

All that side, self defence is circumstantial. While it may work, there is also the risk that it wont. Most of the times if there is nothing that is threatending someone threatening you, if you stay calm, it'll be fine. And while you may come out of a situation with less material possessions, at least you didn't lose something which can't be replaced.

And your whole arguement is that "they won't hurt you if you give them what they want". Being passive only makes criminals MORE aggressive.

http://suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-oak07.html

After robbing one of the women, he ordered them to strip and sexually assaulted two of them, police said.

The assailant fled when one of the victims fought back, setting off a chase that had a surreal ending:




I'm not big on the whole 'collecting' issue either, but I've always been under the impression that since they have no intention of firing their collectables, they don't carry ammunition for them either; and without that the gun is effectively useless.

And target shooting / ranges; it you only want to go out and fire off some rounds like that. Good stuff. I do it myself, and it isn't all that bad. In many cases I find it rather enjoyable to challenge myself to do better than the last time, while the motivation for others is most likely different - that is mine.

As for hunting, given the country I live in; I can understand property owners who deal with stock and pests having one. They have a legitimate reason to hunt. But if someone only wants to go out pop a deer or something (using US here since it is the main country of debate), why? Is it actively posing a threat to your livelyhood? Destroying income, eating food you live off? Does the concept of going out, shooting something from x meters and going "yea, i rule" actually mean something to you? As was mentioned before, if they could shoot back - I highly doubt you'd go out and do it.

Which isn''t the point of hunting at all. Most hunters use it to supplement their food as well as the challenge. The whole "if they could shoot back" nonsense is just a red herring.


Anyhow, onto the type of guns I don't exactly care about using, pistol and bolt action rifles. How powerfull they are is debatable. The purpose of the weapon will alter from case to case. If you claim you need an automatic weapon in order to hunt, then you need to reconsider if you should be. One bullet should be enough, not 30. Same deal with "self defence". A glock might not have stopping power, but it'll be effective enough to put them at a disadvantage in hand-to-hand.

And most people don't claim they "need" a semi-auto to hunt. It's a personal preference, unless you're trying to confuse the semi/fully auto concept.

Basically, gun ownership is circumstantial. Ban it, allow it, whatever. Either way someone is going to come off second best in an encounter involving one. How bad the situation is depends on how both parties act and who is/are in posestion of a gun when it starts.


In regards to murder, if someone is pissed off at someone enough to want to kill them, they'll find a way. Like someone said a while ago in that topic about the UK and some knife blitz or whatnot...

And the majority of the time, the individual that legally owns it and preactices w/ it will beat out the criminal.