NationStates Jolt Archive

Lets put this into a very simple statement shall we?

More Guns = More chance of people being shot

Now that statement is pretty watertight, I can see no possible argument against it.

Anyone who claims thjis is a geed thing needs their heads examining.

Lets put this into a very simple statement shall we?

More Guns = More chance of people being shot

Now that statement is pretty watertight, I can see no possible argument against it.

Anyone who claims thjis is a geed thing needs their heads examining.

Doesn't work out that way in the US. If it were true, then there would always be a close correlation between the number of guns in circulation per capita, and the number of people being shot per capita.

Doesn't work out that way in the US. If it were true, then there would always be a close correlation between the number of guns in circulation per capita, and the number of people being shot per capita.

I'm sorry? So more people arn't shot in the US compared to other nations then?

I'm sorry? So more people arn't shot in the US compared to other nations then?

*sigh*. Depends on the nation. Some nations have higher /capita legal ownership and lower firearm crimes some have lower /capita legal owner ship and higher firearm crime and visa versa.

I'm sorry? So more people arn't shot in the US compared to other nations then?

Apparently not on a per capita basis. There have been international studies on small arms fatalities and shootings and to date, no study has conclusively been able to draw a connection between gun ownership and shootings (on an international basis).

Sorry to burst your bubble.

In fact, we have more guns now than we've ever had before, on a per capita basis. And our rate of firearms violence (and firearms murder) has dropped over 63 percent in the past 10 years.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

All of this in a time when weapon ownership increased by about 50%.

Additionally, 91 percent of violent crime in the US does not involve a firearm. So getting rid of firearms would not have much of an impact on violent crime itself.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

*sigh*. Depends on the nation. Some nations have higher /capita legal ownership and lower firearm crimes some have lower /capita legal owner ship and higher firearm crime and visa versa.

But you still deny that the general trend is what I stated? More guns = more people getiing shot?

But you still deny that the general trend is what I stated? More guns = more people getiing shot?

Yes, I just posted a link that shows more guns in the US over time = 63% less violent firearm crime.

But you still deny that the general trend is what I stated? More guns = more people getiing shot?

"more guns" as in civilians legally owning them or like in Rwanda where the gov't give the militia's guns to wipe out villages disarmed by the Gov't?

More guns does not always = more people getting shot

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

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

This, at a time when guns in active circulation went from 200 million to 300 million guns.

You know what, idiocy of this post is quite impossable to comemplate....

So everyone has a gun? What do people do if theyh get angry? Shoot each other. An argument that usually would have ended in a few punches ends in two dead bodies. Gun fights from city to city as everyone sees everyone else as a threat. complete breakdown of law and order as why should anyone pay any attention to the poloice if they have a gun? Vigilanti justice everywhere....

You know what, idiocy of this post is quite impossable to comemplate....

So everyone has a gun? What do people do if theyh get angry? Shoot each other. An argument that usually would have ended in a few punches ends in two dead bodies. Gun fights from city to city as everyone sees everyone else as a threat. complete breakdown of law and order as why should anyone pay any attention to the poloice if they have a gun? Vigilanti justice everywhere....


and people call me paranoid.....

You know what, idiocy of this post is quite impossable to comemplate....

So everyone has a gun? What do people do if theyh get angry? Shoot each other. An argument that usually would have ended in a few punches ends in two dead bodies. Gun fights from city to city as everyone sees everyone else as a threat. complete breakdown of law and order as why should anyone pay any attention to the poloice if they have a gun? Vigilanti justice everywhere....

There are over 400,000 pistols being carried concealed where I live and work (in an area comparable to Yorkshire).

We don't see gunfights everywhere, nor do we see a complete breakdown of law and order.

In fact, we have a pretty low crime rate compared to a lot of places in the US.

Haven't seen any vigilante justice either. Do you watch too many cowboy movies?

and people call me paranoid.....

I'ld say it's more projection.

That is why I stated earlier...why bother. Every time I punch holes in your gun culture propaganda, you call me a liar and make stuff up. For you see, it is your very own NRA that likes to cherry pick stats and make then seem like they are the absolute truth to the claims they make, such as "More RTC, less crime.". I guess they claim causality huh? I already punched big holes in the wonderful Florida example and all you want to do is call me a liar.

In the year 2000, after 13 years of RTC, Florida had the highest VCR in America. After 19 years, they still rank 4th highest, as of 2005.

In the year 2000, New York had the 12th highest VCR in America, and as of 2005, New York is ranked 22nd highest. I know, I know, the police in Florida are more incompetent then the police in New York. :rolleyes:

See, problem here is, you're overloading CH. YOu need to state one point at a time, it makes it painfully obvious when he disregards them, exempli gratia:

And what was it before CH? Did crime drop in Florida or did it increase w/ the CCW holders committing more crimes?
In the year 2000, after 13 years of RTC, Florida had the highest VCR in America. After 19 years, they still rank 4th highest, as of 2005.

You assked what it was before, Kecib, and he responded with stats of afterwards. Focus, young one, focus is key.

You know what, idiocy of this post is quite impossable to comemplate....

So everyone has a gun? What do people do if theyh get angry? Shoot each other. An argument that usually would have ended in a few punches ends in two dead bodies. Gun fights from city to city as everyone sees everyone else as a threat. complete breakdown of law and order as why should anyone pay any attention to the poloice if they have a gun? Vigilanti justice everywhere....

What an imagination on this kid, eh?

See, problem here is, you're overloading CH. YOu need to state one point at a time, it makes it painfully obvious when he disregards them, exempli gratia:

You assked what it was before, Kecib, and he responded with stats of afterwards. Focus, young one, focus is key.

No, he's just full of crap. He'll ignore the fact that FL crime rate was high BEFORE the CCW law, was exempt from the Brady Law (along w/ most of the other highest crime states/cities) and , even w/ it's(CCW) implementation, dropped considerably.

We've gone through this many times before so when he makes he claims of causality (which I've debunked over an over) and presents the same cherry-picked stats to "prove" it while ignoring every other one, I now just call him a liar.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.
Unfortunatly, not everyone can be trusted with a firearm. That's why there're background checks now. Before you call be a gun-pheering, stupid, stinkin' neo-hippie, I live by the cliche that guns don't kill people; I kill people. I know that there are millions of trustworthy legal owners already roaming the streets and here in my homestate some have even opted for a conceal and carry permit. Crime is still up because of poor choices made by local government about police. Even if you armed every citizen, they still need to wait for the criminals to come to them and attempt a crime.

That being said I am still in favor of more people being educated about firearm safety and owning a weapon for self-defensive purposes. It has been shown to work faster and be more effective than running to a phone and dialing the emergency line or pulling out a cellphone and doing the same. Just handing out weapons is not enough. You have to train the recipient to use it properly and teach them the discipline they'll need so they know when to do what.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?
It actually happens. They usually get shot and it makes headlines. It's especially funny when the target is a wheel-chair bound old lady who fights back and ends up sterilizing the mugger.

Now for something completely different
Ilikedquotepyramids.Imissthem.Theywerefun.Iproposewestartapetitiontobringthemback.

No, he's just full of crap. He'll ignore the fact that FL crime rate was high BEFORE the CCW law, was exempt from the Brady Law (along w/ most of the other highest crime states/cities) and , even w/ it's(CCW) implementation, dropped considerably.

We've gone through this many times before so when he makes he claims of causality (which I've debunked over an over) and presents the same cherry-picked stats to "prove" it while ignoring every other one, I now just call him a liar.

I'm well aware of that Kecibukia. But you need to be showing the noobs how wrong he is. For the sake of their little nooblet minds, you need to make it quite obvious, and not allow it to appear as though he answered your points at first (and often only) glance.

I'm well aware of that Kecibukia. But you need to be showing the noobs how wrong he is. For the sake of their little nooblet minds, you need to make it quite obvious, and not allow it to appear as though he answered your points at first (and often only) glance.

The problem is that it always turns into a "my state is better than your stat" war. It gets tiresome having to post the same things over and over in response every single time and him still claiming that he hasn't seen it before.

Now for something completely different

hells yeah!

The problem is that it always turns into a "my state is better than your stat" war. It gets tiresome having to post the same things over and over in response every single time and him still claiming that he hasn't seen it before.

*shrug* make it painfully obvious yours are better. Which could be very simply done by take this one step at a time.

*sigh*. Depends on the nation. Some nations have higher /capita legal ownership and lower firearm crimes some have lower /capita legal owner ship and higher firearm crime and visa versa.
Ummm, you forgot to mention another possibility. Some have lower per capita legal ownership and lower per capita firearm crime. I would imagine that the possibility exists that there are nations with higher per capita legal ownership and higher per capita firearm crime.

The perspective that you presented was totally biased towards gun ownership.

Ummm, you forgot to mention another possibility. Some have lower per capita legal ownership and lower per capita firearm crime. I would imagine that the possibility exists that there are nations with higher per capita legal ownership and higher per capita firearm crime.

The perspective that you presented was totally biased towards gun ownership.

Umm, you're full of shit once again. Try reading what I wrote CH.

*sigh*. Depends on the nation. Some nations have higher /capita legal ownership and lower firearm crimes some have lower /capita legal owner ship and higher firearm crime and visa versa.

*sigh*. Depends on the nation. Some nations have higher /capita legal ownership and lower firearm crimes some have lower /capita legal owner ship and higher firearm crime and visa versa.

Ummm, you forgot to mention another possibility. Some have lower per capita legal ownership and lower per capita firearm crime. I would imagine that the possibility exists that there are nations with higher per capita legal ownership and higher per capita firearm crime.

The perspective that you presented was totally biased towards gun ownership.

Umm, you're full of shit once again. Try reading what I wrote CH.
Are you having a problem with comprhension? And another personal attack by you. You are racking them up.

The perspective that you offered was totally biased and ignored the possibilities that I brought forward.

Are you having a problem with comprhension? And another personal attack by you. You are racking them up.

The perspective that you offered was totally biased and ignored the possibilities that I brought forward.

Nope. Another lie by CH. I guess vice versa doesn't mean opposite in your little world? Keep reaching. It's getting funny. As well as you completely ignoring everything else again.

Nope. Another lie by CH. I guess vice versa doesn't mean opposite in your little world? Keep reaching. It's getting funny. As well as you completely ignoring everything else again.
What is vice versa of higher and lower? It is lower and higher. Both the perspectives you gave support gun ownership.

You didn't mention lower and lower, or higher and higher.

You can't debate without attacking the poster?

What is vice versa of higher and lower? It is lower and higher. Both the perspectives you gave support gun ownership.

You didn't mention lower and lower, or higher and higher.

You can't debate without attacking the poster?

Sure I can. Is that what you're attempting to do? I guess making up positions of your opponent and constantly regurgitating debunked arguments is what you consider debate?

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

A lot of people. Such as, for instance, criminals. They take their chances.
For that matter, making guns more freely accessible will mean more criminals will have guns, too, and you'll have more street fights and shootouts.

Besides, wouldn't that by definition create more criminals, what with so many people shooting at each other all the time?

And instead of wasting money on something you have to reload, we should all learn kung fu. In fact, let's make it part of the cirriculum. ;)

No, it doesn't. Crime in the UK increased as well as Canada, Russia, and South Africa after severe gun bans as well as several cities in the US.
Proof please about the crime increase in Canada "after severe gun ban".

Edit: Hell, even the NY police commisioner at the time doesn't credit the crime drop on anti-gun laws.

http://www.emergency.com/crimdrop.htm
Time to really start calling you on your "stuff". The article you quoted is from Feb. 1996. A little dated I would say and hardly relevant. However, there was an interesting quote in the article:

Many experts believe that crime will drammatically rise, again, in a few years when the number of males in the crime-committing age group rises. Some criminologists even believe that the crime rate will rise to levels that have never been seen before in this country.
That didn't quite pan out that way ten years later.

And another blatant lie (since it's been pointed out numerous times) that the Brady Law did not effect crime rates as the states that were exempt (due to stricter gun control) had higher crime rates to begin w/ and slower crime drops over the same period.
The Brady Law certainly has something to do with lowering crime rates (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/reports/AGS-fin.pdf). It added restrictions to owning guns that were not there before. As far as the bolded part is concerned, that is simply not true.

The Brady Law, passed in 1993, requires licensed gun dealers to conduct a background check to determine whether prospective buyers are eligible to purchase a firearm. As a result, it is far more difficult for criminals and other prohibited buyers to obtain firearms directly from honest gun stores. They must now get their weapons through other access points, like unregulated sales at gun
shows, straw purchasers, corrupt gun stores, gun traffickers, and theft. And as legitimate
gun stores have been effectively cut off to criminals because of the Brady law,
stolen guns will continue to be a major source of crime guns.

BTW, just because you point something out numerous times doesn't make it a fact.

I guess VA which you're always lambasting having a lower VCR than NY is a fluke? Or did they introduce more anti-gun measures? Or are you going to make up more "proof" as you cherry pick statistics of your own.
I find it interesting that you brought Virginia into the discussion. Virginia's VCR (281.7) is now higher (282.8) then it was in 2000. In the same period, New York's VCR (553.9) has gone down 108 index points to 445.8 which is a 20% reduction in violent crime.

Virginia's murder rate of 6.1 is 35% higher then New York's 4.5 rate.

Yup, don't see any reason for me to relent on lambasting Virginia.

Time to really start calling you on your "stuff". The article you quoted is from Feb. 1996. A little dated I would say and hardly relevant. However, there was an interesting quote in the article:

Completely ignoring the rest of the article. Selective quotes are CH's friends. I guess the fact that it completely disputes your beliefs is what makes it "hardly relevant". BUt since you don't like that one (but funnily enough try and use an AGS "report" to "prove" your belief) here's another:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20040517/5/982
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/479946.stm

Nope, nothing about new firearm laws causing the drops.


That didn't quite pan out that way ten years later.

So a possible future prediction being incorrect negates analysis of data from the past?


The Brady Law certainly has something to do with lowering crime rates (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/reports/AGS-fin.pdf). It added restrictions to owning guns that were not there before. As far as the bolded part is concerned, that is simply not true.

So I guess the JAMA, LOC, BJS, GAO and others are less legitimate that AGS? As for the second part, you are outright lieing again. Most of the highest crime states had stricter laws that the BB and crime dropped at slower levels than the ones that did not have those laws before the BB. That is a fact that you've constantly ignored every time it's been pointed out to you and been shown. NY, CA, IL, DC, among others were all EXEMPT from the Brady provisions because they already had stricter laws. You now claim that "It added restrictions to owning guns that were not there before. " which is false and again an outright lie. Unless you're trying to claim that those states were NOT exempt from the BB. Are you CH?

Eighty-five percent of police chiefs say the Brady Act's waiting period did not stop criminals from obtaining handguns.National Association of Chiefs of Police, membership poll, May 1997.

"It is hard to see the Brady law, heralded by many politicians, the media, and Handgun Control, Inc. as an important step toward keeping handguns out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible persons, as anything more than a sop to the widespread fear of crime."
"Keeping Guns Out Of The 'Wrong' Hands: The Brady Law And The Limits Of Regulation," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, Fall 1995.

"waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."
"Preventative Effects of Firearm Regulations on Injury Mortality," prepared for the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 1993.



BTW, just because you point something out numerous times doesn't make it a fact.

Yet you can't dispute it except w/ groups like the AGS and you keep lieing about not seeing the evidence CH. The BB has been shown to be innefective. Every legitimate study has shown this from JAMA to the CDC. But of course (once again) you coming upup w/ a few statistics "proves" the causality.

Proof please about the crime increase in Canada "after severe gun ban".


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

I find it interesting that you brought Virginia into the discussion. Virginia's VCR (281.7) is now higher (282.8) then it was in 2000. In the same period, New York's VCR (553.9) has gone down 108 index points to 445.8 which is a 20% reduction in violent crime.

Virginia's murder rate of 6.1 is 35% higher then New York's 4.5 rate.

Yup, don't see any reason for me to relent on lambasting Virginia.

Oh, and increase of .3% . It's the end of the world. It's highest was 361 in '95. What was NY's even w/ it's gun bans and stricter laws than the BB? oh right. 1180 in '90 . So unless you can come up w/ a new gun ban/law that directly effected the crime rate, you're FOS again.

And you accuse others of "cherry picking" data.

Keep reaching CH.

I's don't has a car :D

Me doesn't owe a car either.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control...

...if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife.

....Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

oh man oh man...

had this policy been better thought out, it might have at LEAST been presented in a more logical manner.

FIRST: the UNITED STATES crime rate is spiralling out of control, and unlike many first world countries in the world, the citizens of the US have unusually high accessability to guns thanks to the ammendment. there is a definite relationship there.

SECOND: you say: "As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife." ... hmmmm, lets think here... if someone is going to use "whatever implement is at his disposal" to commit a crime, why would you EVER want to flood the streets and homes of your nation with FIREARMS?!?!?!? stabbing victims have a much higher survival rate than shooting victims, but you would rather make guns more accessable to anyone, quite probably making a handgun "whatever impliment he has at his disposal". plain foolish in my opinion.

THIRD: "Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?". ok, so you are also putting out the call for vigilante justice. by totally and completly arming the populace, dont you think this might actually serve to impede the police in protecting and serving the community?

FINALLY: think about this... by arming the entire populace with handguns, all you do is force the criminals to go bigger and better. if a person cannot rob a bank with a handgun, they will move to a larger and more dangerous weapon like an automatic. also, you do not take into account that quite often crimes (and criminals) do not use very much logic. crackheads will still rob liquor stores even if the salesperson has a gun (which currently, most do. this makes the law redundant already!).

i just dont see how anyone can think that by having more weapons floating around, they make their society a more peaceful and safe place...


OHHHHHH CAAAAANAADAAAAAA, OUR HOME AND NATIVE LAAAAAANNNDDD...

we've got buds, not bombs...

FIRST: the UNITED STATES crime rate is spiralling out of control, and unlike many first world countries in the world, the citizens of the US have unusually high accessability to guns thanks to the ammendment. there is a definite relationship there.



Point of contention here. How do you define "spiralling out of control"? There was a small jump last year after over a decade of decline to the lowest levels since the late 60's.

I've also pointed out over and over (w/ evidence) that there isn't a "definite relationship" there.

You know, there are a couple of misconceptions in this thread I'd like to clear up.

First off, firearms aren't as easy to get as condoms. Multiple forms have to be filled out and the NICS background check needs to be performed. In my case, since I didn't have a pistol permit (my friends were going to write letters of recommendation so I could get it, but they're procrastinators like me), I had to fill out an additional form and wait 15 days for a second background check to be performed.

Second off, I've only had 3 licenses in my life. The first one was a fishing license for the state of Connecticut. The second one I got was a drivers license (also a CT license), and the final one was a gaming license (again, from CT) so I could work at a casino. I didn't need a license to obtain my rifle (nor do I need one to keep it), and I didn't need to register my rifle. BTW, here's a pic of my rifle: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/3190/p11600022ht.jpg

Finally, in response to the notion that there'd be no way for criminals to get firearms except by raiding military armories or smuggling, I suggest the name Philip Luty be googled. He proved that if someone is determined enough, they can manufacture an open-bolt sub-machinegun with common parts and tools.

Proof please about the crime increase in Canada "after severe gun ban".

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm
How does that link reflect a crime increase "after a severe gun ban"? What severe gun ban are you talking about?

If anything, those statistics demonstrate the benefits of a society that has sound gun control policies.

Finally, in response to the notion that there'd be no way for criminals to get firearms except by raiding military armories or smuggling, I suggest the name Philip Luty be googled. He proved that if someone is determined enough, they can manufacture an open-bolt sub-machinegun with common parts and tools.

Yes, but he is very much the exception rather than the rule. Your average criminal is very unlikely to have the expertise or patience to manufacture a gun themselves, whereas the idea of them falsifying forms (which from the sound of your post isn't overly difficult) is much more plausible, as is a burglar taking away any guns he finds and selling them on into the criminal fraternity.

There are underage kids out there with the ability to manufacture their own alcohol, in practice it's much simpler for them to acquire false i.d. that lets them buy alcohol.

How does that link reflect a crime increase "after a severe gun ban"? What severe gun ban are you talking about?

If anything, those statistics demonstrate the benefits of a society that has sound gun control policies.

Only if you ignore everything else like when c-51, c-17, c-68 when into effect and their lack of effect on crime levels. As well as the fact that while homicides went down the percentage of firearms used in them increased as well as violent crime increasing until the late 1990's.

Of course "sound gun control policies" in your mind = blaming the victims of crime. So do you want to deny you claim that?

Yes, but he is very much the exception rather than the rule. Your average criminal is very unlikely to have the expertise or patience to manufacture a gun themselves, whereas the idea of them falsifying forms (which from the sound of your post isn't overly difficult) is much more plausible, as is a burglar taking away any guns he finds and selling them on into the criminal fraternity.

There are underage kids out there with the ability to manufacture their own alcohol, in practice it's much simpler for them to acquire false i.d. that lets them buy alcohol.

But it doesn't have to be the "average criminal". Just one w/ some machine tools and the desire to make money selling them to others.

But it doesn't have to be the "average criminal". Just one w/ some machine tools and the desire to make money selling them to others.

Off-hand I'd say that it would be easier and faster for there to be a forger or simply someone with a clean criminal record willing to buy and then "lose/have their gun stolen". In short I'm saying that if guns are harder to access for the average citizen, they're harder to access for the average criminal.

But it doesn't have to be the "average criminal". Just one w/ some machine tools and the desire to make money selling them to others.

Not just that -
but put in a "Gun Prohibition" and folks like him will have a _market_ that they don't currently have.

Off-hand I'd say that it would be easier and faster for there to be a forger or simply someone with a clean criminal record willing to buy and then "lose/have their gun stolen". In short I'm saying that if guns are harder to access for the average citizen, they're harder to access for the average criminal.

It really depends on where you are and the capabilities of the local criminal organizations. If there were some sort of worldwide restriction and somehow the majority of existing firearms were rounded up, then I'ld agree w/ you. However, in some countries that have strict "gun control", criminals get ahold of not only "civilian weapons" but military ones.

Your "average criminal" doesn't use a firearm anyway.

It really depends on where you are and the capabilities of the local criminal organizations. If there were some sort of worldwide restriction and somehow the majority of existing firearms were rounded up, then I'ld agree w/ you. However, in some countries that have strict "gun control", criminals get ahold of not only "civilian weapons" but military ones.

Your "average criminal" doesn't use a firearm anyway.

I have no real experience regarding the extensiveness of US firearms background checks, but judging by the comments made earlier by Gun Manufacturers for example, it doesn't appear that they're all that difficult to circumvent (at least the ones local to that poster).

There are always going to be countries where laws are not enforced as stringently as they might be, but realistically I'd contend that if by falsifying identity etc you can buy weapons legally then it'd be easier than either importing them or making them.

I have no real experience regarding the extensiveness of US firearms background checks, but judging by the comments made earlier by Gun Manufacturers for example, it doesn't appear that they're all that difficult to circumvent (at least the ones local to that poster).

There are always going to be countries where laws are not enforced as stringently as they might be, but realistically I'd contend that if by falsifying identity etc you can buy weapons legally then it'd be easier than either importing them or making them.

Well, that actually contradicts itself.

Yes, I'll agree that getting a fake ID and purchasing a firearm is easier than making one. However, the ID would have to be one that's in the database (no fake people) and doing so is involving multiple felonies. What is more common is having someone w/o a criminal record buy one (a straw purchase) for you but that also involves multiple felonies for both people. OTOH, going after straw purchasers has landed the BATF in trouble for racial profiling, harassment, and violating the law by abusing the background data.

While there are rogue's out there, the majority of firearm dealers prefer dealing w/ people they know or are referenced to them.

Well, that actually contradicts itself.

Yes, I'll agree that getting a fake ID and purchasing a firearm is easier than making one. However, the ID would have to be one that's in the database (no fake people) and doing so is involving multiple felonies. What is more common is having someone w/o a criminal record buy one (a straw purchase) for you but that also involves multiple felonies for both people. OTOH, going after straw purchasers has landed the BATF in trouble for racial profiling, harassment, and violating the law by abusing the background data.

While there are rogue's out there, the majority of firearm dealers prefer dealing w/ people they know or are referenced to them.

You know what I mean, buying via the legal process using a false identity. But like you said, I'd say straw purchases are much easier to pull off than making your own gun or importing guns.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

Your premise is rather flawed ... show me one western nation that has a crime rate "spiraling out of control"

Only if you ignore everything else like when c-51, c-17, c-68 when into effect and their lack of effect on crime levels. As well as the fact that while homicides went down the percentage of firearms used in them increased as well as violent crime increasing until the late 1990's.

Of course "sound gun control policies" in your mind = blaming the victims of crime. So do you want to deny you claim that?
Perhaps you can produce statistics that prove your "factual" assertions?

Canadian Bill C-17 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15217033) was implemented in 1991 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a chance to investigate the effect of firearm control laws in the use of firearms for suicide and homicide. Following Lester and Leenaars' comprehensive studies, the present study examined the use of firearms for suicide and homicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-17 to assess the association of the bill with rates of suicide and homicide by method. Analysis showed a significant decrease after passage of Bill C-17 in the rates of suicides and homicides involving firearms and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides.

In Canada, Bill C-51 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=8332684) was implemented in 1977 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a good opportunity to study the effects of gun control laws in the use of firearms for suicide. The present study examined the use of guns for suicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-51 to assess the association of the bill with suicide rates. Analysis showed a significant decreasing trend after passage of Bill C-51 on the firearm suicide rate in Canada and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis supports the position that restricting easy access to lethal methods of suicide may assist in reducing suicide.
Not being a gun owner, I am not very familiar with the various pieces of legislation, but I do know many people who own rifles and handguns. However, the statistics between our two countries makes it very easy for me to support aggressive gun control legislation.

Completely ignoring the rest of the article. Selective quotes are CH's friends. I guess the fact that it completely disputes your beliefs is what makes it "hardly relevant".
I read the whole article, but like I said, it is from 12 years ago and is hardly relevant and certainly does not "completely disputes my beliefs" in the slightest. You may not recall, but I posted a link to an article in another thread that clearly details how the New York Police were using gun control, and aggressive policing methods to dramatically reduce gun crime:

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)

Another thing perhaps you haven't considered is that the Brady Bill made it extremely difficult for criminals to obtain guns legally because of the background check and other provisions of the bill. I truly believe that Brady background checks, prohibitions against “straw purchases,” limits on bulk sales, and strong enforcement of gun laws (including those applicable to gun dealers) makes it much more difficult for criminals to get guns, thus reducing crime.

And another blatant lie (since it's been pointed out numerous times) that the Brady Law did not effect crime rates as the states that were exempt (due to stricter gun control) had higher crime rates to begin w/ and slower crime drops over the same period.

Time to really start calling you on your "stuff"......

The Brady Law certainly has something to do with lowering crime rates (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/reports/AGS-fin.pdf). It added restrictions to owning guns that were not there before. As far as the bolded part is concerned, that is simply not true.

So I guess the JAMA, LOC, BJS, GAO and others are less legitimate that AGS? As for the second part, you are outright lieing again. Most of the highest crime states had stricter laws that the BB and crime dropped at slower levels than the ones that did not have those laws before the BB.
You called me a liar although I was responding to your obviously inaccurate statement. You claimed that all States that were exempt from the Brady Bill "were exempt (due to stricter gun control) had higher crime rates to begin w/ and slower crime drops over the same period". I see that you corrected that to "most" after I called you on it, but it did not stop you from taking a cheap shot at me and calling me a liar yet again.

Now, if I do some more research, will that claim be reduced to some rather then most?

Eighty-five percent of police chiefs say the Brady Act's waiting period did not stop criminals from obtaining handguns.National Association of Chiefs of Police, membership poll, May 1997.

What do you have that supports this claim?

"It is hard to see the Brady law, heralded by many politicians, the media, and Handgun Control, Inc. as an important step toward keeping handguns out of the hands of dangerous and irresponsible persons, as anything more than a sop to the widespread fear of crime."
"Keeping Guns Out Of The 'Wrong' Hands: The Brady Law And The Limits Of Regulation," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, Fall 1995.

"waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."
"Preventative Effects of Firearm Regulations on Injury Mortality," prepared for the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, 1993.
I realize that you are getting your talking points from the NRA web site in this regard, but can you link to the actual articles that support these claims?

Is Canuck Heaven trying to make 10,000 posts in this thread?;)

Is Canuck Heaven trying to make 10,000 posts in this thread?;)
Naw. :) Just catching up a bit on some posts. +1 :D

I read the whole article, but like I said, it is from 12 years ago and is hardly relevant and certainly does not "completely disputes my beliefs" in the slightest. You may not recall, but I posted a link to an article in another thread that clearly details how the New York Police were using gun control, and aggressive policing methods to dramatically reduce gun crime:

Getting Guns Off the Streets, New York City Police Department -- New York, NY (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile19.html)

Another thing perhaps you haven't considered is that the Brady Bill made it extremely difficult for criminals to obtain guns legally because of the background check and other provisions of the bill. I truly believe that Brady background checks, prohibitions against “straw purchases,” limits on bulk sales, and strong enforcement of gun laws (including those applicable to gun dealers) makes it much more difficult for criminals to get guns, thus reducing crime.

"agressive policing methods". Not "gun control". The BB DID NOT make it difficult for criminals to obtain firearms legally as felons couldn't do it before hand. You can "truly believe" it all you want. It doesn't make it a fact.

Edit: I also like how you ignored the other Non-NRA sites I posted. Convienent , huh?

You called me a liar although I was responding to your obviously inaccurate statement. You claimed that all States that were exempt from the Brady Bill "were exempt (due to stricter gun control) had higher crime rates to begin w/ and slower crime drops over the same period". I see that you corrected that to "most" after I called you on it, but it did not stop you from taking a cheap shot at me and calling me a liar yet again.

Now, if I do some more research, will that claim be reduced to some rather then most?

Did I say "all" CH? No I didn't. Try again. Go ahead and do the research.

BTW, what I first called you a liar on was your claim that AK had ZERO gun control restrictions. I asked if you still maintained that. You ignored the question.

What do you have that supports this claim?

Try reading the source CH.

I realize that you are getting your talking points from the NRA web site in this regard, but can you link to the actual articles that support these claims?

And you get yours from HCI and AGS. What's the difference between that and the Brady Bunch?

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=209

I like the idea of more guns and more armed people. I'm kind of a hothead. I still keep my cool though when I'm carrying a gun. I think most people are the same way. Also I think that the real possibility of being shot will deter crime better than the tiny possibility that the police will get their heads out of their asses long enough to solve a crime and put the criminal away.

Or just give criminals weapons with which to attack their victims. Once guns are legalised, they will lead to more muders and more armed robberies. You should take a leaf from Britian and build more surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the world :p....or you could just make your justice system stricter.

Try reading the source CH.
In other words you can't back up your sources? You take a bookmark from the NRA site and that is it? Did you even read the sourced material? Or are you taking the NRA site as gospel?

And you get yours from HCI and AGS. What's the difference between that and the Brady Bunch?

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=209
I already have been to that biased page that you quoted from. Now can you link to the referenced material?

In other words you can't back up your sources? You take a bookmark from the NRA site and that is it? Did you even read the sourced material? Or are you taking the NRA site as gospel?

It provides a citation CH. Are you now claiming that they are incorrectly citing sources? You'ld better have evidence to back that up especially since your using AGS sources as "gospel".

Howabout this one CH. It provides methodology as well.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/police_survey.htm

I already have been to that biased page that you quoted from. Now can you link to the referenced material?

And you provided an article from AGS and you're claiming bias? You're funny. You're claiming they're innaccurate, you have to provide the evidence. Try again.

I guess you can't back up your claims then?

Did I say "all" CH? No I didn't. Try again. Go ahead and do the research.
Your comment implied "all". I called you on it because you called me a liar.

BTW, what I first called you a liar on was your claim that AK had ZERO gun control restrictions. I asked if you still maintained that. You ignored the question.
Simply semantics. I stated that Alaska had zero gun control restrictions, in other words, no permit required and a RTC, but you implied that I stated that Alaska didn't have firearm laws. I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. Obviouslt every State has firearm regulations.

In many countries, the crime rate is spiraling out of control. While there are many possible solutions to this problem, such as harsher punishment or increased police surveillance, these measures are frowned upon by liberals as being sadistic and morally abhorrent, expensive and an invasion of privacy, etc. It is necessary to find a common ground, immediately, if we wish to deter criminals instead of bickering while the background noise of gunshots and screams crescendos to a terrible cacophony.

One intermediate solution would be to provide free weapons to every fit US citizen. An inexpensive handgun would be all that is required, which would not put too large a burden upon the US checkbook. As I'm sure all of you are aware, guns don't kill people; people kill people. If one is determined to murder another, he will use whatever implement is at his disposal, whether it be a gun or a knife. We cannot make a dent in crime by simply banning guns, as studies have shown in regions where such policies have been attempted. However, we can accomplish this goal if we (perhaps slightly counter-intuitively) dispense guns more freely. Citizens will be much more able to halt criminals in their track if they have a means of defending themselves, and a criminal would think twice before attempting to commit a felony, knowing that his chances of success are slim to nil if he is up against an armed populace. Indeed, the crime rate would drastically plummet, reflecting the wariness of potential thugs. There will be little or no additional crime as a result of such a policy, since a gun does not automatically convert a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. The only effect would be to prevent an extremely large portion of crime, which is an objective for which we should all strive.

Who, in their right mind, will mug somebody knowing that anybody seeing the crime in progress may shoot them?

I personally think the following should be the last post on this thread:

Yo. I live in England. Guns are illegal for pretty much everyone here, except rifles if they're part of a rifle club. In places in England where groups have got hold of guns, people have been shot. If you're shot in the head having a legal gun in your pocket aint gonna save you - you'd have to know the person has a gun before they pull it out and shoot, and generally illegally-held guns don't get waved around. In places where there is a lack of gun-holding people (such as Salford, where knives are the weapon of choice), there are hardly any shootings compared to places like Longsight and Moss Side.

A farmer (Tony Martin) owned a rifle and this 'nice middle-aged man' with a perfectly legal rifle saw someone coming up to his house, assumed the guy was a burglar, and shot him dead. How many other people would make such assumptions? Or supposing someone was caught breaking in someone's house, gun gets pulled on would-be thief, thief runs for it, gets shot at, dies - and all he wanted was something to sell for food.

In other words, where there are less guns, legal or illegal, there are less gun-related deaths. Our officers here don't routinely hold guns (there is a specialist gun unit for gun-related emergensies). You know why? Because they don't need to, as most residents have no gun, legal or illegal. In short, our country doesn't have most residents armed, the USA does have most residents armed... our cops don't need guns, the USA's cops do.

I think that says it all.

Your comment implied "all". I called you on it because you called me a liar.

Simply semantics. I stated that Alaska had zero gun control restrictions, in other words, no permit required and a RTC, but you implied that I stated that Alaska didn't have firearm laws. I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. Obviouslt every State has firearm regulations.

Semantics? You said that AK has zero firearm restrictions and now you're trying to say tyou "only" meant for CCW. Right. You directly said it but you try and say I "implied". Just like I "implied" causality when I specifically said I wasn't claiming it. Having a CCW license does not mean one doesn't have to follow the law to purchase a firearm.

Be disingenous on your own time.

A farmer (Tony Martin) owned a rifle and this 'nice middle-aged man' with a perfectly legal rifle saw someone coming up to his house, assumed the guy was a burglar, and shot him dead. How many other people would make such assumptions? Or supposing someone was caught breaking in someone's house, gun gets pulled on would-be thief, thief runs for it, gets shot at, dies - and all he wanted was something to sell for food.

Tony Martin owned an illegal shotgun and shot at people leaving his property.

I personally think the following should be the last post on this thread:

Yo. I live in England. Guns are illegal for pretty much everyone here, except rifles if they're part of a rifle club. In places in England where groups have got hold of guns, people have been shot. If you're shot in the head having a legal gun in your pocket aint gonna save you - you'd have to know the person has a gun before they pull it out and shoot, and generally illegally-held guns don't get waved around. In places where there is a lack of gun-holding people (such as Salford, where knives are the weapon of choice), there are hardly any shootings compared to places like Longsight and Moss Side.

A farmer (Tony Martin) owned a rifle and this 'nice middle-aged man' with a perfectly legal rifle saw someone coming up to his house, assumed the guy was a burglar, and shot him dead. How many other people would make such assumptions? Or supposing someone was caught breaking in someone's house, gun gets pulled on would-be thief, thief runs for it, gets shot at, dies - and all he wanted was something to sell for food.

In other words, where there are less guns, legal or illegal, there are less gun-related deaths. Our officers here don't routinely hold guns (there is a specialist gun unit for gun-related emergensies). You know why? Because they don't need to, as most residents have no gun, legal or illegal. In short, our country doesn't have most residents armed, the USA does have most residents armed... our cops don't need guns, the USA's cops do.

I think that says it all.



False. Tony Martin had been robbed numerous times and shot one of the criminals inside his house. He is now being harrassed by the criminals who are recieving public monies to sue him.

That's justice for you.

It provides a citation CH. Are you now claiming that they are incorrectly citing sources?
I didn't say that at all. I just would like to see the article that they are citing. It is all a matter of context?

You'ld better have evidence to back that up especially since your using AGS sources as "gospel".
I never suggested that the AGS source was gospel but at least I provided a link. If you want to challenge the evidence that is your choice.

Howabout this one CH. It provides methodology as well.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/police_survey.htm
You link to a survey by 56% of the police officers in one county in Pennsylvania and that is somehow representative of police forces across America? You are the one doing the reaching now. Something more substantive is in order to back your/NRA claim?

I didn't say that at all. I just would like to see the article that they are citing. It is all a matter of context?

GO ahead and find it. I provided a citation.


I never suggested that the AGS source was gospel but at least I provided a link. If you want to challenge the evidence that is your choice.

So you provided a link to "talking points" from a "biased page" and expect me to take it any more seriously than you take the NRA? Fine. I want direct links to every citation they provided in their "report".


You link to a survey by 56% of the police officers in one county in Pennsylvania and that is somehow representative of police forces across America? You are the one doing the reaching now. Something more substantive is in order to back your/NRA claim?

So now it's "my/NRA" claim w/ a citation from an alternate source. You cherry pick data and infer it's representative of "gun control" policies/effectiveness across the US. You're the one reaching here.

Semantics? You said that AK has zero firearm restrictions and now you're trying to say tyou "only" meant for CCW. Right. You directly said it but you try and say I "implied". Just like I "implied" causality when I specifically said I wasn't claiming it. Having a CCW license does not mean one doesn't have to follow the law to purchase a firearm.

Be disingenous on your own time.
Excuse me? When talking gun control, the words restriction and no restrictions come up all the time. I believe the words used are "unrestricted", "shall issue", "may issue", and "right denied". The topic of this thread is about arming all American citizens, and we have been talking about the RTC and that is what the debate is about.

I certainly would not claim that any State would have zero firearm laws. Get real.

Yes, but he is very much the exception rather than the rule. Your average criminal is very unlikely to have the expertise or patience to manufacture a gun themselves, whereas the idea of them falsifying forms (which from the sound of your post isn't overly difficult) is much more plausible, as is a burglar taking away any guns he finds and selling them on into the criminal fraternity.

There are underage kids out there with the ability to manufacture their own alcohol, in practice it's much simpler for them to acquire false i.d. that lets them buy alcohol.

Philip Luty made his open bolt sub-machinegun with nothing more than hand tools and readily available materials. I'd venture to say that most people would be able to build one with his directions.

As far as the background check, the NICS (Nat'l Instant Criminal Background Check System) background check was developed by both the FBI and BATFE, and is performed by the FBI or state POC (point of contact). Also, while the forms (ATF F 4473 (5300.9)) may be easily falsified, the NICS check is designed not to be.

Excuse me? When talking gun control, the words restriction and no restrictions come up all the time. I believe the words used are "unrestricted", "shall issue", "may issue", and "right denied". The topic of this thread is about arming all American citizens, and we have been talking about the RTC and that is what the debate is about.

I certainly would not claim that any State would have zero firearm laws. Get real.

No, the debate was about "gun control" laws and not exclusively CCW. Neither was your post nor the one you were replying to. You know that and I know that. You stated AK had ZERO GUN CONTROL RESTRICTIONS. Not zero restrictions on CCW licensensing.

Alaska has zero restrictions on gun control.

Keep dancing to the tune.

GO ahead and find it. I provided a citation.
In other words, you haven't read the supporting documentation? BTW, I have tried looking for their supporting "evidence" and I can't find it. Being a professional organization, they should at least have clickable links?

So you provided a link to "talking points" from a "biased page" and expect me to take it any more seriously than you take the NRA? Fine. I want direct links to every citation they provided in their "report".
You state that the site is biased and the onus is on you to prove that. I have already challenged some NRA claims and provided evidence that their "talking points" on certain issues are a misrepresentation of the truth. They are the kings of the cherry pickers without a doubt. And obviously you just regurgitate what they are saying.

So now it's "my/NRA" claim w/ a citation from an alternate source. You cherry pick data and infer it's representative of "gun control" policies/effectiveness across the US. You're the one reaching here.
See above about cherry picking.

In other words, you haven't read the supporting documentation? BTW, I have tried looking for their supporting "evidence" and I can't find it. Being a professional organization, they should at least have clickable links?

So you can't find evidence opposing it so you just dismiss it? Gotcha.


You state that the site is biased and the onus is on you to prove that. I have already challenged some NRA claims and provided evidence that their "talking points" on certain issues are a misrepresentation of the truth. The are the kings of the cherry pickers without a doubt. And obviously you just reguritate what they are saying.

And I have on AGS as well as previously pointed out their agenda, history and leadership in the anti-gun agenda. As you are just "regurgitating" what the Brady Bunch and their ilk are cherry-picking as well (looking at your convienently choosen statistics in the thread) I guess you're the one that had the authority to "crown" them, Eh?


See above about cherry picking.

See above about your own. You're the one that presented the specifically chosen stats in this thread CH. Do you want to deny that now?

Dance for me.

So you can't find evidence opposing it so you just dismiss it? Gotcha.
You seem to be taking the wrong tact? If you have an article supporting your cause, then you would want the person you are debating to be able to appreciate the point that is raised? Since the NRA is heavily biased towards gun owners, I was rather surprised when you posted "evidence" from that site, especially since you cannot readily verify the accuracy of the quote without supporting documentation. A citation on a pro gun site does not cut the mustard. How many posts has this been for you to continually evade a simple request? Is it 5 or 6 posts? If you are going to take their word as gospel without further research, then you are just posting biased material, and not "evidence". Let me see the evidence, and then I can make an informed decision.

And I have on AGS as well as previously pointed out their agenda, history and leadership in the anti-gun agenda. As you are just "regurgitating" what the Brady Bunch and their ilk are cherry-picking as well (looking at your convienently choosen statistics in the thread) I guess you're the one that had the authority to "crown" them, Eh?
AGS is "anti-gun"? Not according to them (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/who_is_ags.html):

Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) is bringing a new voice to the debate over guns and gun safety, which for too long has been dominated by the far left and far right. Through legislative measures and public outreach, AGS supports the rights of law abiding gun owners and promotes reasonable and effective proposals for fighting gun crime and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and children. AGS is a non-partisan, not for profit advocacy organization.
They seem to believe that with owning a gun, certain responsibilities are necessary that would enable gun owners to become those law abiding citizens that you so often refer to. Because they want responsibility doesn't make their agenda "anti-gun"?

See above about your own. You're the one that presented the specifically chosen stats in this thread CH. Do you want to deny that now?
The data that I chose is from generally accepted statistics that you also use, so I fail to see your concern in that matter.

Dance for me.
You are the one doing the dancing my friend. You are not supporting your evidence very well and I can understand that because for the most part, any evidence you might supply is weak at best.

You seem to be taking the wrong tact? If you have an article supporting your cause, then you would want the person you are debating to be able to appreciate the point that is raised? Since the NRA is heavily biased towards gun owners, I was rather surprised when you posted "evidence" from that site, especially since you cannot readily verify the accuracy of the quote without supporting documentation. A citation on a pro gun site does not cut the mustard. How many posts has this been for you to continually evade a simple request? Is it 5 or 6 posts? If you are going to take their word as gospel without further research, then you are just posting biased material, and not "evidence". Let me see the evidence, and then I can make an informed decision.

You provided the "biased" evidence first and then berate me for presenting "biased" evidence. Try again. The NRA article provided a citation. If you can present evidence countering it, the onus is on you to present it.


AGS is "anti-gun"? Not according to them (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/who_is_ags.html):

So they're not biased because they say they are? That's rich. I guess the founder and primary contributer being a regular financer/board memeber of HCI and a founding member of the MMM along w/ the majority of their staff having preivious anti-gun dealings doesn't count in your world. But you're not taking thier word as "gospel", no, not at all. Everything else is biased, but not them.


They seem to believe that with owning a gun, certain responsibilities are necessary that would enable gun owners to become those law abiding citizens that you so often refer to. Because they want responsibility doesn't make their agenda "anti-gun"?

When they openly lie about laws and claim that terrorists are buying weapons at gun shows, yes, they're anti-gun. And, as usual, you put the onus of crime onto the victims. They want to renew the "Assault Weapon Ban", close the mythical "gun show loophole", and have called for extended "waiting periods" even though they have been shown to have no effect.


The data that I chose is from generally accepted statistics that you also use, so I fail to see your concern in that matter.

The "data" you chose is presented in a way to make it seem that "gun control" laws were the causality for various crime levels. You only "fail to see my concern" because you know it's true and you're trying to dance your way out of it after accusing the NRA of doing the same.


You are the one doing the dancing my friend. You are not supporting your evidence very well and I can understand that because for the most part, any evidence you might supply is weak at best.

Uh huh. Sure, whatever you say. I guess that's why you have to revert to claiming "insinuations" and "semantics" when you're shown to be blatantly wrong.

Dance some more.

Some AGS lies:

On September 10, 2001, a federal court in Michigan convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, on weapons charges. He is currently serving prison time for attempting to smuggle guns to Lebanon. An undercover federal agent watched Boumelhem buy one of the guns -- an M-16 -- at a Michigan gun show without undergoing a background check.

To own an M-16, you have to be a FFL holder and are required to do background checks on all sales. Guess the whole truth isn't there.

In Florida, Conor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle to Ireland guns bought in part at Florida gun shows.

False. He was attempting to smuggle firearms (and he was arrested for it so why are new laws needed) but all ties to terrorist activites were found to be unsubstatiated.

Pennsylvania Act 17 made requirements for background checks for all handgun and "assault weapon" transfers".

False. What it required was that purchases by dealers needed to go through PA's ICS and there was no mention of "assualt weapons" in PA's laws at all.

AGS claims that the second biggest source of "crime guns" is from gun shows but studies from both the BJS and NIJ show that less than 2% are purchased at "gun shows".

But they want "sensible" gun control.

Right.

You provided the "biased" evidence first and then berate me for presenting "biased" evidence. Try again. The NRA article provided a citation. If you can present evidence countering it, the onus is on you to present it.
The onus is on you to support your claim. You can't or choose not to because you can't?

So they're not biased because they say they are? That's rich. I guess the founder and primary contributer being a regular financer/board memeber of HCI and a founding member of the MMM along w/ the majority of their staff having preivious anti-gun dealings doesn't count in your world. But you're not taking thier word as "gospel", no, not at all. Everything else is biased, but not them.
Of course you can provide proof of claims?

When they openly lie about laws and claim that terrorists are buying weapons at gun shows, yes, they're anti-gun. And, as usual, you put the onus of crime onto the victims.
Did they actually say that terrorists did buy weapons or that the way the loophole exists that they could buy weapons?

EDIT: Okay, I see that they are (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/media/terrorists_revised.pdf) claiming that terrorists have purchased weapons at gun shows. You vehemently claim that they are lying, nothing out of the ordinary there, but the burden of proof now rests with you. Prove that they are lying.

They want to renew the "Assault Weapon Ban",
And the average American needs assault weapons for what reason?

close the mythical "gun show loophole",
If it is "mythical" then why would that concern you if they want to close it?

and have called for extended "waiting periods" even though they have been shown to have no effect.
What is wrong with having extended waiting periods? How does that affect you? I do believe that an extended waiting period would cut down on use of firearms in heat of the moment situations. Perhaps you can prove that extended waiting periods have no affect?

The "data" you chose is presented in a way to make it seem that "gun control" laws were the causality for various crime levels. You only "fail to see my concern" because you know it's true and you're trying to dance your way out of it after accusing the NRA of doing the same.
Let's face facts....the NRA is totally biased against restrictions of the ownership of guns. Their web site is loaded with suspect claims.

As far as the data that I presented, a lot of it seems to conflict with your pro gun stance, which makes sense because I am pro gun control, but it is factual. America should be following New York States example and get the guns off the streets, and continue to track down those out of State crime guns that are coming into New York mostly from Southern States that have fewer gun restrictions.

Uh huh. Sure, whatever you say. I guess that's why you have to revert to claiming "insinuations" and "semantics" when you're shown to be blatantly wrong.
With what you have been posting, I don't see how you can possibly claim that I am "blatantly wrong". I haven't called you a liar once....I just ask you to back up your sources. You seem to be having a problem with that. Please try a little harder.

Some AGS lies:

On September 10, 2001, a federal court in Michigan convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, on weapons charges. He is currently serving prison time for attempting to smuggle guns to Lebanon. An undercover federal agent watched Boumelhem buy one of the guns -- an M-16 -- at a Michigan gun show without undergoing a background check.

To own an M-16, you have to be a FFL holder and are required to do background checks on all sales. Guess the whole truth isn't there.
Ali Boumelhem could buy shotguns (http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/ags/terrorism1.html#two), assault rifles and other firearms at Michigan gun shows because neither federal nor state law requires background checks for the sale of guns at gun shows (by unlicensed sellers).9
Now, who is telling the truth, you or AGS?

In Florida, Conor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle to Ireland guns bought in part at Florida gun shows.

False. He was attempting to smuggle firearms (and he was arrested for it so why are new laws needed) but all ties to terrorist activites were found to be unsubstatiated.

http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/pdf/GunShowLoopholeandTerror.pdf

We also examined all of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) criticisms of these cases. We have determined that the NRA critiques are invalid, in some instances because they ignored facts that were clearly available, in others because they lacked crucial information about the cases that we have recently obtained.
Again, who is telling the truth, AGS or the NRA?

I will get to the other point later. I don't have time right now.

Some AGS lies:

Pennsylvania Act 17 made requirements for background checks for all handgun and "assault weapon" transfers".

False. What it required was that purchases by dealers needed to go through PA's ICS and there was no mention of "assualt weapons" in PA's laws at all.

AGS claims that the second biggest source of "crime guns" is from gun shows but studies from both the BJS and NIJ show that less than 2% are purchased at "gun shows".
Does 26,000 firearms = 2%? If so, then that certainly is a significant number of illegal firearms being obtained by criminals? The following seems to douse your argument:

Gun shows (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/pdf/following/chap1.pdf). Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun
shows.
BTW, if 2% = 26,000 illegal firearms, then 100% would equal 1,300,000 illegal firearms? Methinks you are shrinking the truth?

But they want "sensible" gun control.

Right.
Well, "sensible" gun control seems to be much better then what you are advocating. You do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't you? I am having my doubts about that.

"agressive policing methods". Not "gun control". The BB DID NOT make it difficult for criminals to obtain firearms legally as felons couldn't do it before hand. You can "truly believe" it all you want. It doesn't make it a fact.

Edit: I also like how you ignored the other Non-NRA sites I posted. Convienent , huh?
Would the following make it a fact?

Background checks for firearm transfers (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crs.htm)

Federal law prohibits firearm possession by or transfer to prohibited persons including those who are under indictment for or convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment or more than 1 year.

In 2005 about 8.3 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks under the Brady Act and similar State laws.

From the inception of the Brady Act in February 1994 through December 2005, more than 69 million applications for firearm transfers were subject to background checks. About 1,360,000 applications were rejected.
Among State and local checking agencies in 2005, 46% of all rejections for firearm transfers (about 30,000 applications) were due to a felony conviction.
About 15% of State and local rejections (10,000 applications) were due to a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restraining order.
Your credibility is on that slippery slope to nowhere.

The onus is on you to support your claim. You can't or choose not to because you can't?

You're dismissing it because you don't like the source. You can't dispute it so you attack the source. Try again.


Of course you can provide proof of claim?

Yes, http://www.nndb.com/people/688/000122322/


Did they actually say that terrorists did buy weapons or that the way the loophole exists that they could buy weapons?

EDIT: Okay, I see that they are (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/media/terrorists_revised.pdf) claiming that terrorists have purchased weapons at gun shows. You vehemently claim that they are lying, nothing out of the ordinary there, but the burden of proof now rests with you. Prove that they are lying.

You've been shown that you can't buy an "assault rifle" w/o an FFL license nor even own one. Do you deny that you've been shown this? They claim he bought an M-16. That makes it a lie. Now let's look at what the MEIB report REALLY said:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_lb.htm

Detroit man arrested for shipping weapons to Hezbollah
17 November 2000

An FBI terrorism task force arrested a Lebanese resident of Detroit allegedly involved in shipping weapons and ammunition to Hezbollah guerrillas. Ali Boumelhem, 35, was apprehended just before departing on a scheduled trip to Lebanon. Authorities say that Boumelhem, a leader in the militant Amal militia and a "sympathizer" of Hezbollah, traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon. FBI agents intercepted one cargo container bound for Lebanon which contained a pair of shotguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, a radio and a police scanner. In addition, an FBI informant told investigators that he had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers. He faces charges in a U.S. District Court of shipping firearms to a nonlicensed person.

Being that AGS edited that to make it sound like he bought these at a gun show, they are the ones being biased now. Still want to claim they're credible?


And the average American needs assault weapons for what reason?

And he starts the "need" argument. Classic. Now you want to define what you feel people "need".


If it is "mythical" then why would that concern you if they want to close it?

Nice dodge. You well know that the laws being pushed are for ALL sellers to be required to have FFL's. Not just those sellling firearms. Deny that again.


What is wrong with having extended waiting periods? How does that affect you? I do believe that an extended waiting period would cut down on use of firearms in heat of the moment situations. Perhaps you can prove that extended waiting periods have no affect?

Already done it. Try reading the reports by the JAMA, and CDC again. Are you going to deny that those have been posted previously.

"Extended waiting periods" have been shown to have no effect on crime and are just another pointless restriction to make it difficult to own firearms. Try again.

"In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday.

"In retrospect we would not expect Brady to be effective against violent crime. Increasingly homicides are committed by career criminals who do not get their guns in legal ways," said the Duke University researcher.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258

So unless you happen to know more than the CDC and JAMA, or are taking the AGS as "gospel", You're wrong.


Let's face facts....the NRA is totally biased against restrictions of the ownership of guns. Their web site is loaded with suspect claims.

And you were the first one to even use the NRA as a strawman in this thread and then used the AGS. Are you now trying to claim the NRA opposes all "gun control" laws?

As far as the data that I presented, a lot of it seems to conflict with your pro gun stance, which makes sense because I am pro gun control, but it is factual. America should be following New York States example and get the guns off the streets, and continue to track down those out of State crime guns that are coming into New York mostly from Southern States that have fewer gun restrictions.

So you want to push. Of course the fact that their crime was the considerably higher even w/ their gun control laws shows that there ARE many other factors. Of course you just push that when it is shown that crime doesn't rise w/ less restrictive laws. Let's follow NY's example and conduct illegal straw sales by PI's, pursue lawsuits against firearm companies, and confiscate previously legal firearms from people that haven't committed crimes after they slippery-slope the laws. But you'ld rather just repeat the lie that "most crime guns come from out of state". Since only 8% of "crime guns" were even traced at the time, that doesn't make it very inclusive, now does it. Even the BATF and CRS states that tracing /= accuracy. But you'ld like to present your little Brady Bunch talking points even after it's been refuted numerous times in the past. And you wonder why I call you a liar.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kopel.traces.html
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22458_20060616.pdf


With what you have been posting, I don't see how you can possibly claim that I am "blatantly wrong". I haven't called you a liar once....I just ask you to back up your sources. You seem to be having a problem with that. Please try a little harder.

So you can blatantly lie to push a biased goal and claim it's semantics but then claim I'm "insinuating" things when I clearly state I'm not. Gotcha.

Now, who is telling the truth, you or AGS?

Me. As shown many times over YOU CANNOT BUY ASSAULT RIFLES W/O AN FFL AND FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES CHECKS. We really see terrorists buying dozens of shotguns and handguns at shows. Please. The MEIB report listed a "pair" for the one and some handguns that weren't all from gunshows for the IRA guy who was arrested w/o any additional laws needed. That will end the world in comparison to the rocket launchers and grenades. Try a little harder CH.



http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/pdf/GunShowLoopholeandTerror.pdf


Again, who is telling the truth, AGS or the NRA?

I will get to the other point later. I don't have time right now.

So the AGS is right because they say they are? Are you really JesusSaves w/ all this circular logic? Being that most of the claims they make say they bought or attempted to buy fully auto weapons at gun shows w/o licensesor checks is either breaking the law in the first place as checks are required since 1934, the sources they're citing are incorrect (mostly newspapers), or they are lying. AGS claims that there are the connections when they aren't there. That is a biased agenda.

They also claim on the same page:

The Brady Act prohibits the sale of guns to convicted felons, illegal aliens, and foreign nationals who are in the United States on non-immigrant visas.

This is another falsehood as these were established by the 1968 GCA.

Does 26,000 firearms = 2%? If so, then that certainly is a significant number of illegal firearms being obtained by criminals? The following seems to douse your argument:


BTW, if 2% = 26,000 illegal firearms, then 100% would equal 1,300,000 illegal firearms? Methinks you are shrinking the truth?

Since "trafficking" /= "illegal purchases w/o background checks" AGS's connection is false as well as your math. Try again.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200111/CUL20011105c.html
http://nij.ncjrs.gov/publications/pub_search.asp?title=Homicide+in+Eight+&submit=Go&author=&category=99&searchtype=basic&location=top


Well, "sensible" gun control seems to be much better then what you are advocating. You do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals don't you? I am having my doubts about that.

So what am I "advocating" CH? Be specific.

Would the following make it a fact?


Your credibility is on that slippery slope to nowhere.

Did I oppose background checks CH? Show me where I did. I oppose the waiting periods and all the other nonsense associated. Those background checks since 1998 are conducted under the NICS (which you oppose) and not the BB waiting period. "Similar state laws" is also included in the number so the BB still has not been shown to reduce crime. Of course you still deny that most of the states that were exempt from the BB had higher crime than the states that didn't. Keep reaching CH.


My "credibility" is much better than your lying and strawmen. I asked for evidence of the meme the "more guns = more crime" . You claimed I was making causality, cherry-picked some limited data, lied about firearm laws, and then strawmanned into the NRA being biased while posting a site ran by a former Brady Bunch board member. You now claim the NRA opposes any firearm restrictions which you know to be another falsehood.

You provided the "biased" evidence first and then berate me for presenting "biased" evidence. Try again. The NRA article provided a citation. If you can present evidence countering it, the onus is on you to present it.
The onus is on you to support your claim. You can't or choose not to because you can't?

You're dismissing it because you don't like the source. You can't dispute it so you attack the source. Try again.
In other words, you are not going to support your claim?

When they openly lie about laws and claim that terrorists are buying weapons at gun shows, yes, they're anti-gun. And, as usual, you put the onus of crime onto the victims.

Did they actually say that terrorists did buy weapons or that the way the loophole exists that they could buy weapons?

EDIT: Okay, I see that they are (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/media/terrorists_revised.pdf) claiming that terrorists have purchased weapons at gun shows. You vehemently claim that they are lying, nothing out of the ordinary there, but the burden of proof now rests with you. Prove that they are lying.

You've been shown that you can't buy an "assault rifle" w/o an FFL license nor even own one. Do you deny that you've been shown this? They claim he bought an M-16. That makes it a lie. Now let's look at what the MEIB report REALLY said:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0012_lb.htm

Being that AGS edited that to make it sound like he bought these at a gun show, they are the ones being biased now. Still want to claim they're credible?
Can you prove that they edited that? The MEIB report is responsible to whom? You stated that they lied and you haven't proved that. Perhaps PBS is lying too?

CASES OF TERRORISTS PURCHASING GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gunland.html)

You seem to be supporting the illegal acquistion of firearms by undesirables by insisting that the gun show loophole is "mythical", and yet you are vehemently calling these people liars. If the loophole is "mythical" then why are you so upset at people trying to close it? Tens of thousands of guns are falling into criminal hands and you are opposed to stopping that practice. Wow!!

And he starts the "need" argument. Classic. Now you want to define what you feel people "need".
Again, the average American needs assault weapons for what reason?

close the mythical "gun show loophole",
If it is "mythical" then why would that concern you if they want to close it?

Nice dodge. You well know that the laws being pushed are for ALL sellers to be required to have FFL's. Not just those sellling firearms. Deny that again.
You are the one that stated that the loophole was "mythical", and I have posted links suggesting that you are wrong. You are the one now trying to dodge the issue, not me. Youu do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements? It doesn't appear that way to me.

and have called for extended "waiting periods" even though they have been shown to have no effect.

What is wrong with having extended waiting periods? How does that affect you? I do believe that an extended waiting period would cut down on use of firearms in heat of the moment situations. Perhaps you can prove that extended waiting periods have no affect?

Already done it. Try reading the reports by the JAMA, and CDC again. Are you going to deny that those have been posted previously.

"Extended waiting periods" have been shown to have no effect on crime and are just another pointless restriction to make it difficult to own firearms. Try again.

"In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday.
That is not exactly what the CDC report says....nice try:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
This is why I ask for you to post supporting documents because you seem to have the penchant for taking things out of context.

"In retrospect we would not expect Brady to be effective against violent crime. Increasingly homicides are committed by career criminals who do not get their guns in legal ways," said the Duke University researcher.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258

So unless you happen to know more than the CDC and JAMA, or are taking the AGS as "gospel", You're wrong.
I already posted a link to the Bureau of Justice statistics that qualifies the effect of the Brady Bill and I feel that it has been fairly significant, and you come back with a link to NewsMax....give me a break. I am surprised that a LAC such as yourself would have a problem with background checks if it leads to safer streets and less criminals with guns.

The "data" you chose is presented in a way to make it seem that "gun control" laws were the causality for various crime levels. You only "fail to see my concern" because you know it's true and you're trying to dance your way out of it after accusing the NRA of doing the same.
Let's face facts....the NRA is totally biased against restrictions of the ownership of guns. Their web site is loaded with suspect claims.

As far as the data that I presented, a lot of it seems to conflict with your pro gun stance, which makes sense because I am pro gun control, but it is factual. America should be following New York States example and get the guns off the streets, and continue to track down those out of State crime guns that are coming into New York mostly from Southern States that have fewer gun restrictions.

And you were the first one to even use the NRA as a strawman in this thread and then used the AGS. Are you now trying to claim the NRA opposes all "gun control" laws?
I stated that they were "biased" against gun restrictions. I do realize that there have been some restrictions that they do endorse. As far as the NRA is concerned, most of your talking points is like reading their web site, whether you link to them or not is irrelevant.

Uh huh. Sure, whatever you say. I guess that's why you have to revert to claiming "insinuations" and "semantics" when you're shown to be blatantly wrong.

With what you have been posting, I don't see how you can possibly claim that I am "blatantly wrong". I haven't called you a liar once....I just ask you to back up your sources. You seem to be having a problem with that. Please try a little harder.

So you want to push. Of course the fact that their crime was the considerably higher even w/ their gun control laws shows that there ARE many other factors. Of course you just push that when it is shown that crime doesn't rise w/ less restrictive laws. Let's follow NY's example and conduct illegal straw sales by PI's, pursue lawsuits against firearm companies, and confiscate previously legal firearms from people that haven't committed crimes after they slippery-slope the laws. But you'ld rather just repeat the lie that "most crime guns come from out of state". Since only 8% of "crime guns" were even traced at the time, that doesn't make it very inclusive, now does it. Even the BATF and CRS states that tracing /= accuracy. But you'ld like to present your little Brady Bunch talking points even after it's been refuted numerous times in the past. And you wonder why I call you a liar.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kopel.traces.html
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22458_20060616.pdf

So you can blatantly lie to push a biased goal and claim it's semantics but then claim I'm "insinuating" things when I clearly state I'm not. Gotcha.
No, what I push is a little common sense. You and your ilk are so paranoid that someone is going to come around and confiscate all your toys that your seem to be willing to throw caution to the wind. You resist being responsible for the dangerous toys that you possess, by opposing almost any progressive gun control. You seem oblivious to the huge number of guns that are going to the criminal elements in your society. 1,300,000 stolen guns over the last 10 years is 1,300,000 too many. 80,000 guns every two years going to criminals through gun shows, shady dealers, and straw purchases is 80,000 guns too many. You say I want to blame the victim, yet you support the perpetrators of these crimes by your steadfastness in the belief that gun control is an assault on your rights. How many less victims would there be if you actually supported programs designed to make it difficult for criminals to get guns?

The propaganda by the pro gun element is mind boggling, and self serving and results in more crime not less. You try to minimize the Brady Bill, yet its introduction coincides with a sharp downturn in violent crime. You try to minimize the benefits of the gun trace program, yet it helps police organizations determine where crime guns are originating. You tout the RTC laws as being the supreme deterrent to crime yet when you crunch the raw numbers, it just doesn't add up.

On the whole, judging by what you post in these threads, I sincerely believe that the criminal element is very glad that there are so many people like you.

I have a question for Kecibukia and CanuckHeaven. After butting heads in all these firearms threads, do you really think it's possible that either of you will ever change the other person's mind on the talking points that keep getting brought up?

/I don't think it'll happen
//I likes the ability to own firearms
///I also like pie
////yesterday was my birthday
/////I make no sense when I'm this tired