NationStates Jolt Archive

Grave - I've just gotten into work this morning and after reading the past two pages I must commend you on your deconstruction of your opponents argument. Touche. :)

Grave - I've just gotten into work this morning and after reading the past two pages I must commend you on your deconstruction of your opponents argument. Touche. :)

*Bows*

I'd have preferred it to stay civil. The constant appeals to emotion, and the apparent passion overcoming reasoned debate... means I don't feel I really got to 'finish' what was started.

Not at all. Impotent means 'lacking strength'. The sexual connotation comes from the other meaning - not the other way around.

Interesting that you read it that way, though.



So - on those other flights... all those people died because no one was willing to rush a guy with a (maximum) four-inch blade? Surely, that makes it worse.



Not at all - the situations were equaivalent in that the person(s) intent on doing harm was/were greatly outnumbered, and could have been disarmed (even without guns) fairly quickly and easily. Indeed - 9/11 occured within limited confines... the VA Tech shooting had no such restriction - there were thousands of people available to mob the gunman, if needed.



The point is - armed men of evil intent need to present only a limited face of threat, and they will cow many times their own number of potential attackers.

And again - you might want to step away from your keyboard and cool off a little.

Owned. Well done sir.

Okay, I'm sorry for a slight de-railing here, but what's with all the "feminist" randomness being thrown in here?

I've seen this before, too. People make these claims about how anti-gun = feminist propaganda or something. What's that about? To the best of my knowledge (as an official member of the Vast Feminist Conspiracy) feminism doesn't have any particular stance on gun control built in.

Feminists, like everybody else, have opinions about gun control, but supporting or opposing gun control can both be compatible with feminism. Belief in the social and political equality of the sexes doesn't require one to like or hate guns.

It doesn't sound like a recipe for safety.
But according to gun advocates, numbers of guns is directly proportional to safely and inversely proportional to collateral damage.

Grave - I've just gotten into work this morning and after reading the past two pages I must commend you on your deconstruction of your opponents argument. Touche. :)
It's not hard to out debate some one with a clown intellect.

The problem is that the US is saturated with firearms. The NRA misquotes the US constitution wich mentions the arming of malitias( National guard or some such) into a right for every idiot to fill his home with basically army weapons.Thus you get lots of gun crime. To answer this with Tazors or other non lethal means is impossible. The gun always beats them BECAUSE it kills, and at much longer range than 20 meters. Try a Mexican stand off armed with a Tazor with an opponant armed with a Glock. The most he has to worry about is a quick shock and then losing control of his limbs for a few minutes. You have to worry about getting your head blown off!

Okay, I'm sorry for a slight de-railing here, but what's with all the "feminist" randomness being thrown in here?

I've seen this before, too. People make these claims about how anti-gun = feminist propaganda or something. What's that about? To the best of my knowledge (as an official member of the Vast Feminist Conspiracy) feminism doesn't have any particular stance on gun control built in.

Feminists, like everybody else, have opinions about gun control, but supporting or opposing gun control can both be compatible with feminism. Belief in the social and political equality of the sexes doesn't require one to like or hate guns.
Because people trying to ban guns and feminists both want to emasculate (Real) men... Or at least that's the vibe I'm getting.

Okay, I'm sorry for a slight de-railing here, but what's with all the "feminist" randomness being thrown in here?

I've seen this before, too. People make these claims about how anti-gun = feminist propaganda or something. What's that about? To the best of my knowledge (as an official member of the Vast Feminist Conspiracy) feminism doesn't have any particular stance on gun control built in.

Feminists, like everybody else, have opinions about gun control, but supporting or opposing gun control can both be compatible with feminism. Belief in the social and political equality of the sexes doesn't require one to like or hate guns.

I think 'feminism' might have been a victim of hot-tempers - the same way that 'gay', 'commie' and 'liberal' tend to slip into the flow of invective when people have heightened tensions.

Unless the other poster really does believe that gun control is a fminist issue, or that only women think some men compensate for... certain things... with sports cars and guns that can shoot through walls.

But according to gun advocates, numbers of guns is directly proportional to safely and inversely proportional to collateral damage.

A 'logic' which - if absolute and universal - must make soldiers the people least likely to hurt anyone, and cause spontaneous combustion of nuns.

For those who say that "strict" gun policies would have prevented anyone from getting hurt, ask that mayor in Japan who's been shot twice.

For those who claim CCW would cause more problems, show the evidence. Hasn't happened anywhere CCW is allowed.

For those who keep making the "guns = small penis" arguement, maybe you should grow a pair yourselves.

For those who claim the 2nd is only for arming militia's, find me a quote from the founding fathers stating that was its purpose.

Actually, for those claiming the 2nd Amendment is only for militias, I bet you're upset that the recent appeals court decision says that it's for individuals.

Actually, for those claiming the 2nd Amendment is only for militias, I bet you're upset that the recent appeals court decision says that it's for individuals.

Several court decisions actually. Not only that but federal law puts the majority of the population in the "militia" anyway..

How about how Japan posted 54 gun deaths last year for a country of 125 million vs over 500 in New York City alone.

And thank you for showing it still happens. That whole criminal thing.

For those who say that "strict" gun policies would have prevented anyone from getting hurt, ask that mayor in Japan who's been shot twice.
How about how Japan posted 54 gun deaths last year for a country of 125 million vs over 500 in New York City alone.

And thank you for showing it still happens. That whole criminal thing.

way to totally miss/ignore the point there...

way to totally miss/ignore the point there...

I didn't miss/ignore anything. Japan has a culture that has the police inspecting peoples homes and where they'll admit to having contraband, etc. Yet the gangs still manage to shoot people in a country where ownership is banned.

anyone who doesnt believe that scummy cho deserved to die for even shooting a single innocent person needs his head examined and to be beaten within an inch of his life
In that case, I immediately volunteer for such treatment.

This young man was a human being, just like you and me. His world drove him to do what he did, just as it could well have done to either of us. Perhaps allowing you to go ahead with your threat would be the best demonstration of this fact.

If the pain and suffering of innocent third parties is the only way to make the point that all life is valuable then I would gladly allow you to pummel me until you are satisfied that I mean it and you understand the inconsistency between your words and your actions.

How about how Japan posted 54 gun deaths last year for a country of 125 million vs over 500 in New York City alone.

How about a 64 percent reduction in firearm murders in the US while there was a 50 percent increase in the number of firearms, and a sudden increase in the number of people doing legalized concealed carry (millions of people now)?

It isn't a matter of 'my view'. Do you honestly think it a coincidence that predominantly male societies always end up with phallic structures as their 'ultimate' expressions? Missiles, rockets, even guns... sportscars, aircraft, even tall buildings. The closer structures get to the 'male ideal' the more phallic they become. I suspect it can't be ALL coincidence.

And, if you reject the idea that a gun is a phallic compensation - how do you feel when you are disarmed?

How do I feel when I don't have my rifle with me? I feel the same as when I do have my rifle with me. I feel no differently at the supermarket, at my job (I work at the post office, and for some strange reason, they frown on its workers being armed), at my parents house, at the movies, etc.

You know what, You're all nuts! No matter which side you are on, you're all out of your minds one way or another.


DUH! :D

Because people trying to ban guns and feminists both want to emasculate (Real) men... Or at least that's the vibe I'm getting.
It's really sad-funny to see people talk that way. Any person who thinks of "feminism" in this way is the LAST kind of person who should be armed. They are already completely divorced from reality and have serious hangups about their penis. Not exactly the sort who will improve the world if given a deadly weapon.

DUH! :D

Exactly. We're on NSG. It kind of goes w/o saying.

Not at all. On 9/11, unarmed civilians overcame guntoting terrorists on one flight. They were brave.


I just wanted to comment on this: The hijackers on Flight 93, as well as the other 3 flights that got hijacked, didn't have guns. They had box cutters.

Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 fromhis truck and ran to the scene.

This has happened more than once, despite the previous postings in this thread that it's only happened once, and isn't of any use.

Woodham drove his mother's car to his high school. Wearing a blue jean jacket, he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he walked toward Lydia Dew and shot her thinking her to be his former girlfriend Christina Menefee, whom he also shot. Both girls died. He went on to wound 7 others before Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham while he was trying to drive off campus. When Myrick asked Woodham of his motive, he replied "Life has wronged me, sir"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

It would have been worse if the principal had not stopped him. There's no telling who else Woodham would have killed.

It would have been worse if the principal had not stopped him. There's no telling who else Woodham would have killed.
Pardon me if this seems a little rude, but we've both been making our points concurrently for some time without variation, and it'd be nice to discuss the interaction of them.

You have consistently defended the position of the legalised concealed carry of defensive armaments, which I mostly respect, but I have yet to see you defend the position that lethal firearms should be protected under any such law. Would you not agree that, should a weapon be created that when wielded by an individual be capable (from range and with high success rate) of disabling any potential attacker for a protracted period of time without killing them, it would be completely unjustified to give people the choice to retain a lethal weapon for defence rather than the non-lethal alternative?

Pardon me if this seems a little rude, but we've both been making our points concurrently for some time without variation, and it'd be nice to discuss the interaction of them.

You have consistently defended the position of the legalised concealed carry of defensive armaments, which I mostly respect, but I have yet to see you defend the position that lethal firearms should be protected under any such law. Would you not agree that, should a weapon be created that when wielded by an individual be capable (from range and with high success rate) of disabling any potential attacker for a protracted period of time without killing them, it would be completely unjustified to give people the choice to retain a lethal weapon for defence rather than the non-lethal alternative?

Lethal weapons are the best thing we have at this point in time.

If the latest models of Taser that are available to the police (the police models actually work extremely well), and had a range comparable to a handgun (the Taser is only good to 15 feet or so), that would be a good substitute.

But they aren't at this time.

Exactly. We're on NSG. It kind of goes w/o saying.

I've worked very hard to make it so. :)

Pardon me if this seems a little rude, but we've both been making our points concurrently for some time without variation, and it'd be nice to discuss the interaction of them.

You have consistently defended the position of the legalised concealed carry of defensive armaments, which I mostly respect, but I have yet to see you defend the position that lethal firearms should be protected under any such law. Would you not agree that, should a weapon be created that when wielded by an individual be capable (from range and with high success rate) of disabling any potential attacker for a protracted period of time without killing them, it would be completely unjustified to give people the choice to retain a lethal weapon for defence rather than the non-lethal alternative?


Since I don't have a firearm for defense, non-lethal weaponry wouldn't be necessary in my case. And when I get my CCW, it will be so I can purchase a pistol, so I can punch little holes in paper from tens, if not hundreds of feet away.

:D

You don't value the privilege to own a weapon, enough to be willing to pay for that?

In the US, ownership of a weapon [I]is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege[I]. I have a real problem with having to have special permission from my government for me to apply a guaranteed freedom. Maybe I can ask the government if it is ok for me to publicly speak against it.

Being licensed to drive a motor vehicle is a privilege, therefore I am willing to pay for my operator license renewal.

However, lets also keep in mind, that even though this is a real tragedy, the number of alcohol related auto accident fatalities in the US is slightly higher than the number of criminal homicides by firearms.

I just wanted to comment on this: The hijackers on Flight 93, as well as the other 3 flights that got hijacked, didn't have guns. They had box cutters.

They said they had guns though, and that scared them.

In the US, ownership of a weapon [I]is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege[I]. I have a real problem with having to have special permission from my government for me to apply a guaranteed freedom. Maybe I can ask the government if it is ok for me to publicly speak against it.

Being licensed to drive a motor vehicle is a privilege, therefore I am willing to pay for my operator license renewal.

However, lets also keep in mind, that even though this is a real tragedy, the number of alcohol related auto accident fatalities in the US is slightly higher than the number of criminal homicides by firearms.

Actually, the number of firearm related deaths has dropped by quite a bit in the US. Despite an overall increase in gun ownership and an increase in legal concealed carry across the country.

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

- A minor percentage of violent crime is done with firearms in the US
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.

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

- Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
From 1993 to 2001 the rate of firearm violence fell 63%

From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined 36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

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%.

In the US, ownership of a weapon is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege. I have a real problem with having to have special permission from my government for me to apply a guaranteed freedom. Maybe I can ask the government if it is ok for me to publicly speak against it.


Not exactly written in stone though is it?

God bless constitutional amendments which can 'magically' take away that so-called right.

It would never happen. :)

Because it would be political suicide for anyone that suggested/voted for it, and politicians know this.

Not exactly written in stone though is it?

God bless constitutional amendments which can 'magically' take away that so-called right.

It would never happen. :)

Not exactly written in stone though is it?

God bless constitutional amendments which can 'magically' take away that so-called right.

Actually the second amendment to the US Constitution says in part that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And recently, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the meaning of the word people applies to the citizenry.

Lethal weapons are the best thing we have at this point in time.

If the latest models of Taser that are available to the police (the police models actually work extremely well), and had a range comparable to a handgun (the Taser is only good to 15 feet or so), that would be a good substitute.

But they aren't at this time.
As a result of the prevalence of conventional firearms, however, any law involving concealed carry of such weaponry in the present day must permit lethal weaponry. Such a law would, ironically, be not only repealed but actually completely flipped in the event of the widespread release of effective alternatives.

The problem I see here is that, as long as the posession, purchase and use of lethal firearms is still legal, there is therefore no market motivation for the people who might bring that future scenario about to do so, and that becomes less and less of a good idea economically as time goes on. If, for example, tomorrow the manufacturers come up with a hand-held pistol-range tazer, everyone who owned a gun for defence would have to be allowed to trade in their existing armaments (since it's not fair for the law to demand people pay to replace something that was previously legal and that has now been made illegal, of course), thereby requiring a supply of free equipment to be created at a loss in order to fulfil demand. As more time passes, more guns will be sold requiring more tazers to be produced at a loss later to fulfil peoples' trade demands.

The market will thus almost certainly never produce such items commercially. It is an economic flop to the gun makers, whether they themselves are the ones who create them or not, and it is precisely the gun makers whose knowledge is best suited to making them.

Now, I would like to highlight 6 possible avenues for action.

1) That concealed carry of lethal firearms is permitted and the market left to its own devices (which may in its own time yield to a sufficient demand for non lethal weaponry, the production thereof and a resultant change in the law)

2) That concealed carry of lethal firearms is permitted but the weapon manufacturers placed under political pressure to develop non-lethal weaponry against the natural flow of the market (with the resultant change in the law once they've been made).

3) That concealed carry of lethal firearms is permitted but the weapon manufacturers are given economic incentives to develop non-lethal weaponry against the natural flow of the market (with a resultant change in the law once they've been made) and reimbursed for the loss they make in their production... at the expense of the taxpayer.

4) As 3 above, but with the deliberate state funding and protectionism of new businesses to develop the weapons rather than the existing gun manufacturers.

5) That concealed carry of lethal firearms is permitted but the production of and sale of new personal lethal weaponry is illegalised in order to directly manipulate the market and result in manufacturers turning to the development of non-lethal alternatives as a matter of economic necessity (with the resultant change in the law once the alternatives have been made widely available).

6) That concealed carry of lethal firearms is illegalised and non-lethal forms legalised straight off the bat to manipulate the market as 5 above.


As I'm not a US citizen, it is not up to me to decide how your government works, but I suggest that option 1 has become invalid due to the successful entrenchment of lethal firearms in both society and the market. Make what you will of the other 5 suggestions, but I think if you do want to see a genuine effort to develop new and improved forms of personal defensive weaponry for concealed carry rather than just the continuation of the status quo, it would be a good idea to at least think about them.

Since I don't have a firearm for defense, non-lethal weaponry wouldn't be necessary in my case.
This seems a little silly to me. You'd have thought that in the case of sports weaponry you could either use a non-lethal gun on your own or a potentially lethal gun under protected conditions without ever needing to have a permit to carry a lethal weapon about with you.

This seems a little silly to me. You'd have thought that in the case of sports weaponry you could either use a non-lethal gun on your own or a potentially lethal gun under protected conditions without ever needing to have a permit to carry a lethal weapon about with you.

I have a non lethal gun, it's called a paintball marker. It isn't the same though, because paintball isn't as accurate as real firearms, and it doesn't have the same range. And what is your idea of "protected conditions"?

Well, i'm just putting the score as it actually was.

What happened yesterday was Gun free zone - 32, CCW 0.

Ah. I see. Then by all means, let's follow that logic:

Complete national gun ban - 0, Gun free zone campus with nearly unresticted sales in the immediate vicinity - 32, CCW - 0

Your kind of logic is swell ;)

Ah. I see. Then by all means, let's follow that logic:

Complete national gun ban - 0, Gun free zone campus with nearly unresticted sales in the immediate vicinity - 32, CCW - 0

Your kind of logic is swell ;)


A complete national firearms ban will never happen, it'd be political suicide for any polititian that backed the idea (and they know it).

A complete national firearms ban will never happen, it'd be political suicide for any polititian that backed the idea (and they know it).

Oh I know, I was just basking in the glory that was the logic presented before... "Gun free zone cost 32 lives, while CCW cost 0". Well then, with a (extremely unlikely and hypothetical) national gun ban, nobody would die from gun violence.

It's the same kind of "logical" outcome, is it not? :)

The thing that troubles me, is how easy it was for the virginia tech guy to get shitloads of ammunition for so cheap! (apparently he payed less then $5 for his ammunition). Firstly, I don't think people should ever be allowed to buy that much ammunition as no-one could ever need that much for self defence. Or at least make ammunition a little more expensive...

The thing that troubles me, is how easy it was for the virginia tech guy to get shitloads of ammunition for so cheap! (apparently he payed less then $5 for his ammunition). Firstly, I don't think people should ever be allowed to buy that much ammunition as no-one could ever need that much for self defence. Or at least make ammunition a little more expensive...

He paid more than that except for the .22LR stuff.

He paid more than that except for the .22LR stuff.

Do you know how much he payed over all for the ammo?

Do you know how much he payed over all for the ammo?


How much ammo did he have?

Hooray for Instant background checks.......God knows that potential gun owners should not be investigated TOO thoroughly???

Meanwhile, ABC News has reported that Cho was considered an "imminent danger to others" by a court in 2005, after he had been accused of stalking two female students.

A Virginian district court found that Cho Seung-Hui was dangerous and "mentally ill," and ruled he should be evaluated at a psychiatric hospital. ...............

Then in December, Cho sent instant messages to another female student, who asked campus security to be protected from contact with him.

Police also confirmed that Cho was admitted to a mental health institution over fears he might be suicidal.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20070417%2ftech_shooting_070418

And... what, I should accept your (rather aggressive, I note) attack on this possible argument because... you don't like Freud?

Whether or not you buy into Freud - whether or not you think he was always right - he was right about some things. We are sexual creatures, and even our non-sexual behaviours contribute to, and are affected by, our sexual condition. Jack the Ripper, with his (allegedly) deformed genitals, and taunting letters about having a 'small' but 'sharp' knife, would be a classic example.

I don't accept your unsupported argument that Freud was wrong (on this). And, now I'm left wondering why you feel you need to be quite so vehement in putting him down?

I'm putting Freud down, because he was so routinely wrong on so many things. He was correct when describing a partial arcitechture of the mind, that there are certain elements that we do indeed repress, and that these repressed elements can lead to conflict and internal struggle. What Freud was wrong about, though, were many of his sexually related theories. They reflect his own personal conflicts, his repressed homosexuality and repressed personal sexuality led to a MASSIVE overemphasis on the sexual factors of human life. While important, these elements are not a primary motivator of our own personal actions. A century of study should show that to be clear. Further! There is absolutely no empirical evidence for any of the theories that Freud proposed. Don't even get me on the black hole that is Jungian psychology.

Behaviorists, on the other hand, while ascribing something of a too mechanistic view to human behavior, do indeed provide us with empirical, experimental evidence. We can actually see that there is evidence for their arguments, and when mixed with cognitive psychology, we can get a far more complete picture of the mind.

I attack your claim, because it is merely more than a garden variety ad hominem attack against those who support gun rights. Utilizing stupid pop psychobabble, that you probably heard someone mumble on another forum somewhere, to try to make yourself look smart, and make your opponents looke like small-dicked apes who can't think for themselves.

I have a non lethal gun, it's called a paintball marker. It isn't the same though, because paintball isn't as accurate as real firearms, and it doesn't have the same range. And what is your idea of "protected conditions"?
My idea of "protected conditions" was pointing to specific licensed locations, such as firing ranges, gun clubs, hunting grounds or the like, or at formal competition events. You should still be able to own your own gun, of course, but I would suggest that such ownership would firstly be restricted to licenced sportsmen (the firearms "driving test") and perhaps even that the sale of certain kinds of ammunition be restricted to the venues themselves. Something like Golf, for instance, where you'd use driving ranges (where they give you loads of balls that they can gather up and reuse themselves) to deliberately work on your stroke given match conditions and practice balls to just have a go in your spare time.

And as for the accuracy and range of non lethal guns, given the establishment of better provisions for shooting as a sport, you'd doubtless find developers clamoring to come up with improvements.

Hooray for Instant background checks.......God knows that potential gun owners should not be investigated TOO thoroughly???

And the five day waiting period you support was more thurough? But you preffer the Gov't going around and collecting rumors and innuendo to make thier decisions.

And the five day waiting period you support was more thurough? But you preffer the Gov't going around and collecting rumors and innuendo to make thier decisions.

My thoughts exactly.

My idea of "protected conditions" was pointing to specific licensed locations, such as firing ranges, gun clubs, hunting grounds or the like, or at formal competition events. You should still be able to own your own gun, of course, but I would suggest that such ownership would firstly be restricted to licenced sportsmen (the firearms "driving test") and perhaps even that the sale of certain kinds of ammunition be restricted to the venues themselves. Something like Golf, for instance, where you'd use driving ranges (where they give you loads of balls that they can gather up and reuse themselves) to deliberately work on your stroke given match conditions and practice balls to just have a go in your spare time.

And as for the accuracy and range of non lethal guns, given the establishment of better provisions for shooting as a sport, you'd doubtless find developers clamoring to come up with improvements.


Sorry, but limiting firearms to only certain locations isn't something I'm willing to accept (and I'm sure millions of other firearms owners would feel similar). Since they have plenty of land, it's currently legal to shoot in my sister and brother in law's back yard (brother in law shoots there to get ready for hunting season), and I've been invited there to shoot. Forcing people like my brother in law to shoot at a club or range, instead of his backyard, won't do anything to affect crime.

What restrictions are you talking about, ammunition-wise? Are you referring to ammo that can pierce body armor? Here's some info for you: Most center-fire rifle ammo can pierce body armor.

What would be better about the conditions you suggested? How would that get firearms developers to "clamor" to get in on the less lethal market? As far as accuracy and range of the less lethal market, if you propel a pepperball (same size as a paintball, all the same design problems) faster than it's already supposed to be shot, you can risk less accuracy, there's a risk that the pepperball can burst inside the breech or barrel (which would make for a bad day for the shooter), or it can cause a serious/permanent injury or death to the target. Increasing the weight of a pepperball may help increase the range (if fired at the same speed) but they can also lead to an increase of serious injury/death. Stun guns require a person to be at arms length to the aggressor (there's no changing that). Tasers are currently only good for short range, due to their accuracy (possibly could be improved) and the fact that the probes trail wires behind it (not going to be able to change that any time soon). Tasers are also severely limited in how fast they can fire, if you need to fire off another set of probes.

Sorry, but limiting firearms to only certain locations isn't something I'm willing to accept (and I'm sure millions of other firearms owners would feel similar). Since they have plenty of land, it's currently legal to shoot in my sister and brother in law's back yard (brother in law shoots there to get ready for hunting season), and I've been invited there to shoot. Forcing people like my brother in law to shoot at a club or range, instead of his backyard, won't do anything to affect crime.

What restrictions are you talking about, ammunition-wise? Are you referring to ammo that can pierce body armor? Here's some info for you: Most center-fire rifle ammo can pierce body armor.

What would be better about the conditions you suggested? How would that get firearms developers to "clamor" to get in on the less lethal market? As far as accuracy and range of the less lethal market, if you propel a pepperball (same size as a paintball, all the same design problems) faster than it's already supposed to be shot, you can risk less accuracy, there's a risk that the pepperball can burst inside the breech or barrel (which would make for a bad day for the shooter), or it can cause a serious/permanent injury or death to the target. Increasing the weight of a pepperball may help increase the range (if fired at the same speed) but they can also lead to an increase of serious injury/death...
All of these are good points, and I'll spend some time thinking and reading tonight on how to adjust my suggestions to take them into account. Thanks for your constructive criticism!

Stun guns require a person to be at arms length to the aggressor (there's no changing that). Tasers are currently only good for short range, due to their accuracy (possibly could be improved) and the fact that the probes trail wires behind it (not going to be able to change that any time soon). Tasers are also severely limited in how fast they can fire, if you need to fire off another set of probes.
We'll get back to the actual "stun" properties of the guns later; you're making good points on the recreative side of gun ownership that I hadn't really given proper attention to before, and I'd like to stick with that for now. We can, for the moment, diverge our considerations between guns for home sport and guns/gun substitutes for defence, with simple non-lethality while preserving the actual handling, accuracy and range of the equipment on the home-practice sporting scene and a powerful ranged device designed to drop a person cold on the concealed carry line, and then fuse the two together later once we've gotten the hang of both.

All of these are good points, and I'll spend some time thinking and reading tonight on how to adjust my suggestions to take them into account. Thanks for your constructive criticism!


We'll get back to the actual "stun" properties of the guns later; you're making good points on the recreative side of gun ownership that I hadn't really given proper attention to before, and I'd like to stick with that for now. We can, for the moment, diverge our considerations between guns for home sport and guns/gun substitutes for defence, with simple non-lethality while preserving the actual handling, accuracy and range of the equipment on the home-practice sporting scene and a powerful ranged device designed to drop a person cold on the concealed carry line, and then fuse the two together later once we've gotten the hang of both.

Assuming I understand you correctly, you want something made that's less lethal for sporting purposes and has the feel, accuracy, and range as a real firearm? No thanks, I don't want to be forced to buy something to target shoot with, as I already have a rifle that fills that role nicely.

Christ i've had a hangover today.

At any rate, I would rank as the most likely ban-in-response as a ban on hollowpoint pistol ammo.

People don't commonly survive being shot more than once with those bullets, which are actually purpose-designed to kill people. Called "defensive ammo" in the gun community, because it is the most effective for self-defense.

If this looks like it's coming down the pipe, there will be room for some very profitable investment.

And the five day waiting period you support was more thurough? But you preffer the Gov't going around and collecting rumors and innuendo to make thier decisions.
This guy was found to be:

an "imminent danger to others" by a court in 2005 and 2 years later he legally buys the weapons and ammo he needs to actually prove the above statement!!

Yes.....I do believe that a thorough background check could have prevented this tragedy from happening.

What rumours and innuendo? Are you defending this sicko?

And thank you for showing it still happens. That whole criminal thing.

way to totally miss/ignore the point there...
Yup.....missing the point entirely seems to be par for the course to those hell bent on defending gun "rights"!!!

This guy was found to be:

an "imminent danger to others" by a court in 2005 and 2 years later he legally buys the weapons and ammo he needs to actually prove the above statement!!

Yes.....I do believe that a thorough background check could have prevented this tragedy from happening.

What rumours and innuendo? Are you defending this sicko?

What I have been hearing was that he was considered a potential danger to himself, but his psych evaluation did not rate him as a threat to others.

It isn't a matter of 'my view'. Do you honestly think it a coincidence that predominantly male societies always end up with phallic structures as their 'ultimate' expressions? Missiles, rockets, even guns... sportscars, aircraft, even tall buildings. The closer structures get to the 'male ideal' the more phallic they become. I suspect it can't be ALL coincidence.
Sportscars, aircraft, missiles and rockets are all the shape that they are because of design demands, for aerodynamic efficiency! It's not psychology, it's fluid dynamics.

To further refute, look at the ultimate in the "masculine ideals of strength and competition": Sports stadiums! Think on that one for a bit. Heck, The Big House at the U of M is built into the ground, I can't think of a more feminine image.

And, if you reject the idea that a gun is a phallic compensation - how do you feel when you are disarmed?

I wouldn't know. I don't own a gun.

To further refute, look at the ultimate in the "masculine ideals of strength and competition": Sports stadiums! Think on that one for a bit. Heck, The Big House at the U of M is built into the ground, I can't think of a more feminine image.

Think of doorways, archways as symbols of massive vaginas, and domes as enormous breasts.

BTW, for grave_n, there are places I can't carry a gun legally (such as when I go downtown into Washington DC), and I don't feel "emasculated".

I think a lot of this commentary about firearms somehow being penises is hooey.

Firearms are symbols of power - the power of life and death - the power of the rods and the ax (yes, I believe guns are symbols of fascism if in the hands of the state).

Not everyone is able to handle the responsibility that goes with that sort of power - in many ways, you can't even trust the government to handle that sort of power.

To say that the government can handle it, while civilians can't, is a commentary on your view of civil liberties - you feel you can surrender yours blindly to "authority".

Sure, not every civilian can be qualified - in terms of skill AND in terms of mental state - but the vast majority can.

In the hands of a paranoid schizophrenic, a firearm is a bad thing. In the hands of a young child, a firearm is a bad thing. But in the hands of a responsible adult who is trained, a firearm is not a bad thing, and can, under certain circumstances, be a good thing.

I have always been armed except when I go into a building where you have to leave your weapons at the door with the security guard. I was armed at school (although only with a knife and now there are so many 0 tolerance to weapons policies out there that this is no longer in vogue), I am armed at home, and I am armed at work. I do not even think about it. It is really no big deal.

I do not feel comfortable without a weapon of some sort. I never had to use one but I always feel uncomfotable when I do not have a weapon handy.

I have always been armed except when I go into a building where you have to leave your weapons at the door with the security guard. I was armed at school (although only with a knife and now there are so many 0 tolerance to weapons policies out there that this is no longer in vogue), I am armed at home, and I am armed at work. I do not even think about it. It is really no big deal.

I do not feel comfortable without a weapon of some sort. I never had to use one but I always feel uncomfotable when I do not have a weapon handy.
In the UK, bringing a knife into school (other than one to eat with, obviously) would be an automatic suspension, if not expulsion. The idea of bringing a weapon into school being 'in vogue', to me, is absolutely terrifying, knowing what some of the other years are like.

In the UK, bringing a knife into school (other than one to eat with, obviously) would be an automatic suspension, if not expulsion. The idea of bringing a weapon into school being 'in vogue', to me, is absolutely terrifying, knowing what some of the other years are like.
In my high school we had metal detectors at the entrances to make sure nobody brought any weapons in. I can't imagine a school where kids were allowed to walk around with knives and such.

In the UK, bringing a knife into school (other than one to eat with, obviously) would be an automatic suspension, if not expulsion. The idea of bringing a weapon into school being 'in vogue', to me, is absolutely terrifying, knowing what some of the other years are like.

*Nods*

If anyone had been allowed to be "armed" at my high school here in Scotland, specifically with a knife, as a prefect, I would have been stabbed long ago.

The idea of an unarmed kid in school frightens me. No I am not that afraid of wackos shooting up the school. I am more afraid of a kid that is abducted on their way to of from school. I am not afraid of a well armed citizenry, I am afraid of an armed wacko preying on the unarmed.

Ye gods! The idea of armed kid's at my old high school would scare me to death before they could get me with thier pointy stabbin' tools. Kid's are way too irresponsible with weapons.

The idea of an unarmed kid in school frightens me. No I am not that afraid of wackos shooting up the school. I am more afraid of a kid that is abducted on their way to of from school. I am not afraid of a well armed citizenry, I am afraid of an armed wacko preying on the unarmed.

In the UK, bringing a knife into school (other than one to eat with, obviously) would be an automatic suspension, if not expulsion. The idea of bringing a weapon into school being 'in vogue', to me, is absolutely terrifying, knowing what some of the other years are like.

That's the way it is now. I knew a guy who brought a pair of toenail clippers into school who got into some seriously deep trouble for it. Toenail clippers! US schools have adopted a zero-tolerance policy, and expulsion is guaranteed if you bring anything pointier than a plastic butter knife into school.

In my high school we had metal detectors at the entrances to make sure nobody brought any weapons in. I can't imagine a school where kids were allowed to walk around with knives and such.

Pretty much the same for me.

I do not feel comfortable without a weapon of some sort.
Does that strike anyone else as a problem?

This guy was found to be:

an "imminent danger to others" by a court in 2005 and 2 years later he legally buys the weapons and ammo he needs

And this is where the State of Virginia screwed up. I'm firmly in favor of gun rights, but someone who is designated as "a danger to himself" shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms.

In my high school we had metal detectors at the entrances to make sure nobody brought any weapons in. I can't imagine a school where kids were allowed to walk around with knives and such.

Odd, when I was in high school it wasn't odd at all for boys to carry around pocket knives. The rule was that the blade had to be less than 3 inches long. Of course, this was before Columbine.

Christ i've had a hangover today.

At any rate, I would rank as the most likely ban-in-response as a ban on hollowpoint pistol ammo.

People don't commonly survive being shot more than once with those bullets, which are actually purpose-designed to kill people. Called "defensive ammo" in the gun community, because it is the most effective for self-defense.

If this looks like it's coming down the pipe, there will be room for some very profitable investment.

I could see that. I think that frangible ammo is a better idea for home defense anyway, so you don't accidentally shoot people in the next room over.

Not exactly written in stone though is it?

God bless constitutional amendments which can 'magically' take away that so-called right.

A constitutional amendment could 'magically' take away any of the enumerated rights. Shall I assume you're making the point that a written constitution isn't as inviolable as Americans seem to think it is?

Anyway, shall I take the flurry of gun control threads to mean that people back in the States are freaking out and overreacting as they do with anything that sounds even remotely scary? If so, I'm glad to hear that nothing has changed since I left.

The idea of an unarmed kid in school frightens me. No I am not that afraid of wackos shooting up the school. I am more afraid of a kid that is abducted on their way to of from school. I am not afraid of a well armed citizenry, I am afraid of an armed wacko preying on the unarmed.

Well that wacko is a member of the citizenry, and is hence well armed.

Does that strike anyone else as a problem?

No. He's free to feel that way.

I'm not the one who came up with these thoughts and I'm sure I'm not the first to ever synthesize them into something coherent, but here it is.

I carry a handgun specifically because I do not expect trouble. Let me repeat that. I carry a handgun because I'm not looking for trouble, I'm not expecting it and I think the odds of needing it are so slim as to be almost incalculable.

A handgun is ballistically inefficient and we carry them because they are small, portable and concealable. Notwithstanding the 32 people killed with 9mm (HP or FMJ?) and .22 handguns at VT, they are not high powered. If I expect there might be trouble, I don't go there. I don't look to get into a fight, I look to avoid them. If I have to go somewhere and I think there is any chance for a gunfight, then I'm packing a rifle or a shotgun. The handgun is for when nothing should happen, but does anyway.

Pantless, your strawman that anyone who likes guns is somehow crazy is just that - a strawman.

And this is where the State of Virginia screwed up. I'm firmly in favor of gun rights, but someone who is designated as "a danger to himself" shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms.
This is where the entire system screwed up. Any committal to a mental health facility, voluntary or otherwise should be on the record and count against you in purchasing a firearm.

No. He's free to feel that way.
Let me rephrase...
Does that strike any reasonable person as a problem?

I carry a handgun specifically because I do not expect trouble. Let me repeat that. I carry a handgun because I'm not looking for trouble, I'm not expecting it and I think the odds of needing it are so slim as to be almost incalculable.
I cell you irrational and mocked you for that the first time you posted it. You don't look any less irrational after repeating.

Pantless, your strawman that anyone who likes guns is somehow crazy is just that - a strawman.
Wrong. My assertion that "not feeling comfortable without a weapon on me" is a mental problem. Do you still carry a pacifier or safety blanket around with you from when you were a kid? Fuck no, you were broken of that habit. It is a irrational mental attachment to something. At least he has an excuse, you on the other hand try to rationalize your obsession and come out looking either really dumb or really fucked up.

This is where the entire system screwed up. Any committal to a mental health facility, voluntary or otherwise should be on the record and count against you in purchasing a firearm.

There's a little place on Form 4473 where you answer a question related to your mental health record. So the murdered lied. Imagine that.

And yes, if you've been committed for any long term treatment, it's in the computer. But, they only sent him for temporary treatment - followed by outpatient - so it's not in the computer.

By all accounts, he acted normally during the purchase. A lot of gunstore owners (including some I know) will not sell to you if you act strange, agitated, or say anything that indicates you may have a problem.

This is where the entire system screwed up. Any committal to a mental health facility, voluntary or otherwise should be on the record and count against you in purchasing a firearm.


Let me rephrase...
Does that strike any reasonable person as a problem?


I cell you irrational and mocked you for that the first time you posted it. You don't look any less irrational after repeating.

Your mocking is your opinion. It holds no factual value.

Your mocking is your opinion. It holds no factual value.
Unless we consult mental health professionals and people who can carry a logical thought process through.

You carry around a gun because you don't expect any problems? Attempt to rationalize and irrational obsession with handguns. Which you further try to rationalize by saying "handguns are ballistically inefficient." Of course you don't explain what they are ballistically inefficient for, I can only assume big game hunting because air guns are ballistically efficient enough to kill a human being.

Unless we consult mental health professionals.

Sure. Why don't you ask the ones that certified me as part of my security clearance?

I'm as clean as a whistle as far as they're concerned.

There's a little place on Form 4473 where you answer a question related to your mental health record. So the murdered lied. Imagine that.

And yes, if you've been committed for any long term treatment, it's in the computer. But, they only sent him for temporary treatment - followed by outpatient - so it's not in the computer.

By all accounts, he acted normally during the purchase. A lot of gunstore owners (including some I know) will not sell to you if you act strange, agitated, or say anything that indicates you may have a problem.
This excuses the system how? More irrational logic to defend something I'm not even attacking - the act of selling firearms.

Sure. Why don't you ask the ones that certified me as part of my security clearance?

I'm as clean as a whistle as far as they're concerned.
I know I feel safer now. :rolleyes:

This is where the entire system screwed up. Any committal to a mental health facility, voluntary or otherwise should be on the record and count against you in purchasing a firearm.

That's pretty much what I was saying. Virginia's laws on this matter aren't what I think they should be. Again, while I'm in favor of gun rights there has to be a line, and I don't think Virginia's line is where it should be. I don't think that ANY committal to a mental health facility should warrant a loss of firearm rights, but being designated as "dangerous" should.

There's a little place on Form 4473 where you answer a question related to your mental health record. So the murdered lied. Imagine that.

Actually, no.

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents.

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html

This excuses the system how? More irrational logic to defend something I'm not even attacking - the act of selling firearms.

I'm not defending the system. I knew it was flawed before this event. More people passing laws to make themselves feel safer.

Here's a hint - if you think your safety lies in the hands of the government, your head is deep in the sand.

For those who keep making the "guns = small penis" arguement, maybe you should grow a pair yourselves.


I'm confused. Would that be a pair of penises, or a pair of guns?

I'm confused. Would that be a pair of penises, or a pair of guns?
Either way, good times! :D

Actually, no.

Actually, Yes.

You are so pwned.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

See section f. I fill these out about once a month.

Here's a hint - if you think your safety lies in the hands of the government, your head is deep in the sand.

Sounds remarkably paranoid - surely that would be grounds to not sell you any guns.

In the US, ownership of a weapon [I]is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege[I]. I have a real problem with having to have special permission from my government for me to apply a guaranteed freedom. Maybe I can ask the government if it is ok for me to publicly speak against it.

Being licensed to drive a motor vehicle is a privilege, therefore I am willing to pay for my operator license renewal.

However, lets also keep in mind, that even though this is a real tragedy, the number of alcohol related auto accident fatalities in the US is slightly higher than the number of criminal homicides by firearms.

'Right' is a name. It means nothing more than that. You can carry a weapon, but that is a privilege, no matter what they call it. If the consitution is amended such that the right to bear arms is revoked, it is no longer the 'right' to bear arms.

Sounds remarkably paranoid - surely that would be grounds to not sell you any guns.

Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were paranoid? Or are you saying the psychiatrists and psychologists who evaluated me for my security clearance were wrong?

Are you a medical professional in the mental health field?

I'm confused. Would that be a pair of penises, or a pair of guns?

Growing guns :eek:!

Actually, Yes.

You are so pwned.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

See section f. I fill these out about once a month.

Ah yes, sorry, I've only filled those out 4 times myself. Being a student doesn't leave much room in the budget for buying guns these days.

Anyway, the problem is that he has to be committed to a mental facility, rather than ordered to do outpatient therapy for any flags to be raised. Perhaps the judge fucked up by not ordering him committed, but perhaps simply being designated "a danger to himself" should cause some sort of alarm bells to go off in the system.

Ah yes, sorry, I've only filled those out 4 times myself. Being a student doesn't leave much room in the budget for buying guns these days.

Anyway, the problem is that he has to be committed to a mental facility, rather than ordered to do outpatient therapy for any flags to be raised. Perhaps the judge fucked up by not ordering him committed, but perhaps simply being designated "a danger to himself" should cause some sort of alarm bells to go off in the system.

The mental health people who evaluated him checked the box "danger to himself" but not the box "danger to others".

Probably a big mistake.

BTW, here's the Virginia procedure.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/bradylaw/states/virginia.htm

Assuming that he had been in the system, this would have stopped a legal gun purchase. But, it looks like he wasn't in the system.

'Right' is a name. It means nothing more than that. You can carry a weapon, but that is a privilege, no matter what they call it. If the consitution is amended such that the right to bear arms is revoked, it is no longer the 'right' to bear arms.

Rather, the Second Amendment does not claim to grant the right to bear arms, rather it claims to protect the right to bear arms from infringement. Under this conceptualization, the conceptualization of the United States government, the right to bear arms transcends the Constitution.

I'm putting Freud down, because he was so routinely wrong on so many things. He was correct when describing a partial arcitechture of the mind, that there are certain elements that we do indeed repress, and that these repressed elements can lead to conflict and internal struggle. What Freud was wrong about, though, were many of his sexually related theories. They reflect his own personal conflicts, his repressed homosexuality and repressed personal sexuality led to a MASSIVE overemphasis on the sexual factors of human life. While important, these elements are not a primary motivator of our own personal actions. A century of study should show that to be clear. Further! There is absolutely no empirical evidence for any of the theories that Freud proposed. Don't even get me on the black hole that is Jungian psychology.

Behaviorists, on the other hand, while ascribing something of a too mechanistic view to human behavior, do indeed provide us with empirical, experimental evidence. We can actually see that there is evidence for their arguments, and when mixed with cognitive psychology, we can get a far more complete picture of the mind.

I attack your claim, because it is merely more than a garden variety ad hominem attack against those who support gun rights. Utilizing stupid pop psychobabble, that you probably heard someone mumble on another forum somewhere, to try to make yourself look smart, and make your opponents looke like small-dicked apes who can't think for themselves.

I have no need to try to make myself look smart. I feel no need to present myself any differently here, than anywhere else. I think you have an overinflated image of the importance of the nationstates general forum if you think I'm going to waste my time constructing a facade.

Did i get my material from another forum? Unlikely - this is about the only forum I debate on, except for an 'in character' forum on Particracy. More likely, I just have a little passing familiarity with some Freudian concepts, and think that sometimes, a phallic object is more than a coincidence.

I find it humourous that you seem so bent out of shape by the perceived 'ad hominem' implicit in suggesting that weapons serve a phallo-representational purpose. I'm not talkng a concept that has never been encountered before - so it's not like I'm cooking up an attack on my fellow debators... and, I wonder why genital size would be important to debate, anyway?

I'm not saying Freud was right on the money, all the time. But, he was right that we are sexual creatures, and that our 'sexual' identity intrudes throughout our psyche.

I'm not saying Freud was right on the money, all the time. But, he was right that we are sexual creatures, and that our 'sexual' identity intrudes throughout our psyche.

Personally, having seen Freudian therapy help no one, I believe he's full of shit.

Funny, how ideas like cognitive behavior therapy work very well, and Freudian therapy has always been bullshit.

Here's a hint - if you think your safety lies in the hands of the government, your head is deep in the sand.

I see it as no less 'secure' than the idea that my safety lies in trusting any number of random people to carry weapons of lethal design.

Hell, there are two people in this thread who, from just what they have claimed in their comments, I wouldn't trust to be in the same room as me, if I thought they were armed.

Imagine that, multiplied by 150 million.

The mental health people who evaluated him checked the box "danger to himself" but not the box "danger to others".

Probably a big mistake.

I'd think that being a "danger to himself" would be sufficient reason for him not to have a firearm. Apparently Virginia doesn't agree with me.

I see it as no less 'secure' than the idea that my safety lies in trusting any number of random people to carry weapons of lethal design.

Hell, there are two people in this thread who, from just what they have claimed in their comments, I wouldn't trust to be in the same room as me, if I thought they were armed.

Imagine that, multiplied by 150 million.

Imagine trying to trust your own bodyguards - people who have been trained to think that their weapons are potentially the answer to the problem of defending you.

Or would you rather hold the gun yourself?

A lot of people in history have been shot intentionally by their own bodyguards.

Rather, the Second Amendment does not claim to grant the right to bear arms, rather it claims to protect the right to bear arms from infringement. Under this conceptualization, the conceptualization of the United States government, the right to bear arms transcends the Constitution.

So - revoke the second amendment... and then ban guns.

The semantics aside, our 'rights' are 'rights' only in as much as we are allowed the privilege of calling them that.

Personally, having seen Freudian therapy help no one, I believe he's full of shit.

Funny, how ideas like cognitive behavior therapy work very well, and Freudian therapy has always been bullshit.

I'm not sure I've ever seen 'gravity', 'dark matter' or 'black holes' help anybody either. I'm not convinced that is the only measure of truth.

Oh, and the police shoot people for the hell of it, too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo

Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were paranoid? Or are you saying the psychiatrists and psychologists who evaluated me for my security clearance were wrong?

Are you a medical professional in the mental health field?

"Some identifiable beliefs and actions of paranoid-related disorders include mistrust, taking offense easily, difficulty with forgiveness, defensive attitude in response to imagined criticism, preoccupation with hidden motives, fear of being deceived or taken advantage of, inability to relax, argumentative, abrupt, stubborn, self-righteous, and perfectionistic."

Imagine trying to trust your own bodyguards - people who have been trained to think that their weapons are potentially the answer to the problem of defending you.

Or would you rather hold the gun yourself?

A lot of people in history have been shot intentionally by their own bodyguards.

I don't have bodyguards, and I don't have a gun. I think the bodyguard argument is something of a big pink fish, to be honest.

I have been shot at before, on two occassions - and yet I still don't feel the need to carry a gun. I don't find the image of MORE people with guns especially reassuring.

"Some identifiable beliefs and actions of paranoid-related disorders include mistrust, taking offense easily, difficulty with forgiveness, defensive attitude in response to imagined criticism, preoccupation with hidden motives, fear of being deceived or taken advantage of, inability to relax, argumentative, abrupt, stubborn, self-righteous, and perfectionistic."

I'm sorry, none of that applies to "not trusting the government to be the sole provider of my security".

It's quite logical, actually.

Why don't you read why?

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Oh, and the police shoot people for the hell of it, too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo

:rolleyes:

"Some identifiable beliefs and actions of paranoid-related disorders include mistrust, taking offense easily, difficulty with forgiveness, defensive attitude in response to imagined criticism, preoccupation with hidden motives, fear of being deceived or taken advantage of, inability to relax, argumentative, abrupt, stubborn, self-righteous, and perfectionistic."

Here's the reason I have a firearm. Quite logical, and not remotely paranoid.

Jeffrey Snyder says it best:

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

I don't have bodyguards, and I don't have a gun. I think the bodyguard argument is something of a big pink fish, to be honest.

I have been shot at before, on two occassions - and yet I still don't feel the need to carry a gun. I don't find the image of MORE people with guns especially reassuring.

Well, I think it depends on who is holding the gun.

Is it someone you trust?
Is it someone who is actually well trained?

If either is no, then I agree with you.

I think that a lot of police shouldn't be allowed to carry - their level of incompetence is high.

Just look at the average number of shots required to hit a felon (by police), and the number of missed shots per hit.

That, and the number of people killed by police through a lack of judgment on their part (a certain recent shooting in New York springs to mind).

I'm not sure I've ever seen 'gravity', 'dark matter' or 'black holes' help anybody either. I'm not convinced that is the only measure of truth.

Except there is empirical evidence for those things. We have strong reasons to believe in them, on the other hand, Freudian theories have not produced any such evidence of any of the claims that it has made.

And if you're convinced that observability is not the only measure of truth, well, embrace the irony and look at that siggy of yours.

Freudian theories are as scientific as so-called "Creation science," and have roughly the same amount of empirical evidence to back them up.

Except there is empirical evidence for those things. We have strong reasons to believe in them, on the other hand, Freudian theories have not produced any such evidence of any of the claims that it has made.


Where is the empirical evidence for dark matter? Or for black holes? Where is the empirical evidence that dictates 'gravity' is as we perceive it, rather than the earth just really sucking?

We have attributed names and mechanisms to observed phenomena. None of these three things have been (and possibly never can be) empirically verified.


And if you're convinced that observability is not the only measure of truth, well, embrace the irony and look at that siggy of yours.


How is that ironic?


Freudian theories are as scientific as so-called "Creation science," and have roughly the same amount of empirical evidence to back them up.

And Emily Dickinson's poetry is very unscientific, too. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain gems of truth.

Jeffrey Snyder says it best:
Not really, no.

So - revoke the second amendment... and then ban guns.

The semantics aside, our 'rights' are 'rights' only in as much as we are allowed the privilege of calling them that.

Revoking the Amendment still wouldn't revoke the right.

Revoking the Amendment still wouldn't revoke the right.

It doesn't revoke pixies either... because pixies, like 'rights' are fictional.

Where is the empirical evidence for dark matter? Or for black holes? Where is the empirical evidence that dictates 'gravity' is as we perceive it, rather than the earth just really sucking?

We have attributed names and mechanisms to observed phenomena. None of these three things have been (and possibly never can be) empirically verified.
Oh, get off it, of course they can. We can measure the effects of gravity lensing of light to prove that black holes exist. We can measure the effects on stellar bodies to prove dark matter exists, and we can measure gravity as well. We can't see these things with our eyes, but we can observe them in other ways.

You cannot produce observable, repeatable results with any of Freud's theories.

Dark Matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Black Hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Gravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

How is that ironic?
I'd assume, you, like most who reject the existence of a deity, do so on the basis that there is no evidence that one exists.



And Emily Dickinson's poetry is very unscientific, too. That doesn't mean it doesn't contain gems of truth.

But when attempting to explain human behavior in a scientific fashion, it's the height of worthless.

It doesn't revoke pixies either... because pixies, like 'rights' are fictional.

So for you, rights = pixies. ALrighty then. So / the gov't closing down newspapers would be perfectly legal if they passed a law about it. Gotcha.

It doesn't revoke pixies either... because pixies, like 'rights' are fictional.

Pixies, like psychoanalytical theories, are fictional.

Oh, get off it, of course they can. We can measure the effects of gravity lensing of light to prove that black holes exist. We can measure the effects on stellar bodies to prove dark matter exists, and we can measure gravity as well. We can't see these things with our eyes, but we can observe them in other ways.

You cannot produce observable, repeatable results with any of Freud's theories.

Dark Matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Black Hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Gravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation


We can measure the effects of gravity lensing of light to provid evidence of some phenomenon. We have decided that this phenomenon is what we call a 'black hole' and we have consturcted a mechanism of what we think is happening and why.

That is very much not the same thing as being able to 'prove that black holes exist'.

I'll leave it to you to extrapolate the similar parallels for the other two.


I'd assume, you, like most who reject the existence of a deity, do so on the basis that there is no evidence that one exists.


You assume too much. My signature is not a statement of my 'belief'.


But when attempting to explain human behavior in a scientific fashion, it's the height of worthless.

On the other hand - sometimes 'a scientific fashion' isn't the best way to explain human behaviour.

I dont know if this has been posted yet but if it hasnt it should have.

Video: Carolyn McCarthy doesn’t understand her own gun-control legislation


http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/video-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-understand-her-own-gun-control-legislation/

So for you, rights = pixies. ALrighty then. So / the gov't closing down newspapers would be perfectly legal if they passed a law about it. Gotcha.

Errr. yes?

If they "passed a law about it", obviously "closing down newspapers would be perfectly legal". That's pretty much the definition.

Pixies, like psychoanalytical theories, are fictional.

Fictional theories? There's an interesting idea. How would that work?

Errr. yes?

If they "passed a law about it", obviously "closing down newspapers would be perfectly legal". That's pretty much the definition.

So you wouldn't have a problem w/ it. As long as it was legal.

We can measure the effects of gravity lensing of light to provid evidence of some phenomenon. We have decided that this phenomenon is what we call a 'black hole' and we have consturcted a mechanism of what we think is happening and why.

That is very much not the same thing as being able to 'prove that black holes exist'.

I'll leave it to you to extrapolate the similar parallels for the other two.

Then, I assume, you reject the basis of observation or experimentation to prove any phenomenon?


On the other hand - sometimes 'a scientific fashion' isn't the best way to explain human behaviour.

That's laughable. By what method do you propose to seek to understand human behavior? We really cannot go about it all willy-nilly.

Fictional theories? There's an interesting idea. How would that work?

It's an error of semantics on my part. I should have referred to them as claims, or perhaps another better term.

So you wouldn't have a problem w/ it. As long as it was legal.

Ah, that's a different question, now, isn't it.

Would I have a problem being disallowed a 'right' to free speech... is that what your question is?

If so:

Yes - I would have a problem. I could still express myself freely, however - I would then have to face whatever repurcussions that entailed. Do I think that would be good? No. Do I think I have a fundamental 'god-given' right to express myself without repurcussions? No - of course not.

I can do what is allowed. I can do what is not allowed, too - if I am willing to accept the consequences for my actions.

It's an error of semantics on my part. I should have referred to them as claims, or perhaps another better term.
'Pseudoscience' covers psychoanalysis quite accurately.

Pseudoscience covers psychoanalysis quite accurately.

Actually, the only method of psychotherapy that shows proven results is cognitive behavioral therapy - the rest is complete and utter bullshit.

Ah, that's a different question, now, isn't it.

Would I have a problem being disallowed a 'right' to free speech... is that what your question is?

If so:

Yes - I would have a problem. I could still express myself freely, however - I would then have to face whatever repurcussions that entailed. Do I think that would be good? No. Do I think I have a fundamental 'god-given' right to express myself without repurcussions? No - of course not.

I can do what is allowed. I can do what is not allowed, too - if I am willing to accept the consequences for my actions.

Why wouldn't it be "good"? Did I say anything about "god-given"? What then defines "good" and "bad"?

Then, I assume, you reject the basis of observation or experimentation to prove any phenomenon?


I reject the idea that any phenomenon can be 'proved' by the scientific method.

The best we can ever hope to do, is come up with a temporary mechanism that we think best fits the avilable data.


That's laughable. By what method do you propose to seek to understand human behavior? We really cannot go about it all willy-nilly.

Have you ever seen a film called "The Serpent's Kiss"? I find myself fascinated by the character 'Thea' who constantly carries a book of poetry which she reads constantly. There is a question of faked identities, which Thea manages to catch through this investigative study of her poetry: "I've looked you up, Mr Chrome" (or some such wording, it's a while since I saw it)...

Why wouldn't it be "good"? Did I say anything about "god-given"? What then defines "good" and "bad"?

I'm not sure where you are hijacking the thread to. I'm not sure I care to play.

If this is about the 'right' to bear arms, I do not accept that there are such things as 'rights' that exist in any empirical, objective fashion. Hence the reference to 'god-given'... a 'right' appointed by something above or aside from our societies - for which there is no evidence.

I'm not sure where you are hijacking the thread to. I'm not sure I care to play.

If this is about the 'right' to bear arms, I do not accept that there are such things as 'rights' that exist in any empirical, objective fashion. Hence the reference to 'god-given'... a 'right' appointed by something above or aside from our societies - for which there is no evidence.

Translation: I'm not going to answer the question because I know it will trip me up.

On the contrary, you're argueing that non-empirical ideas should be used to answer human behavior. "For which there is no evidence".

Translation: I'm not going to answer the question because I know it will trip me up.

Just FYI, I've seen Grave address that particular topic several times on other threads. I'm guessing his concern is more about trying not to hijack this thread, and less about worrying that your tangent will "trip him up," since he's seemed to handle it fine before.

That is all. Back to your hijack. :D

In the last ten years America has had 19 school shootings. Britain has had none. Can anyone honestly say the way to stop gun crime is by everyone having more guns? The more guns there are, the more killing there is. Every single statistic agrees.

In the last ten years America has had 19 school shootings. Britain has had none. Can anyone honestly say the way to stop gun crime is by everyone having more guns? The more guns there are, the more killing there is. Every single statistic agrees.

Wrong.

The number of guns in the US went from 200 million to 300 million and at the same time, firearm murder dropped by about 54 percent.

I'm not sure where you are hijacking the thread to. I'm not sure I care to play.


I think you should make a new thread. I'm interested in this atm.

Wrong.

The number of guns in the US went from 200 million to 300 million and at the same time, firearm murder dropped by about 54 percent.

Yet the fact remains the US has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the highest rates of gun murder in the western world. This is a fact you cannot deny.

Yet the fact remains the US has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the highest rates of gun murder in the western world. This is a fact you cannot deny.

Maybe you missed the point. The poster before me said that more guns always equals more crime. Which is not true. More guns over time in the US has seen a precipitous drop in violent crime and a precipitous drop in murder.

That's a fact you can't deny.

Maybe you missed the point. The poster before me said that more guns always equals more crime. Which is not true. More guns over time in the US has seen a precipitous drop in violent crime and a precipitous drop in murder.

That's a fact you can't deny.

Yet the statement I made remains. Less guns in the UK generally has led to less gun murder than the USA. I'm sure you will quote Switzerland as having high gun ownership and low gun murder but what does that prove? Maybe that the Swiss are more chilled out than Americans, maybe they are more responsible, I don't know.

Yes the poster said more guns equals more gun deaths, and by comparing figures within the USA to other western nations this is generally true. Not always, but it gives a fairly good guide.

Yet the statement I made remains. Less guns in the UK generally has led to less gun murder than the USA. I'm sure you will quote Switzerland as having high gun ownership and low gun murder but what does that prove? Maybe that the Swiss are more chilled out than Americans, maybe they are more responsible, I don't know.

Yes the poster said more guns equals more gun deaths, and by comparing figures within the USA to other western nations this is generally true. Not always, but it gives a fairly good guide.

There's an organization devoted to the study of Small Arms statistics (I'll google them in a minute) that has consistently found no such link across countries. They even bemoan the fact that they haven't been able to prove it.

And our gun murder is way lower than it was in the 1990s. 54 percent lower.

I wonder if anyone has brought up the fact that the United States' population is larger than those of most other Western countries? Of course there'll be more crime; there are more people.

There's an organization devoted to the study of Small Arms statistics (I'll google them in a minute) that has consistently found no such link across countries. They even bemoan the fact that they haven't been able to prove it.

And our gun murder is way lower than it was in the 1990s. 54 percent lower.

Come on, thats like saying theres no proven link between cancer and smoking.

And the fact your gun murder rates are down still doesn't stop them from being very high does it?

Come on, thats like saying theres no proven link between cancer and smoking.

And the fact your gun murder rates are down still doesn't stop them from being very high does it?

They're not very high compared to Brazil. And you can't disregard a 50% increase in the number of guns owned, a corresponding increase in the number of gun owners, the legalization of concealed carry by most US states, and at the same time, a 54 percent drop in firearm murders.

Oh, and a higher percentage drop in violent crime - only 9 percent of violent crime in the US is committed with a firearm at all.

I'm not denying there are gun murders. What may be more important is the social conditions that create them.

If you look at the statistics, while African-Americans only constitute 17 to 18 percent of the population, they have a little over half the firearm deaths - and 94 percent of the murderers are also African-American.

Something is going on - the disparity used to be even higher, when we still had government run housing projects that concentrated them in ghettos in major urban areas. Since those have been taken down, the murder rate has dropped - but still, African-Americans are taking the brunt of the violence - in cities where guns are already illegal.

It is proof that by changing social conditions other than guns, you get a much, much larger effect in stopping firearm murder and violent crime.

Maybe they should use this lesson in the UK - where firearms are already illegal - and young blacks can get a gun on the street for cheap, and shoot people in London at night.

I'm betting that if I was in London, and had 1000 pounds, I could easily obtain the same firearm that was used in the VT shootings.

Making things against the law and banning them doesn't help - changing social conditions helps.

Come on, thats like saying theres no proven link between cancer and smoking.

And the fact your gun murder rates are down still doesn't stop them from being very high does it?

And yet there are numerous western countries w/ similar firearm ownership rates and lower crime and countries w/ almost no legal ownership and higher crime etc. etc.

Your claim of causality is false.

And yet there are numerous western countries w/ similar firearm ownership rates and lower crime and countries w/ almost no legal ownership and higher crime etc. etc.

Your claim of causality is false.

I have already quoted Switzerland as one of those countries. If you would care to read what I actually wrote I said generally. I am not claiming the proliferation of firmearms is the only factor in crime rates, but it is nevertheless a factor, so my claim of causality is not false.

They're not very high compared to Brazil. And you can't disregard a 50% increase in the number of guns owned, a corresponding increase in the number of gun owners, the legalization of concealed carry by most US states, and at the same time, a 54 percent drop in firearm murders.

Oh, and a higher percentage drop in violent crime - only 9 percent of violent crime in the US is committed with a firearm at all.

I'm not denying there are gun murders. What may be more important is the social conditions that create them.

If you look at the statistics, while African-Americans only constitute 17 to 18 percent of the population, they have a little over half the firearm deaths - and 94 percent of the murderers are also African-American.

Something is going on - the disparity used to be even higher, when we still had government run housing projects that concentrated them in ghettos in major urban areas. Since those have been taken down, the murder rate has dropped - but still, African-Americans are taking the brunt of the violence - in cities where guns are already illegal.

It is proof that by changing social conditions other than guns, you get a much, much larger effect in stopping firearm murder and violent crime.

Maybe they should use this lesson in the UK - where firearms are already illegal - and young blacks can get a gun on the street for cheap, and shoot people in London at night.

I'm betting that if I was in London, and had 1000 pounds, I could easily obtain the same firearm that was used in the VT shootings.

Making things against the law and banning them doesn't help - changing social conditions helps.


I'm sorry but you keep quoting these dropping crime figures, but yet you still won't admit the figures are still very high. They are arn't they?

I'm betting if you were in London with £1000 you couldn't get the firearm that was used. You'd need at least £5k, but thats not the point. Gun crimes are such an issue in London simply because they are so few and far between. Yes you are right about social conditions, but in the meantime allowing people to buy guns freely will only exacerbate the situation.

Making things against the law and banning them DOES help - it means nutters are less likely to be able to get hold of such things.

Guns dont kill people, but they make it damned easy to do so, I read a post here about 100 million extra guns with 54 percent less gun deaths. Well 46 percent on ALOT is still AAALLLOTT, however I agree more guns wont add to the killing, as the killers already have guns, they're already satturated.

Face it guns do make it a heck of alot easier to kill, and in a nation that isn't 100% pacifistic... it's not the best combination.

In my high school we had metal detectors at the entrances to make sure nobody brought any weapons in. I can't imagine a school where kids were allowed to walk around with knives and such.


When I went to high school, someone in my class brought in a hunting rifle for a class presentation. Of course, I went to a Vocational Agriculture high school (and I graduated in '91), so nobody thought anything of it. Nothing happened, the person who brought the rifle in left at the end of the day, and nobody was killed.

Do you still carry a pacifier or safety blanket around with you from when you were a kid?


I do.





























J/K :D

I'm confused. Would that be a pair of penises, or a pair of guns?


I wish I could grow a pair of firearms (I'd hope for a pair of these: http://www.sviguns.com/ph/?indx=27). Just imagine how long they'd take to grow, though. :eek:



/me grabs the potting soil and fertilizer

I wish I could grow a pair of firearms (I'd hope for a pair of these: http://www.sviguns.com/ph/?indx=27). Just imagine how long they'd take to grow, though. :eek:



/me grabs the potting soil and fertilizer

Depends on the mineral content of your ground. We could be enviromentally friendly and find all those areas polluted w/ lead and other heavy metals and "grow" it out of the ground.

I'ld grow Glaser Ammo bushes.

Depends on the mineral content of your ground. We could be enviromentally friendly and find all those areas polluted w/ lead and other heavy metals and "grow" it out of the ground.

I'ld grow Glaser Ammo bushes.


Killing 2 stones with 1 bird! I like it! :D

i think we should require guns for teachers and students and require atleast 1 gun in every household. think about it. if you are gonna go try to shoot someone and you know they (along with everyone else including their friends) has a gun to your probably not gonna try it are you? unless you like the idea of being blown away by a firing squad. of course we would have to insure that convicted felons could not have guns which would be easy since they really wouldnt have a chance to steal one without being blown away. this is u :upyours: and this is them :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: like ur odds?

i think we should require guns for teachers and students and require atleast 1 gun in every household. think about it. if you are gonna go try to shoot someone and you know they (along with everyone else including their friends) has a gun to your probably not gonna try it are you? unless you like the idea of being blown away by a firing squad. of course we would have to insure that convicted felons could not have guns which would be easy since they really wouldnt have a chance to steal one without being blown away. this is u :upyours: and this is them :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: like ur odds?

Your post makes me giggle.

this is u :upyours: and this is them :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: like ur odds?

sounds like a terrible cross of anarchy and a police state

And here's alittle bit more misinformation that is the SOP of the Brady Bunch:

We believe there is clear evidence that since a Virginia judicial officer found that Cho Seung-Hui presented 'an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness' that he fell within the category of 'adjudicated as a mental incompetent' used in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and therefore should have failed his background checks.

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=885


But the reality of it (which they completely ignore):

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday.

And here's alittle bit more misinformation that is the SOP of the Brady Bunch:

We believe there is clear evidence that since a Virginia judicial officer found that Cho Seung-Hui presented 'an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness' that he fell within the category of 'adjudicated as a mental incompetent' used in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, and therefore should have failed his background checks.

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=885


But the reality of it (which they completely ignore):

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday.

Just because he legally had the gun doesn't make it right. The fact that the limited gun control there is enabled such a dangerous individual to legally procure a potentially lethal firearm clearly shows that tighter controls are needed. This individual should not have been able to legally access firearms.

I do.
[...]
J/K :D
Fooled me, considering your statement about having to carry a weapon around with you to feel safe.

Here's the reason I have a firearm. Quite logical, and not remotely paranoid.
Too bad you don't have anyone more intelligent and well-spoken to explain your irrational reason for caring a handgun.

Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were paranoid?
Are you saying we live in a country and world that is the same as the one the Founding Fathers lived in?

More people passing laws to make themselves feel safer.
You have no business mocking anyone for doing irrational things to make themselves feel safe.

There's an organization devoted to the study of Small Arms statistics (I'll google them in a minute) that has consistently found no such link across countries. They even bemoan the fact that they haven't been able to prove it.

And our gun murder is way lower than it was in the 1990s. 54 percent lower.
Methinks that you are misrepresenting the figures (BIG TIME)....but that is normal for gun lovers. :eek:

Remote Observer = Sierra.....aka....Deep Kimchi.....aka....Whispering Legs???

Fooled me, considering your statement about having to carry a weapon around with you to feel safe.


I dare you to find anywhere in this, or any other thread, where I said that (provide a link to my individual post, don't quote it). :mad: As I've said many times before, I have a rifle. I would look rather conspicuous walking around with it. I have also said that I bought my rifle so I could punch little holes in paper from hundreds of yards away.

I dare you to find anywhere in this, or any other thread, where I said that (provide a link to my individual post, don't quote it). :mad: As I've said many times before, I have a rifle. I would look rather conspicuous walking around with it. I have also said that I bought my rifle so I could punch little holes in paper from hundreds of yards away.

Sorry, wrong person with name starting in G.

Damn liberals...

Just because he legally had the gun doesn't make it right. The fact that the limited gun control there is enabled such a dangerous individual to legally procure a potentially lethal firearm clearly shows that tighter controls are needed. This individual should not have been able to legally access firearms.

So you tell me what law would have stopped him.

Methinks that you are misrepresenting the figures (BIG TIME)....but that is normal for gun lovers. :eek:

Remote Observer = Sierra.....aka....Deep Kimchi.....aka....Whispering Legs???


Pot meet kettle.

Pot meet kettle.
You guys just hate the facts?

Overview (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html):

An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, an increase of 3.4 percent from the 2004 figure.

Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, firearms were used in 72.6 percent of the offenses.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9

Note the increase in number of murders by firearms (except for 2004), but then total murders fell too.

Between 2004, and 2005, murders by firearms increased from 66% to 72.6%.

Okay Dr. Spin.....there are some figures for you to play with. :D

This individual should not have been able to legally access firearms.
Exactly!!

So you tell me what law would have stopped him.

One that says if you have a history of mental disorders you don't get a gun. Simple really isn't it?

So you tell me what law would have stopped him.

If Virginian state law had corresponded to federal law?

Federal law is fairly clear. According to the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act'' that became law in 1993, anyone who "[h]as been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution" is prohibiting from purchasing a firearm.

The definition of a "mental defective" includes anyone whom "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" has determined to be "a danger to himself or other" because of "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

Cho might seem to qualify as a "mental defective" by that definition, but FBI spokesman Steve Fischer said it's up to each state to determine who qualifies a "mental defective." And Virginia chooses to draw its lines in a way that didn't include Cho, even though he was found "mentally ill" and "a danger to self and others."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/VATech/story?id=3059185&page=1

You guys just hate the facts?

Overview (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html):

An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, an increase of 3.4 percent from the 2004 figure.

Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, firearms were used in 72.6 percent of the offenses.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9

Note the increase in number of murders by firearms (except for 2004), but then total murders fell too.

Between 2004, and 2005, murders by firearms increased from 66% to 72.6%.

Okay Dr. Spin.....there are some figures for you to play with. :D

Please note that the report fails to include how many of the firearms were stolen/illegal, as well as the specific areas these were comitted in. For example, until recently Washington D.C. was the murder capital of the U.S., yet it was a 'gun-free' zone. At some points in it's history, D.C. counted for up to 1/3rd of the total murders in the Southern Region.

It also fails to mention the mental state of the people who comitted the murders (Temporarily insane, mentally ill, planned homicide versus heat of the moment killing).

Please note that the report fails to include how many of the firearms were stolen
Is that supposed to instill in people a confidence in the system and make them believe letting more people own guns is safe and fine?

Banning firearms: the theory that some people are more important than others and have the right to control them.

Sorry guys, but there are many of us that believe in our rights and do NOT believe that you are more important than we are.

Please note that the report fails to include how many of the firearms were stolen/illegal,
Another huge problem with gun control measures in the US.

as well as the specific areas these were comitted in.
Want specific areas?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

For example, until recently Washington D.C. was the murder capital of the U.S., yet it was a 'gun-free' zone.
It doesn't help to be a gun free oaisis when your city is surrounded by guns?

At some points in it's history, D.C. counted for up to 1/3rd of the total murders in the Southern Region.
You should brush up on your history because it is totally false in this regard!!

It also fails to mention the mental state of the people who comitted the murders (Temporarily insane, mentally ill, planned homicide versus heat of the moment killing).
The instant background check is a joke??? This killer should never have been able to purchase a gun legally!!

If Virginian state law had corresponded to federal law?


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/VATech/story?id=3059185&page=1
Absolutely effen incredible!!!:(

I don't see the point in everyone owning guns but hey, the US giving up guns is like us giving up cars, never going to happen.

I don't see the point in everyone owning guns but hey, the US giving up guns is like us giving up cars, never going to happen.
This is called "The Gun Control Thread"? It is not really so much about "giving up guns", it is more about controlling who gets them? Another issue that the gun nuts seem to have a difficult time with is controlling what happens to their guns after they are purchased. It is criminal how many legal guns fall into illegal possession because they are stolen from their careless owners.

1.7 Million Firearms Were Stolen from Homes and Elsewhere
Over The Last Ten Years (http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/reports/AGS-fin.pdf)

Mind boggling to say the least.

I think its more to do with keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not capable of using them legally.

Never mind guns - they're a red herring. Far more people are killed every year by drivers under the age of 21. Are we doing anything here? Do we want to? Should we?

If Virginian state law had corresponded to federal law?


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/VATech/story?id=3059185&page=1

I made that point several days ago. They didn't listen then, they won't listen now.

This individual should not have been able to legally access firearms.

Is anyone arguing that he should have?

Again, Virginia has a fucked up law. However, fixing it doesn't necessitate some of the more excessive measures being advocated in this thread.

You guys just hate the facts?


Okay Dr. Spin.....there are some figures for you to play with. :D

After how maany years of it dropping by double digits even w/ tens of millions of firearms being introduced, dozens of states passing CCW and castle doctrine, etc.

This coming from the person who has preemptively blamed any increase in crime on those who commit it exponentially less than the "average" person.

Those are facts and you just can't seem to deal w/ them.

One that says if you have a history of mental disorders you don't get a gun. Simple really isn't it?


So you support opening up medical records to the general public.

Banning firearms: the theory that some people are more important than others and have the right to control them.

Sorry guys, but there are many of us that believe in our rights and do NOT believe that you are more important than we are.
Why is this any more the case than any other method of law and order? Why should anyone be able to pass laws to tell you what to do?

So you support opening up medical records to the general public.
You would prefer to have mentally incompetent people purchasing handguns?

I suggested earlier that you support this sicko getting guns and you appear to be verifying my observation.

You would prefer to have mentally incompetent people purchasing handguns?

I suggested earlier that you support this sicko getting guns and you appear to be verifying my observation.

You suggest lots of things that are wrong. This is just another example.

"Oh, look, he doesn't want medical records open to the public, he must want to give guns to crazy people"

Let's find how many logical fallacies that falls under.

You would prefer to have mentally incompetent people purchasing handguns?

I suggested earlier that you support this sicko getting guns and you appear to be verifying my observation.

Technically, it was illegal for the sicko to lie on his Form 4473 and say that he was mentally competent. That's a 10 year mandatory sentence here in the US.

But I suppose he didn't care about that, since he was going to murder people, and that carries a stiffer sentence. Oh wait - he killed himself, so he didn't care about laws or sentencing.

Oh, and he passed the background check because the mental hospital didn't put his mental health record in the database - whose fault is that?

If the database had been up to date, he could not have made a legal gun purchase.

Technically, it was illegal for the sicko to lie on his Form 4473 and say that he was mentally competent. That's a 10 year mandatory sentence here in the US.

But I suppose he didn't care about that, since he was going to murder people, and that carries a stiffer sentence. Oh wait - he killed himself, so he didn't care about laws or sentencing.

Oh, and he passed the background check because the mental hospital didn't put his mental health record in the database - whose fault is that?

If the database had been up to date, he could not have made a legal gun purchase.

The interesting point is, is that the judge who issued the order along w/ the local authorities have stated that since he was not involuntarily committed, it was a legal purchase.

The interesting point is, is that the judge who issued the order along w/ the local authorities have stated that since he was not involuntarily committed, it was a legal purchase.

I think that should change.

If you're committed on the basis of being a danger to yourself AND/OR others, you should lose that right.

I think that should change.

If you're committed on the basis of being a danger to yourself AND/OR others, you should lose that right.

Agreed. But what I said was that he wasn't committed.

I made that point several days ago. They didn't listen then, they won't listen now.
I know, but I always hope...

It seems to me that this debate always boils down to the extreme sides, even if it's not a black and white question.
So you support opening up medical records to the general public.
Or you could have a central database with controlled access that perhaps a state or government agency (the ATF springs to mind, but I'm sure some other agency could get the responsibility) would be in charge of. That way, it wouldn't be open for the public. 'course, that might mean that you would have to wait some time to get the gun, so such a solution would be unacceptable to some...
Oh, and he passed the background check because the mental hospital didn't put his mental health record in the database - whose fault is that?
The state for not requiring it?

Or you could have a central database with controlled access that perhaps a state or government agency (the ATF springs to mind, but I'm sure some other agency could get the responsibility) would be in charge of. That way, it wouldn't be open for the public. 'course, that might mean that you would have to wait some time to get the gun, so such a solution would be unacceptable to some...



Even still. That central database is a slippery slope hazard that can be as abused as every other registry has been, including the NICS. The NICS is linked to the feds and is immediate.

If there were some way to ensure that the information wouldn't be abused, I could support it.

Even still. That central database is a slippery slope hazard that can be as abused as every other registry has been, including the NICS. The NICS is linked to the feds and is immediate.

If there were some way to ensure that the information wouldn't be abused, I could support it.

I think there are ways, but it all depends on what you are willing to sacrifice to attain the goals. How long of a waiting period could you live with? Higher prices on guns? Higher taxes?

And of course it will only be as perfect as any system can be, i.e. not flawless.

Banning firearms: the theory that some people are more important than others and have the right to control them.

Sorry guys, but there are many of us that believe in our rights and do NOT believe that you are more important than we are.


Or alternatively:

Banning firearms: the theory that some people are not more important than others, and shouldn't be allowed to place their desire for a 'toy' over the value of the lives of others.

Of course, it's a no win scenario for those who would see guns outlawed. The people baying hardest for rights to keep guns don't want to compromise, say threatening things like "you can take my gun, only if you can prise it from my cold, dead hands"... and have all the weapons.

The sooner we make Alaska a gun-ownership state, and persuade all the gunphiles to relocate there (where they can't hurt normal people) the better.

Or alternatively:

Banning firearms: the theory that some people are not more important than others, and shouldn't be allowed to place their desire for a 'toy' over the value of the lives of others.

Of course, it's a no win scenario for those who would see guns outlawed. The people baying hardest for rights to keep guns don't want to compromise, say threatening things like "you can take my gun, only if you can prise it from my cold, dead hands"... and have all the weapons.

The sooner we make Alaska a gun-ownership state, and persuade all the gunphiles to relocate there (where they can't hurt normal people) the better.

It looks like all you have to do to see where you can move if you hate guns is see which states haven't enacted shall-issue concealed carry laws.

Move to New York if you hate guns, for example.

The number of shall-issue states is now at an all-time high.

The following are undisputed shall-issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Alaska is both a "shall-issue" and an "unrestricted" state. Alaska does not require a permit for any law-abiding individual to carry a handgun, either openly or concealed, within the state's borders. However, the state continues to issue permits to any of its residents who meet the state's issuance criteria, which can be helpful for Alaskans traveling to other states.

In Vermont, no permit is required to carry a firearm. Residents and nonresidents alike may carry a firearm open or concealed without permission from the state.

The status of Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa is in some dispute among gun rights activists. The laws of all three states, strictly speaking, would place them in the "may-issue" category, as permit issue is to some degree discretionary. However, the policies of these states are effectively shall-issue.

It looks like you're on the wrong end of the legislative stick.

Or alternatively:

Banning firearms: the theory that some people are not more important than others, and shouldn't be allowed to place their desire for a 'toy' over the value of the lives of others.

Of course, it's a no win scenario for those who would see guns outlawed. The people baying hardest for rights to keep guns don't want to compromise, say threatening things like "you can take my gun, only if you can prise it from my cold, dead hands"... and have all the weapons.

The sooner we make Alaska a gun-ownership state, and persuade all the gunphiles to relocate there (where they can't hurt normal people) the better.

Of course when the hoplophobes can only rely on emotional arguments, ad hominems, strawmen, red herrings, and insults, it really weakens the debate.

My desire for a "toy" in no way jeapordizes the lives of others.

It looks like all you have to do to see where you can move if you hate guns is see which states haven't enacted shall-issue concealed carry laws.

Move to New York if you hate guns, for example.

The number of shall-issue states is now at an all-time high.

The following are undisputed shall-issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Alaska is both a "shall-issue" and an "unrestricted" state. Alaska does not require a permit for any law-abiding individual to carry a handgun, either openly or concealed, within the state's borders. However, the state continues to issue permits to any of its residents who meet the state's issuance criteria, which can be helpful for Alaskans traveling to other states.

In Vermont, no permit is required to carry a firearm. Residents and nonresidents alike may carry a firearm open or concealed without permission from the state.

The status of Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa is in some dispute among gun rights activists. The laws of all three states, strictly speaking, would place them in the "may-issue" category, as permit issue is to some degree discretionary. However, the policies of these states are effectively shall-issue.

It looks like you're on the wrong end of the legislative stick.

I didn't say I hated guns. I actually moved from a place that doesn't allow them, to a place that does.

My desire for a "toy" in no way jeapordizes the lives of others.

Not the 'desire', no. But, when that desire is satisfied, then the 'toy' that satisfies it does jeapordise the lives of others.

If you object to the word 'toy', perhaps you don't see the gun trade from the same perspective I do... I live in an area where people talk about 'new model' guns the same way they talk about new model video games. If a gun is a necessity, there is no need for the mass consumer culture that surronds the product. The way guns are sold makes them fripperies.

Not the 'desire', no. But, when that desire is satisfied, then the 'toy' that satisfies it does jeapordise the lives of others.

If you object to the word 'toy', perhaps you don't see the gun trade from the same perspective I do... I live in an area where people talk about 'new model' guns the same way they talk about new model video games. If a gun is a necessity, there is no need for the mass consumer culture that surronds the product. The way guns are sold makes them fripperies.

Consider the fact that 80 million US citizens legally own over 300 million firearms.

If you consider that the accident rate is around 600 per year out of either number, that's a pretty low accident rate for a piece of machinery.

If you consider that the murder rate is 16,000 per year (2004) out of either number, the odds of a firearm or firearm owner being involved in killing someone is astonishingly low.

It shows that the vast, vast majority of gun owners and legally owned firearms are not as dangerous as you make out - certainly not as dangerous as recreational boating, swimming, or bicycling. And certainly safer than other "useless" things like alcohol or drugs.

Not the 'desire', no. But, when that desire is satisfied, then the 'toy' that satisfies it does jeapordise the lives of others.

If you object to the word 'toy', perhaps you don't see the gun trade from the same perspective I do... I live in an area where people talk about 'new model' guns the same way they talk about new model video games. If a gun is a necessity, there is no need for the mass consumer culture that surronds the product. The way guns are sold makes them fripperies.

No, it does not jeapodize the lives of others. It does not jump up and start shooting all on its own.

I guess having background checks, filling out forms that lying on = felonies, et al is equivalent to "fripperies" to you, but that doesn't make it any more a fact.

Consider the fact that 80 million US citizens legally own over 300 million firearms.

If you consider that the accident rate is around 600 per year out of either number, that's a pretty low accident rate for a piece of machinery.

If you consider that the murder rate is 16,000 per year (2004) out of either number, the odds of a firearm or firearm owner being involved in killing someone is astonishingly low.

It shows that the vast, vast majority of gun owners and legally owned firearms are not as dangerous as you make out - certainly not as dangerous as recreational boating, swimming, or bicycling. And certainly safer than other "useless" things like alcohol or drugs.

It shows nothing of the kind. A gun is lethal. That's (more than) exactly as dangerous as I make out.

There is no equivocation - you don't buy a gun that you think will not kill.

It shows nothing of the kind. A gun is lethal. That's (more than) exactly as dangerous as I make out.

There is no equivocation - you don't buy a gun that you think will not kill.

See, this is what I was talking about w/ strawmen etc.

No, it does not jeapodize the lives of others. It does not jump up and start shooting all on its own.

I guess having background checks, filling out forms that lying on = felonies, et al is equivalent to "fripperies" to you, but that doesn't make it any more a fact.

The gun killing people of itself, is not what worries me. I don't know you. I wouldn't recognise you in a crowd. Hell, I wouldn't recognise you if you introduced yourself to me.

Consequently - I wouldn't trust you with a lethal weapon any further than i could kick you up a chimney.

And I see my last argument was wasted - there is a difference between how a gun is 'sold', and how you buy one.

See, this is what I was talking about w/ strawmen etc.

How is that a strawman? The post said: "It shows that the vast, vast majority of gun owners and legally owned firearms are not as dangerous as you make out".

But, it doesn't. The data provided shows no such thing. It might suggest that guns are not always USED for lethal intent, but they are certainly designed with that in mind.

Perhaps you can explain how it was a strawman?

It shows nothing of the kind. A gun is lethal. That's (more than) exactly as dangerous as I make out.

There is no equivocation - you don't buy a gun that you think will not kill.

Sure you do. A lot of people buy guns strictly because they're good for something like target shooting.

Believe me, most target shooters and all benchrest shooters have NO intention of ever shooting someone with their target rifle or target pistol.

Most target rifles and target pistols are anemic - too anemic to seriously consider as a self-defense weapon.

How is that a strawman? The post said: "It shows that the vast, vast majority of gun owners and legally owned firearms are not as dangerous as you make out".

But, it doesn't. The data provided shows no such thing. It might suggest that guns are not always USED for lethal intent, but they are certainly designed with that in mind.

Perhaps you can explain how it was a strawman?

Bcause you're making the arguement that all guns and gun owners are dangerous , purchasing guns only for killing potential, and therefor a threat. Since that's not true, you're beating a strawman.

Sure you do. A lot of people buy guns strictly because they're good for something like target shooting.

Believe me, most target shooters and all benchrest shooters have NO intention of ever shooting someone with their target rifle or target pistol.

Most target rifles and target pistols are anemic - too anemic to seriously consider as a self-defense weapon.

If you are trying to convince me that a target rifle is less likely to hurt someone than... say... a BB gun, then you aren't going to win. If all you are interested in is the target, why not just use a BB gun?

If you are trying to convince me that a target rifle is less likely to hurt someone than... say... a BB gun, then you aren't going to win. If all you are interested in is the target, why not just use a BB gun?

ballistics, range, recoil, accuracy, level of difficulty, etc.

Bcause you're making the arguement that all guns and gun owners are dangerous , purchasing guns only for killing potential, and therefor a threat. Since that's not true, you're beating a strawman.

Guns are dangerous. People wioth guns are more dangerous than they are without. Guns are purchased for their killing effect - otherwise you'd buy a waterpistol. Guns are a threat.

No strawman.

Guns are dangerous. People wioth guns are more dangerous than they are without. Guns are purchased for their killing effect - otherwise you'd buy a waterpistol. Guns are a threat.

No strawman.

A person owning a gun is not intrinsically dangerous, rather the wrong type of person owning a gun is more dangerous than he would otherwise be.

If I were to go out and purchase a gun, I would be neither more nor less dangerous, as I would have no intent to misuse said gun, much the same would go for you. It's when felons and the mentally ill are able to acquire guns that we develop a problem, which is why we should have stringent and effective background checks, and encourage safe storage techniques.

Personally, I would not be buying a gun for it's killing effect. I used to participate in competition style target shooting. If I were to buy a gun, it would be for that purpose, and that purpose alone.

Texas had it right...send in five bucks for p&h, and the state will send you a first rate gun lock. A national program, akin to that, would be well advised in the US.

Guns are dangerous.
False


People wioth guns are more dangerous than they are without.

False

Guns are purchased for their killing effect - otherwise you'd buy a waterpistol.

False


Guns are a threat.


False



strawman.

And round and round we go.

False

False

False

False

And round and round we go.

Worthless. You have nothing to bring to the table, so you just deny everything. I might reply if you come up with something worthwhile, but, otherwise, you'll see no more responses from me to dignify your 'arguments'.

It shows nothing of the kind. A gun is lethal. That's (more than) exactly as dangerous as I make out.

There is no equivocation - you don't buy a gun that you think will not kill.

If I were to buy a gun, it would be a competition pistol, which would mean that I'd be interested in a small caliber pistol, no more than a .22. It would be a delicate instrument that would require regular care and maintenance to keep accuracy as precise as possible, and it would be too valuable to just leave sitting around...I would most likely lock it in a safe, a $700 precision instrument is not the sort of thing I'd feel comfortable with anywhere but the safest place possible.

The last thing I'd buy a gun for is for killing.

A person owning a gun is not intrinsically dangerous, rather the wrong type of person owning a gun is more dangerous than he would otherwise be.

If I were to go out and purchase a gun, I would be neither more nor less dangerous, as I would have no intent to misuse said gun, much the same would go for you. It's when felons and the mentally ill are able to acquire guns that we develop a problem, which is why we should have stringent and effective background checks, and encourage safe storage techniques.

Personally, I would not be buying a gun for it's killing effect. I used to participate in competition style target shooting. If I were to buy a gun, it would be for that purpose, and that purpose alone.

Texas had it right...send in five bucks for p&h, and the state will send you a first rate gun lock. A national program, akin to that, would be well advised in the US.

A person with a gun is intrinsically more dangerous than they were without it. You take this as a matter of intent, but I didn't specify. If you were carrying a loaded gun, you might accidentally shoot someone, might you not?

And - while you might think it unlikely - especially with all the precautins a sensible person will take - it is more likely that you will accidentally shoot someone if you HAVE a gun, than that you will accidentally shoot someone if you DON'T have a gun.

Similalry - while you are popping shots at your target, there is always the possibility that someone could be near (or behind) your target, and you could shoot them while never even knowing, right? How likely is that particular scenario if you didn't use a gun? Less likely, methinks.

And those are just two considerations. A third would be that - while I have no reason to suspect you are about to start popping-people-off... ther eis no way to know. Even you don't know for sure, that you will always be as 'san'e as you are now.

Worthless. You have nothing to bring to the table, so you just deny everything. I might reply if you come up with something worthwhile, but, otherwise, you'll see no more responses from me to dignify your 'arguments'.

You mean "worthless" in regards to the numerous strawmen and emotional arguements you keep presenting?

You keep anthropomorphizing firearms. They do not make a person more or less "dangerous". A person chooses to use them to make themselves dangerous. Youkeep making universal statements about "gun lovers" that you have no support for and then deciding those statements are true. That is the definition of a strawman. The SOP of the hoplophobe community.

I have never purchased a firearm for it's "killing effect". Therefor your arugement is false.

Keep trying.

A person with a gun is intrinsically more dangerous than they were without it. You take this as a matter of intent, but I didn't specify. If you were carrying a loaded gun, you might accidentally shoot someone, might you not?

And - while you might think it unlikely - especially with all the precautins a sensible person will take - it is more likely that you will accidentally shoot someone if you HAVE a gun, than that you will accidentally shoot someone if you DON'T have a gun.

Similalry - while you are popping shots at your target, there is always the possibility that someone could be near (or behind) your target, and you could shoot them while never even knowing, right? How likely is that particular scenario if you didn't use a gun? Less likely, methinks.

And those are just two considerations. A third would be that - while I have no reason to suspect you are about to start popping-people-off... ther eis no way to know. Even you don't know for sure, that you will always be as 'san'e as you are now.

And none of your "possibilies" makes it inherently more dangerous to the community in comparison to me NOT owning a firearm. By your arguement, owning a kitchen knife is inherently dangerous to the community as I might "accidentally stab someone" or owning a car is dangerous to the community as I might "accidentally run over someone".

Since firearm accidents occur at much smaller rates than car accidents, then they should get rid of cars.

Consider the fact that 80 million US citizens legally own over 300 million firearms.

If you consider that the accident rate is around 600 per year out of either number, that's a pretty low accident rate for a piece of machinery.

If you consider that the murder rate is 16,000 per year (2004) out of either number, the odds of a firearm or firearm owner being involved in killing someone is astonishingly low.

It shows that the vast, vast majority of gun owners and legally owned firearms are not as dangerous as you make out - certainly not as dangerous as recreational boating, swimming, or bicycling. And certainly safer than other "useless" things like alcohol or drugs.
Now please point out where you addressed his point.

A person with a gun is intrinsically more dangerous than they were without it. You take this as a matter of intent, but I didn't specify. If you were carrying a loaded gun, you might accidentally shoot someone, might you not? And - while you might think it unlikely - especially with all the precautins a sensible person will take - it is more likely that you will accidentally shoot someone if you HAVE a gun, than that you will accidentally shoot someone if you DON'T have a gun.

It's also more likely that you'll drive drunk if you have access to alcohol and automobiles, yet we don't seem to believe the solution involves banning either of those things.

Similalry - while you are popping shots at your target, there is always the possibility that someone could be near (or behind) your target, and you could shoot them while never even knowing, right? How likely is that particular scenario if you didn't use a gun? Less likely, methinks.
This is one of the primary rules of gun safety: ALWAYS be sure of your target. This is a major part of the reason I prefer indoor shooting ranges...it's far safer, but a target shooter should also always attempt to shoot into a steep embankment, if they are outdoors. To do otherwise is incredibly irresponsible, and any individual who violates this rule, and brings harm to another human being, should be subject to the full force of the law, and charged with the most severe charges that can be brought. Perhaps even develop a new category of manslaughter crimes, with harsher and more severe punishments.

This is precisely how we treat other crimes of a similar nature, where irresponsibility causes harm to another human being.

And those are just two considerations. A third would be that - while I have no reason to suspect you are about to start popping-people-off... ther eis no way to know. Even you don't know for sure, that you will always be as 'san'e as you are now.

That rationale can be used for so many, terrible, horrible causes. One could easily use a nearly identical argument to support warrantless wiretapping of random individuals, because we never know when someone could start supporting some vague concept of "national enemies and terrorists".

Responsible use of firearms is equally as or less dangerous than responsibly driving a car. An individual is more likely to inflict harm on another human being by taking any actions than if the initial individual were to not take any actions at all. We cannot just restrict ourselves from taking all but the safest actions, for then we not only cease to function as societies, but we also deprive ourselves of freedoms we would otherwise have, if we were able to only trust ourselves to be responsible.

The Anti-Gun argument is, in my mind, closely linked with the current administrations arguments regarding terrorism. That we are somehow better off in being made more safe by giving up essential rights and liberties. Yes, there are dangerous people out there, but they're rare, and all too often we give them too much control over our own lives, because we somehow think that by making our lives less free and more difficult, we are fighting against them. We aren't.

When we do that, we let terrorists and criminals win. We give them the victories they so fervently desire. Al-Qaeda hasn't launched any attacks against the US since September 11, not because we've kept them out, but because our own actions have done far more to disrupt our own lives, than a measly bunch of funny-smelling cave-dwellers ever could.

Just the same, by cracking down on gun ownership, alcohol use, automobile use or drug use, just simply out of the fear that something bad MIGHT happen is equally misguided. We ban guns, we disarm the citizenry, and limit their ability to fend for themselves. We ban automobiles, we take away the mobility of the citizenry and large portions of the citizenry's economic potential. We ban alcohol and drugs, we empower the criminals who are the violent, illegal manufacturers, who would otherwise merely be floating around the fringes of a booming a and profitable mainstream business. We turned people like Pablo Escobar from a crappy backwoods criminal merely seeking to avoid taxation, into a multi-millionaire with villas, slaves, soldiers, indentured servants, helicopters and an international transit network. The law of unintended consequences will always have drastic and negative effects when it is ownership, not negative actions, we restrict.

It's also more likely that you'll drive drunk if you have access to alcohol and automobiles, yet we don't seem to believe the solution involves banning either of those things.


This is one of the primary rules of gun safety: ALWAYS be sure of your target. This is a major part of the reason I prefer indoor shooting ranges...it's far safer, but a target shooter should also always attempt to shoot into a steep embankment, if they are outdoors. To do otherwise is incredibly irresponsible, and any individual who violates this rule, and brings harm to another human being, should be subject to the full force of the law, and charged with the most severe charges that can be brought. Perhaps even develop a new category of manslaughter crimes, with harsher and more severe punishments.

This is precisely how we treat other crimes of a similar nature, where irresponsibility causes harm to another human being.



That rationale can be used for so many, terrible, horrible causes. One could easily use a nearly identical argument to support warrantless wiretapping of random individuals, because we never know when someone could start supporting some vague concept of "national enemies and terrorists".

Responsible use of firearms is equally as or less dangerous than responsibly driving a car. An individual is more likely to inflict harm on another human being by taking any actions than if the initial individual were to not take any actions at all. We cannot just restrict ourselves from taking all but the safest actions, for then we not only cease to function as societies, but we also deprive ourselves of freedoms we would otherwise have, if we were able to only trust ourselves to be responsible.

There is no parallel between guns and cars or alcohol. The car serves another purpose. The gun is designed for killing.

If you buy a gun and don't USE it for killing, you are not using it for the purpose for which it was designed.

If you buy a car, and don't use it for kiling - you ARE using it for the purpose for which it was designed.

We have controls on alcohol and guns to limit dangers, anyway - and those are things that are serving another purpose. How much stronger should regulation be regarding a machinery that is purely designed for death?


And there is no parallel between regulating guns and warrantless wiretapping. Telephones weren't being restricted or regulated. They were being spied upon, Gun control isn't about spying, it is about fairly open systems of restriction.

The Anti-Gun argument is, in my mind, closely linked with the current administrations arguments regarding terrorism. That we are somehow better off in being made more safe by giving up essential rights and liberties...

You were doing okay until then.

I could quibble the 'rights' part - since I don't accept the assertion there are any 'rights', only societal privileges... but... 'essential'?

There is no parallel between guns and cars or alcohol. The car serves another purpose. The gun is designed for killing.

If you buy a gun and don't USE it for killing, you are not using it for the purpose for which it was designed.

If you buy a car, and don't use it for kiling - you ARE using it for the purpose for which it was designed.

That is patently false, as I have earlier demonstrated, there are guns that are clearly not designed for killing. The Smith & Wesson Model 41 or the Ruger Mark II are perfect examples of guns whose sole purpose is decidedly not for killing. While these two are notable examples of guns that are clearly not designed for killing, all civilian guns are also not sold with the intent that they should be used in the killing of, or bringing harm to, another human being. None, no matter what you may argue, you are merely attaching your own, personal biases to something that they should not be attached to.




We have controls on alcohol and guns to limit dangers, anyway - and those are things that are serving another purpose. How much stronger should regulation be regarding a machinery that is purely designed for death?
Garbled, hyper-emotional rhetoric.


And there is no parallel between regulating guns and warrantless wiretapping. Telephones weren't being restricted or regulated. They were being spied upon, Gun control isn't about spying, it is about fairly open systems of restriction.
It's your argument that someday I might go bad that's related to warrantless wiretapping. It's the justification for an extremely derogatory government action.

... since I don't accept the assertion there are any 'rights', only societal privileges...
(Aside) In natural ethics theories, a right is often defined to be a capability of an individual that they cannot be deprived of. For instance, we can seek to take items out of someone's posession, but we can also defend ourselves from someone's attempt to take them, so neither property nor the seizure of property can be called rights, but the right to attempt to defend one's property or one's life is a right, since we can't stop someone from trying to protect what is theirs regardless of how futile we can make the attempt.

We tend to augment these in society by prohibiting or safeguarding other capabilities through legislation, and this has come to distort precisely what is meant by a "right", but the existence of some (possibly rather trivial) rights is nonetheless enshrined in the nature of what it is to be a living person.

You were doing okay until then.

I could quibble the 'rights' part - since I don't accept the assertion there are any 'rights', only societal privileges... but... 'essential'?

And I would fully disagree with that assertion. One of the key founding principles of the government of the country in which I live is that there are, indeed, essential and intrinsic rights and liberties of mankind. I fully accept and embrace that sentiment.

That is patently false, as I have earlier demonstrated, there are guns that are clearly not designed for killing. The Smith & Wesson Model 41 or the Ruger Mark II are perfect examples of guns whose sole purpose is decidedly not for killing. While these two are notable examples of guns that are clearly not designed for killing, all civilian guns are also not sold with the intent that they should be used in the killing of, or bringing harm to, another human being. None, no matter what you may argue, you are merely attaching your own, personal biases to something that they should not be attached to.

Garbled, hyper-emotional rhetoric.

It's your argument that someday I might go bad that's related to warrantless wiretapping. It's the justification for an extremely derogatory government action.

It doesn't really matter what you say. The emotional rhetoric is all that the various gun banners have and they cling to it with a zealotry that is near religious. We could show GNI hundreds of examples but he will always return to the screaming meme of "Guns = Death" in all its variations.

I would like to point out that if the possesion of firearms decreases the safety of a community, should we take them from the police on what "may" happen?

And I would fully disagree with that assertion. One of the key founding principles of the government of the country in which I live is that there are, indeed, essential and intrinsic rights and liberties of mankind. I fully accept and embrace that sentiment.

Knock yourself out. And, if you want to believe the stars are holes in the sky that let the light in, you're welcome to that, too.

That is patently false, as I have earlier demonstrated, there are guns that are clearly not designed for killing. The Smith & Wesson Model 41 or the Ruger Mark II are perfect examples of guns whose sole purpose is decidedly not for killing. While these two are notable examples of guns that are clearly not designed for killing,


Even you were compelled to admit that a 'non-lethal' gun is very much atypical.

...all civilian guns are also not sold with the intent that they should be used in the killing of, or bringing harm to, another human being.


I disagree. I think anyone who has ever bought a gun with the possible consideration that it may be used for self-defense or home-defense, has done so with at least a tacit nod to the possibility that someone, sometime, is maybe going to get shot.

None, no matter what you may argue, you are merely attaching your own, personal biases to something that they should not be attached to.


It isn't a matter of personal bias, as well you know. Cars are designed to transport, alcohol is deisgned to either cause inebriation or to cleanse wounds.

A gun is designed to shoot stuff. End of story.


Garbled, hyper-emotional rhetoric.


How so? There was nothing emotional at all (much less 'hyper' emotional) about it. Guns and alcohol do have regulation, I'm sure you are aware. And those things have legitimate purposes not involved with death. A gun serves no purpose other than to shoot things. Thus - it should be far more stringently controlled.

How is that emotional?

Or garbled, thinking about it...


It's your argument that someday I might go bad that's related to warrantless wiretapping. It's the justification for an extremely derogatory government action.

If you made the comparison to 'wiretapping' I might agree. 'Warrantless' wiretapping is a different matter. I agree with wiretapping where there is grounds and due process. Anyone with a clear conscience should.

I most assuredly do not agree with 'warrantless' wiretapping. It's very nature screams that it is illegitimate.

If you are trying to convince me that a target rifle is less likely to hurt someone than... say... a BB gun, then you aren't going to win. If all you are interested in is the target, why not just use a BB gun?


Well, a firearm beats a BB gun at range and accuracy (spheres don't make accurate projectiles). If I want to shoot paper targets out at 300 yards, I can't do that with a BB gun (and even if I could reach the target's range, chances are I'd miss the target completely).

Guns are dangerous. People wioth guns are more dangerous than they are without. Guns are purchased for their killing effect - otherwise you'd buy a waterpistol. Guns are a threat.

No strawman.


Really? I bought my rifle based on what I read about how accurate they could be (or could be made) for target shooting. I could care less about its killing potential.

Also, since firearms are inanimate objects that can't do anything without an external force acting upon the trigger, I'd say that firearms aren't a threat, they're a collection of steel, aluminum, and plastic parts.

Well, a firearm beats a BB gun at range and accuracy (spheres don't make accurate projectiles). If I want to shoot paper targets out at 300 yards, I can't do that with a BB gun (and even if I could reach the target's range, chances are I'd miss the target completely).
Then why not pellet guns? Or bows and arrows.

Then why not pellet guns? Or bows and arrows.

a "pellet gun" that can accurately shoot out to 300yds. AKA a .22 .

There is no parallel between guns and cars or alcohol. The car serves another purpose. The gun is designed for killing.
.
.
.


We have controls on alcohol and guns to limit dangers, anyway - and those are things that are serving another purpose.

How much stronger should regulation be regarding a machinery that is purely designed for death?




Did you just contradict yourself by first saying that firearms have no purpose other than killing, then saying that they did serve another purpose?, just to go back and say that firearms were dedigned for death?

I wish you would make up your mind. BTW, there ARE firearms out there that are designed solely for target shooting. Here are a couple of examples:
http://www.carl-walther.de/englisch/sport/sport-110.html
http://www.championshooters.com/Anschutz-r.htm

Then why not pellet guns? Or bows and arrows.


Pellet guns and bows don't have the range of a firearm either. Pellet guns are more accurate than a bb gun, though (partially due to the shape of the pellet, and partially due to the fact that the pellet gun's rifling can grab ahold of the pellet). I've tried archery (I just sold my bow about 3 months ago), and even if I didn't consider the lessened range of a bow, the learning curve is a lot steeper than with firearms, the aluminum arrow shafts bend too easily, the sighting system sucks (IMO), and the arrows are affected a lot by wind (bullets are less affected).

So guns are just a pissing contest? See you can write their name in the snow from 20 paces? I would think an accuracy is better than distance and testing accuracy is the point of contests.


Your point is what? Firearms are easier to use, further firing killing machines so you prefer them, even though you arn't killing anything? Totally not suspicious or obsessive.


So target shooting is a pissing contest instead of a real accuracy contest.

And another strawman filled w/ ad hominems and red herrings. Boy, the hoplophobes arguements are getting more and more pathetic as time goes by.

Pellet guns and bows don't have the range of a firearm either.
So guns are just a pissing contest? See you can write their name in the snow from 20 paces? I would think an accuracy is better than distance and testing accuracy is the point of contests.

I've tried archery (I just sold my bow about 3 months ago), and even if I didn't consider the lessened range of a bow, the learning curve is a lot steeper than with firearms,
Your point is what? Firearms are easier to use, further firing killing machines so you prefer them, even though you arn't killing anything? Totally not suspicious or obsessive.

the aluminum arrow shafts bend too easily, the sighting system sucks (IMO), and the arrows are affected a lot by wind (bullets are less affected).
So target shooting is a pissing contest instead of a real accuracy contest.

So guns are just a pissing contest? See you can write their name in the snow from 20 paces? I would think an accuracy is better than distance and testing accuracy is the point of contests.

I'm after accuracy at farther distances than bb guns, pellet guns, or archery can provide.


Your point is what? Firearms are easier to use, further firing killing machines so you prefer them, even though you arn't killing anything? Totally not suspicious or obsessive.

My point is, that's one of the reasons I didn't pursue archery, nothing more. I would have sold my bow for that (and the other listed reasons) even if I didn't want to pursue target shooting with firearms.

So target shooting is a pissing contest instead of a real accuracy contest.

No, target shooting is an accuracy contest, and I always try to be as accurate as I can with my rifle, at as far a range as I can. Maybe you missed the part of my previous post where I mentioned how I thought the sighting system on a bow sucks (thus, affecting my accuracy with a bow), and that the arrows are affected a lot by wind (again, affecting my accuracy).

I'm after accuracy at farther distances than bb guns, pellet guns, or archery can provide.
For what? I fail to see why you need the range.

Maybe you missed the part of my previous post where I mentioned how I thought the sighting system on a bow sucks (thus, affecting my accuracy with a bow), and that the arrows are affected a lot by wind (again, affecting my accuracy).Because it was irrelevant. Just whininess.

PS. When shooting at range, bullets will begin to be affected by wind. You don't seem to take that into account.

Also, since firearms are inanimate objects that can't do anything without an external force acting upon the trigger, I'd say that firearms aren't a threat, they're a collection of steel, aluminum, and plastic parts.
And since external forces are using these weapons for murder, then yes, these collections are a deadly combination and truly a threat to human life.

Guns are the overwhelming favourite (72.6%) for those wishing to commit murders, especially mass murders.

For what? I fail to see why you need the range.

Because it was irrelevant. Just whininess.

PS. When shooting at range, bullets will begin to be affected by wind. You don't seem to take that into account.

Almost anyone can shoot accurately at 20 yards. I want to know how accurately I can shoot at 200+ yards. And I fail to see why I NEED to justify my shooting habits to you.


As I said in post 472: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12574609&postcount=472

... and the arrows are affected a lot by wind (bullets are less affected).

For what? I fail to see why you need the range.

Because it was irrelevant. Just whininess.

PS. When shooting at range, bullets will begin to be affected by wind. You don't seem to take that into account.

SO you decide what people "need"?

Maybe you should actually read his earlier post about the effects of wind. You might learn something.

And since external forces are using these weapons for murder, then yes, these collections are a deadly combination and truly a threat to human life.

Guns are the overwhelming favourite (72.6%) for those wishing to commit murders, especially mass murders.

No, the "external forces" who use them like that are a threat to human life. More "external forces" do not use them for such.

Almost anyone can shoot accurately at 20 yards. I want to know how accurately I can shoot at 200+ yards.
Shoot something at 20 yards that is 1/10th as powerful as what you shoot with at 200 yards.

And I fail to see why I NEED to justify my shooting habits to you.
Because you are logically inconsistent.

Shoot something at 20 yards that is 1/10th as powerful as what you shoot with at 200 yards.




Someone obviously knows nothing about ballistics.

See, now TPH has already shown he knows very little about firearms so has to try and control people by questioning them and trying to defend themselves from his inane little personal attacks.

Shoot something at 20 yards that is 1/10th as powerful as what you shoot with at 200 yards.


Because you are logically inconsistent.


The thing is, it's not the same thing (range and power don't evenly exchange like that).

And how, exactly, am I logically inconsistent?

No, the "external forces" who use them like that are a threat to human life. More "external forces" do not use them for such.
Yes and it appears that better controls are required to prevent the sickos from acquiring these deadly weapons. You appear to be defending the status quo, but then again that is the norm for you.

Workable solutions = infringement upon your rights?

Yes and it appears that better controls are required to prevent the sickos from acquiring these deadly weapons. You appear to be defending the status quo, but then again that is the norm for you.

Workable solutions = infringement upon your rights?

Ah, yes, back to the personal attacks. Why don't you accuse me of butchering some children/ It's seems that's what your "arguments" are coming to.

CH's "workable solutions" (which have never worked) are to introduce warrantless searches, registration so the authorities can confiscate what they like, opening up medical records to the public, and base purchases off of rumor and innuendo.

I don't mean to make light of the recent shootings at VT, but it seems as though many people who are speaking out against firearms are those who don't or have never used them or needed them, and it's only an issue when a tragedy strikes.

I wonder if someone looked at say, a 10 year period of the school, how many students have died from alcohol related incidents vs. firearm incidents?

And not just to contain this issue to schools, but in the public, how many people are shot each year, and how many die in alcohol related situations? Are we going to take away the right for people to drink alcohol because every once in awhile a few people can't act responsibly?

And what about tobacco? How many people die each year of lung cancer, or other illnesses related to smoking? Are we going to outlaw tobacco and tell people they are criminals if they smoke?

How about pollution? Are we going to arrest all the people who use plastic, because the factories who make them spew toxins in the air, and weaken the ozone layer, causing millions of people to get skin cancer from the sun?

What about people who kill others because they drive over the speed limit and have an accident?

What about people getting heart disease because they eat fast food? If I give someone a gift card for McDonald's, am I contributing to their death? Should I be jailed?

Where do we draw the line on personal freedoms?

I don't mean to make light of the recent shootings at VT, but it seems as though many people who are speaking out against firearms are those who don't or have never used them or needed them, and it's only an issue when a tragedy strikes.

I wonder if someone looked at say, a 10 year period of the school, how many students have died from alcohol related incidents vs. firearm incidents?

And not just to contain this issue to schools, but in the public, how many people are shot each year, and how many die in alcohol related situations? Are we going to take away the right for people to drink alcohol because every once in awhile a few people can't act responsibly?

And what about tobacco? How many people die each year of lung cancer, or other illnesses related to smoking? Are we going to outlaw tobacco and tell people they are criminals if they smoke?

How about pollution? Are we going to arrest all the people who use plastic, because the factories who make them spew toxins in the air, and weaken the ozone layer, causing millions of people to get skin cancer from the sun?

What about people who kill others because they drive over the speed limit and have an accident?

What about people getting heart disease because they eat fast food? If I give someone a gift card for McDonald's, am I contributing to their death? Should I be jailed?

Where do we draw the line on personal freedoms?
Looks like you are cooking up a whole mess of red herrings. Perhaps you should try sticking to the thread topic?

I'll just post this again.

My final thoughts on the subject of gun control:

People have a right to protect their lives, their family, and their domicile with deadly force.

Citizens have a right to bear arms per the Constitution.

Because it is in the Constitution, this right must be abrogated very carefully, lest we give the government powers to trim/twist other rights too easily. As an example, look at the controversy over limiting abortion even slightly, even though it is NOT an <i>enumerated</i> right and was discerned only in "penumbras" of privacy. What I am saying is that something annunciated clearly must not be restricted lightly.

Options: Amend the Constitution (not likely) or carefully regulate purchases in such a manner that they restrict purchases by individuals who are otherwise restricted from fully participating in the rights of citizenship (ie, convicted felons cannot vote in federal elections usually - therefore apply that model to gun purchases).

A potential problem arises: if we say that mentally ill persons cannot own guns, can/should they be allowed to vote? Should they have freedom of speech?

Potential problem number two: in the effort to restrict gun purchases, will government be convinced to "liberally diagnose" mental illness? Could religious conservatism be called a mental illness? Monotheism? Fervor? Loneliness?

Ah, yes, back to the personal attacks. Why don't you accuse me of butchering some children/ It's seems that's what your "arguments" are coming to.
I do not believe them to be personal attacks....more like astute observations. :p

CH's "workable solutions" (which have never worked) are to introduce warrantless searches, registration so the authorities can confiscate what they like, opening up medical records to the public, and base purchases off of rumor and innuendo.
Have never worked? I await your proof.

I do not believe them to be personal attacks....more like not very astute observations. :p

Fixed. So making up opposing views are now "observations". Gotcha.


Have never worked? I await your proof.

Proving a negative? Seems the onus is on you to provide evidence that the measures have shown direct causality to reducing crime.

Have never worked? I await your proof.Instead of waiting for proof why don't you provide your own? That is if you have any proof.

Instead of waiting for proof why don't you provide your own? That is if you have any proof.

And now come the selectively chosen statistics.

And now come the selectively chosen statistics.

Approximately 71% of statistics are made up on the spot. :)

And now come the selectively chosen statistics.I can't wait.

Approximately 71% of statistics are made up on the spot. :)

You're wrong. It's 49%.

And now come the selectively chosen statistics.
For your consumption:

Canada-US Comparaison (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm)

Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.

As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.

I don't mean to make light of the recent shootings at VT, but it seems as though many people who are speaking out against firearms are those who don't or have never used them or needed them, and it's only an issue when a tragedy strikes.

I wonder if someone looked at say, a 10 year period of the school, how many students have died from alcohol related incidents vs. firearm incidents?

And not just to contain this issue to schools, but in the public, how many people are shot each year, and how many die in alcohol related situations? Are we going to take away the right for people to drink alcohol because every once in awhile a few people can't act responsibly?

And what about tobacco? How many people die each year of lung cancer, or other illnesses related to smoking? Are we going to outlaw tobacco and tell people they are criminals if they smoke?

How about pollution? Are we going to arrest all the people who use plastic, because the factories who make them spew toxins in the air, and weaken the ozone layer, causing millions of people to get skin cancer from the sun?

What about people who kill others because they drive over the speed limit and have an accident?

What about people getting heart disease because they eat fast food? If I give someone a gift card for McDonald's, am I contributing to their death? Should I be jailed?

Where do we draw the line on personal freedoms?

See, one of the biggest part of the problem that you don't take into consideration is the difference between the self-inflicted injuries and problems, and those inflicted by others. How many die each year due to being forced to imbibe alcohol?

Or second hand smoking? In that case the numbers might be more significant, but also note that some states in the US is following some European countries and outlawing smoking in public areas. So smoking is being restricted.

Pollution? Measures are being taken there as well. Some substances are being outlawed, and there is for example currently a debate about if and how CO2 emissions should be curbed. The use of asbestos is regulated in the US and banned in some countries. Just to mention two pollutants...

You mention people who drive over the speed limit. That's a wrong angle. You should have mentioned cars, since not abiding by the speed limit already is an illegal act and a punishable one as well, just like the unjustifiable shooting of another person.

And lastly, you mention fatty foods. There we're back to the original one; That's self-inflicted and by your own chhoice. Nobody (at least, noone I've heard of) has been forced to eat only junk food despite their own wishes.

I hope you see my point and the difference...

For your consumption:

Canada-US Comparaison (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm)

Like I said. And what were the rates before the various laws? Were there any other factors involved? etc. etc.

Same as always.

The thing is, it's not the same thing (range and power don't evenly exchange like that).

And how, exactly, am I logically inconsistent?

Let's see.
You only want weapons for target shooting, but you refuse to use weapons that don't have some arbitrary amount of power and range. Sounds more like an obsession with big powerful guns than an interest in a pastime.

Let's see.
You only want weapons for target shooting, but you refuse to use weapons that don't have some arbitrary amount of power and range. Sounds more like an obsession with big powerful guns than an interest in a pastime.

And comes the lead in to the "compensating" meme's.