[ringo]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Most violent crimes against the poor are by poor armed people. It's the police's job to defend the poor. I'm talking about removing guns from irresponsible people. That doesn't necassarily mean poor people are irresponsible. Its just natural that if someone has a well paid job, a home and a family that they will be more responsible and more interested in defending their liberty. I hope.</STRONG>

You might want to share that insight with the police. They really don't give a damn about the poor. I used to live in a serious drug neighborhood. There were two dealers in my apartment building doing business 24/7. The only times I saw cops during my two years there was after something violent happened and the perps had time to get away. Even then, they only stuck around as long as neccessary, then took off without asking too many questions.

Meanwhile, same town, cops in bulletproof vests cruise main street giving out tickets for parking violations. Are they bad cops? Probably not, just more intrested in something that would make revenue at low risk than fighting crime.

[BRussell]

As to whether guns increase or decrease violence:

The data are very clear. Look around the world, and you see the differences - the US is by far the most violent nation compared to our peers, and we also have the most guns.

Look within the US, and you see that the regions with the most guns (i.e., the South), also have by far the most violence and gun-related deaths.

We also know that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the chances of suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths of family members. According to the FBI, there are about 150 defensive shooting deaths per year (i.e., shooting and killing a home intruder), but about 20,000 deaths of family members due to guns. Good odds, huh?

Guns are a risk factor for your own death and the deaths of your families. Just like any other - smoking, not exercising, eating too much fat, etc. You may die some other way, sure. Fat smokers die in car accidents all the time. Likewise, just because you have guns doesn't mean you'll die from a gun. But why increase your risk, and the risk of your families?

[hytek]

Why don't we just let everyone that's not a convicted felon carry a consealed weapon and then nobody would want to f*ck with anybody. You gotta think, you wouldn't have to worry about somebody kicking your dog, pinching your old lady on the butt at a party, or being mean to your kids. People would have to show a little respect for each other, which is something the world needs more of and respect is a good thing anyways.

Put it this way, if a criminal knew that every convinence store clerk and every convinence store customer in town was armed, no criminal would even go near a convience store. Better yet, if every passenger on the four airlines that went down on 9/11 would have had the right to carry a consealed weapon, then those terrorists would never have even attempted those attacks. Their brains would have been splattered against the wall before they would have even had a chance to make it to the cockpit door. :^\

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[TomCondon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>As to whether guns increase or decrease violence:

The data are very clear. Look around the world, and you see the differences - the US is by far the most violent nation compared to our peers, and we also have the most guns.

Look within the US, and you see that the regions with the most guns (i.e., the South), also have by far the most violence and gun-related deaths.

We also know that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the chances of suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths of family members. According to the FBI, there are about 150 defensive shooting deaths per year (i.e., shooting and killing a home intruder), but about 20,000 deaths of family members due to guns. Good odds, huh?

Guns are a risk factor for your own death and the deaths of your families. Just like any other - smoking, not exercising, eating too much fat, etc. You may die some other way, sure. Fat smokers die in car accidents all the time. Likewise, just because you have guns doesn't mean you'll die from a gun. But why increase your risk, and the risk of your families?</STRONG>

This is nonsense.

First of all, the US does not lead the free world in per capita crime. According to the Clinton Deptment of Justice, in a 1998 study, the rate of muggings were 40% higher and the rates for burglery were 100% higher. See Sunday Times (London) Oct 11, 1998.

In the two years following the banning og guns in Austrailia, armed robberies rose 73%, unarmed robberies rose 28%, kidnappings by 38%, assualts by 17%, manslaughter by 29% according to the Austrialian Bureau of Statistics in Jan 2000.

I have to go now, but I will produce more REAL statictics that refute this gun control BS.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>As to whether guns increase or decrease violence:

The data are very clear. Look around the world, and you see the differences - the US is by far the most violent nation compared to our peers, and we also have the most guns.

Look within the US, and you see that the regions with the most guns (i.e., the South), also have by far the most violence and gun-related deaths.

We also know that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the chances of suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths of family members. According to the FBI, there are about 150 defensive shooting deaths per year (i.e., shooting and killing a home intruder), but about 20,000 deaths of family members due to guns. Good odds, huh?

Guns are a risk factor for your own death and the deaths of your families. Just like any other - smoking, not exercising, eating too much fat, etc. You may die some other way, sure. Fat smokers die in car accidents all the time. Likewise, just because you have guns doesn't mean you'll die from a gun. But why increase your risk, and the risk of your families?</STRONG>

Because I'm not an idiot and I wouldn't give my gun safe combo to my kids.

As for this mysterious data you talk of. The plain and simple fact is that violent crime (rape, armed robbery, gun related homicide, etc.) has dramatically increased in both Australia and England since they recently banned gun ownership. Could this have anything to do with the fact that criminals still have a readily available supply of guns and now don't have to worry about getting shot when they break into someone's home? Hmmmmmm... And what's worse, when otherwise law abiding citizens have used guns successfully in self defense, they've received long jail sentences.

Oh, and you mention defensive shooting DEATHS. What about defensive shootings in general. You know, not everyone dies when they get shot. Usually, you just get wounded. Also, over 90% of the time the verbal, visual, or auditory threat of a gun is enough to scare someone off. My own brother scared a buglar/attacker out of his home by pointing his firearm at the would be assailant. The person had just kicked in (yes, kicked) the rather stout bay window in his living room and was preparing to enter the house. In other words, this wasn't someone you wanted to get in a fist fight with.

You know where you see the highest violent and gun related crime? Big cities and their surrounding areas. Could it be that population has something to do with these stats, not gun ownership? I can think of a lot of rural areas where gun ownership is very high (in fact higher than just about anywhere), but violent crime is very low.

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>As to whether guns increase or decrease violence:

The data are very clear. Look around the world, and you see the differences - the US is by far the most violent nation compared to our peers, and we also have the most guns.
</STRONG>

America has always been more violent than Europe. But while the US murder rate has been declining, the murder rate in England has been increasing for the last century. On June 20, 1999 the UK's "Sunday Express" wrote "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws banning gun ownership..." In Australia, which used to have similar gun ownership statistics as the US, crime has risen dramatically since they banned guns in the 90's in Victoria, gun violence has risen 300% since the ban.

<STRONG>
Look within the US, and you see that the regions with the most guns (i.e., the South), also have by far the most violence and gun-related deaths.
</STRONG>

There are 31 states in the US that allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons, and ALL of those states the murder rate has seen a bigger decrease than the rest of the country.

<STRONG>
We also know that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the chances of suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths of family members. According to the FBI, there are about 150 defensive shooting deaths per year (i.e., shooting and killing a home intruder), but about 20,000 deaths of family members due to guns. Good odds, huh?</STRONG>

Two million people in the US every year use a gun to prevent a crime, many prevented just by the presence of gun, even Sharon Stone (a staunch anti-gunner) used a shot gun with to scare away a stalker without shooting it. When the "New England Journal of Medicine" compiled the statistics regarding family members and gun deaths they defined family members gun as any gun that was discharged in the house. So if a bugler came in a family's house and shot somebody, it was counted as a family members gun killing a family member.

<STRONG>
Guns are a risk factor for your own death and the deaths of your families. Just like any other - smoking, not exercising, eating too much fat, etc. You may die some other way, sure. Fat smokers die in car accidents all the time. Likewise, just because you have guns doesn't mean you'll die from a gun. But why increase your risk, and the risk of your families?</STRONG>

Why? A gun might minimally increase the risk of killing somebody you love, but will greatly increase the ability to protect and defend yourself and your family.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: theUpsetter ]

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: theUpsetter ]

[Arty50]

Originally posted by hytek:
<STRONG>Why don't we just let everyone that's not a convicted felon carry a consealed weapon and then nobody would want to f*ck with anybody. You gotta think, you wouldn't have to worry about somebody kicking your dog, pinching your old lady on the butt at a party, or being mean to your kids. People would have to show a little respect for each other, which is something the world needs more of and respect is a good thing anyways.

Put it this way, if a criminal knew that every convinence store clerk and every convinence store customer in town was armed, no criminal would even go near a convience store. Better yet, if every passenger on the four airlines that went down on 9/11 would have had the right to carry a consealed weapon, then those terrorists would never have even attempted those attacks. Their brains would have been splattered against the wall before they would have even had a chance to make it to the cockpit door. :^\

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.</STRONG>

This sounds good until you take into account the "drunken idiot looking for a bar fight" element of society. Let's face it, most people don't handle alcohol too well. Bars would become a bloody mess.

[climber]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>As to whether guns increase or decrease violence:

The data are very clear. Look around the world, and you see the differences - the US is by far the most violent nation compared to our peers, and we also have the most guns.

Look within the US, and you see that the regions with the most guns (i.e., the South), also have by far the most violence and gun-related deaths.

We also know that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the chances of suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths of family members. According to the FBI, there are about 150 defensive shooting deaths per year (i.e., shooting and killing a home intruder), but about 20,000 deaths of family members due to guns. Good odds, huh?

Guns are a risk factor for your own death and the deaths of your families. Just like any other - smoking, not exercising, eating too much fat, etc. You may die some other way, sure. Fat smokers die in car accidents all the time. Likewise, just because you have guns doesn't mean you'll die from a gun. But why increase your risk, and the risk of your families?</STRONG>

Where do you get your facts??? Do you just make them up?? It sure sounds like it...Look at Australia did the violent crime rate drop there?? NO

How about Western states... Lower crime rate higher and higher gun ownership..

20,000 deaths is an outright lie..

[danbrew]

Wow, who would've thought we have a big gun debat on macnn. I suppose all you people on the other side also use PCs!!!

Regardless of how you feel on the issue -- who are *you* to decide whether or not I should own a gun? What gives you the right?

I recognize that a lot of bad has come from guns - many, many, many people have been killed because of a gun. But wouldn't they have been killed some other way if the gun wasn't available? Probably. Oh, and by the way, you could probably substitute "religion" for the word "gun" above and still have a true statement.

Here's my big beef - I want to be able to have the same rights and ability to protect my family as the local sheriff. If he can carry a gun, why can't I? If a judge has the right to carry a gun, why can't I? Please judge me by my actions - not by what I "might do" someday...

Saying that all gun owners (or guns) are bad is kind of like saying all men are potential rapists because they have a penis. Hmmm...

Finally, why shouldn't I have the right to own a machinegun? As long as I'm not tearing up the town with it and behave in a responsible manner, why not? Because it makes someone uncomfortable? Too bad. I feel a lot more at risk driving down the highway on a Friday night in a medium-sized town that you'll ever feel because I happen to own guns.

Guess what? Heh heh heh - I do own a machinegun. Several. It's legal as hell and you can learn more about it at www.titleii.com.

danbrew :-&gt;




[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: danbrew ]

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[rambo47]

6.5 million legal, registered firearms killed no one today.

When our founding fathers sat down to write the Constitution of The United States it took them something like 6 years. With all that time to debate the various aspects of the document that would outline our beliefs as a nation, they decided the right to bear arms rated pretty high. Second in the list of amendments. Those dedicated individuals with names like Jackson, Monroe, etal, remained faithful to one basic truth: An unarmed man is a subject, an armed man is a citizen.

200+ years after we wrested our liberty from British tyrany, the idea of once again defending ourselves from tyrany seems remote. I say, however, it is everyone's responsibility to remain ever vigilant and answer the call should it come in our lifetime. My freedom and that of my childern is not something I care to trust to chance and the benevolence of elected officials.

I have used my firearms to defend the life of one of my children. A stray Rotweiler entered our backyard last summer and was menacing my daughter. Growling and advancing on her at a slow pace, she was parayzed with fear, as any 7-year old would be. I came out the back door on a dead run, .45 caliber Colt M1911 in hand. Glaser Safety Slugs are an amazing invention, creating an incredible wound chanel as they impart 100% of their kinetic energy to the target. The dog was quickly dispatched. The police took the corpse of the dog to be tested for rabies, which came back positive. No one ever admitted ownership of said mutt. The moral of the story: guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens, save lives. Ask my daughter. She's learning firearms safety and basic marksmanship.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: rambo47 ]

[rambo47]

Hey, Danbrew - is that a supressed H&K? Sweeeeet!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by danbrew:
<STRONG>



</STRONG>

How can you smoke that cigar? Don't you know how many people are killed by tobacco each year? You should be ashamed of yourself! Not only could you get lip cancer from that cigar, but your killing those around you with second hand smoke as surely as if you were to shoot them with that gun! ... &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

BlackGriffen

[daimoni]

.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by theUpsetter:
<STRONG>

Nazi's used registration lists created in the 20's to disarm their citizens.
</STRONG>

You're actually comparing the United States government to the 3rd Reich?

Even if the FBI or whatever came to your house to collect all of your firearms you don't have to give them up. GO DOWN GUNS A BLAZIN! Isn't that the NRA way?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by hytek:
<STRONG>
Put it this way, if a criminal knew that every convinence store clerk and every convinence store customer in town was armed, no criminal would even go near a convience store. Better yet, if every passenger on the four airlines that went down on 9/11 would have had the right to carry a consealed weapon, then those terrorists would never have even attempted those attacks. Their brains would have been splattered against the wall before they would have even had a chance to make it to the cockpit door. :^\
</STRONG>

Man you'd be surprised how many times I have heard that argument. "If a criminal knew that 5 out of 6 people was armed..."
But a criminal doesn't know, nor do they care. It isn't that safe to rob a bank, or department store, or even a 711 but it still happens. Why? Because criminals want some merchandise, or enough money to get high, or just a get rich quick scheme. Also if some guy bursts into a grocery store waving a pistol most people would get down on the floor. (Nobody likes to get shot.)

And suppose the people on the planes (during 9/11) would have had guns -- a stray shot is fired, an innocent person is killed; or worse it hits a window and the whole plane depreasurizes.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Beewee:
<STRONG>

Man you'd be surprised how many times I have heard that argument. "If a criminal knew that 5 out of 6 people was armed..."
But a criminal doesn't know, nor do they care. It isn't that safe to rob a bank, or department store, or even a 711 but it still happens. Why? Because criminals want some merchandise, or enough money to get high, or just a get rich quick scheme. Also if some guy bursts into a grocery store waving a pistol most people would get down on the floor. (Nobody likes to get shot.)
</STRONG>

Peh...
No criminal wants to get shot either.
The guy bursting into your grocery store or bank only has power because he thinks he's the only one with a gun. Take that power away and he's just some schmuck with a bad attitude who's in a hurry to die.

[daimoni]

.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>As to whether guns increase or decrease violence:

The data are very clear. Look around the world, and you see the differences - the US is by far the most violent nation compared to our peers, and we also have the most guns.

Look within the US, and you see that the regions with the most guns (i.e., the South), also have by far the most violence and gun-related deaths.

We also know that having a gun in the home dramatically increases the chances of suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths of family members. According to the FBI, there are about 150 defensive shooting deaths per year (i.e., shooting and killing a home intruder), but about 20,000 deaths of family members due to guns. Good odds, huh?

Guns are a risk factor for your own death and the deaths of your families. Just like any other - smoking, not exercising, eating too much fat, etc. You may die some other way, sure. Fat smokers die in car accidents all the time. Likewise, just because you have guns doesn't mean you'll die from a gun. But why increase your risk, and the risk of your families?</STRONG>

Unfortunately, BRussel, the data you fail to provide wouldn't be valid anyway. It fails several logical tests, but I'll note just one; Carl Sagan called it "the baloney detector" (his spelling, not mine).

Namely, correlation does not equal causation. The data shows that there are a lot of guns in the US. It also shows a lot of gun deaths in the US.

However, there's more to it than that. All it's shown here is, to put it in Boolean terms, guns + violence. That's called correlation. To prove that guns cause violence, you have to prove two other things: first, that guns imply violence, and that a lack of guns implies a lack of violence.

The data doesn't show this. You'll note that no region where guns have been banned shows a complete lack of gun violence, which (by typical pro-gun-control logic), it should. You'll also note that although gun violence does tend to decline in areas where guns are banned for about a year or two, in every case shown so far it has invariably skyrocketed after that initial period, often to the case where it returns almost to its previous levels within just a few years. In England, for example, where the populace was disarmed several years, gun-violence rates went up an astonishing 90% just last year. And that's from the official crime statistics; we can't know how much else may have gone unreported.

No. Guns don't cause violence. What causes violence is a culture that doesn't teach respect for people -all people, regardless of race, gender, economic position, religion, sexual preference, or anything else- anymore. The past few generations have all been raised to be incredibly self-centered (and -paradoxically- collectivist), for reasons I don't claim to know for sure. In such an environment, of course violence is on the rise; people have been raised to think they're entitled to far more than they've earned, and that environment breeds disaster.

Cure the problem, not the symptom. It's harder, but if you're not lazy about it, it can be done. Banning guns will solve nothing, and the gun-control measures working their way through the political system will do even less (with the possible exception of trigger locks, which won't prevent gun violence at all but stand a very good chance of helping prevent gun accidents).

And a final note. You state that the only purpose of a gun is to kill human beings. I would dispute that, but first, an honest question: if your assumption is right, is this really a bad thing?

(Yes, I know that last question is going to shock a lot of people. I have my reasons for asking it; I will explain after the question is answered).

[TNproud2b]

You can ban the sale of guns, but I can still make my own.

So I'll always have one.

[TomCondon]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies. Unfortunately, real life doesn't work that way.</STRONG>

Actually, it does work that way sometimes. It happens in Israel. Just last week, some civilian with a gun permit and a gun wasted a terrorist who was killing civilians.

In both Florida and Texas, the rates for muggins and rapes fell dramatically after right to carry laws were passed.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
Unfortunately, BRussel, the data you fail to provide wouldn't be valid anyway. It fails several logical tests, but I'll note just one; Carl Sagan called it "the baloney detector" (his spelling, not mine).

Namely, correlation does not equal causation. The data shows that there are a lot of guns in the US. It also shows a lot of gun deaths in the US.

However, there's more to it than that. ...</STRONG>

Actually, the data shows a very direct link between guns and gun violence. The problem is that it doesn't include general violence or reflect a lot of other important questions:

• Is it even possible to remove all guns (answer: no, anyone willing to break the law using a gun is willing to break the law to get a gun; i.e. breaking the law to get a gun is a small moral leap compared to being willing to use a gun illegally)
• What happens to the general violence figures, both quality and quantity, when attempts at gun removal are made (answer: look no further than Australia and Great Britain for this one; hot burglaries are high [that is, intrusions when the people are home and thus likely to get hurt], and violence in general isn't really that much better than in the U.S. [discrepancies likely being due to other factors, since we differ from the english speaking nations in other ways, too], though violence with guns is lower than the U.S. since it isn't as easy to obtain a gun. Why gun violence is worse than other violence is beyond me; the violence itself strikes me as far more problematic, and even it is only a symptom.)
• What will happen if guns are made even more illegal (Answer: look no further than prohibition and the war on drugs for the answer to this one. There was a demand for a thing, and the only suppliers were gangs and other criminal organizations. Result: criminal organizations are handed a monopoly on a highly profitable market, thus strengthening them despite minor losses in government raids. Consider that they had to nail Al Capone on tax evasion, and that no modern kingpin will be stupid enough to live in the U.S.)

Etc.

Attempts at solving gun violence by outlawing guns will be as effective as treating drug addicts by outlawing drugs and have similar consequences.

Good post otherwise, Mill, you just glanced over the fact that, for some reason, gun control advocates consider gun violence to be more reprehensible than others, and seem to have forgotten that violence has been perpetrated long before guns existed.

BlackGriffen

[MadMacs]

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by Beewee:
<STRONG>You're actually comparing the United States government to the 3rd Reich?</STRONG>

Yes, you stupid fool. Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean no disrespect. I merely say it to grab your attention. You see, the 3rd Reich was acheived though the manipulation of a democratic government. We've been trained to be scared of anything to do with Hitler. I don't feel this is some mass conspiracy, but once you bother to learn even the most basic facts about Hitler you start to get really scared. All you have to do is read his own writings, but we've been trained to fear the mere thought of Mein Kompf much less even think of reading it. You see, dear ol Adolf originally sought to overthrow the government through revolutionary means. He was arrested for treason and spent a number of years in jail. He spent those years reflecting on what went wrong and how he should go about his next attempt. In a nutshell, he came to a basic conclusion. In order to overthrow a democracy, you have to tear it apart from the inside. So our dear friend went off and sought election to the highest office in Germany. The rest is history.

Now take a look at the freedoms we are slowly losing and see if you can tell me that the two don't parallel each other. Our modern day government is just doing it much more slowly. One day, we too might just elect the WRONG person. And the stage is unknowingly being set. Don't fall into the trap of complacency, and don't allow yourself to be used. Sadly, the Germans did. Of course this was all just basic info. I highly encourage all of you to seek out this information yourselves.

[unfaded]

Are you people insane?

It doesn't matter if we have guns so that we can revolt against our government. If they REALLY want to stay in power, they have nuclear f***ing weapons and a whole hell of a lot more powerful weapons than we would! The whole arguement that "it's so we can revolt" is utter crap. At least fight for the right to have a sword, they're at least fun.

The thought of rising against the government with what you can buy at Wal-Mart is ridiculous, people. And personally, I'd rather have there be no guns floating around but the military. The masses are just too stupid and too irresponsible to be given such power over another's life.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by unfaded:
<STRONG>Are you people insane?

It doesn't matter if we have guns so that we can revolt against our government. If they REALLY want to stay in power, they have nuclear f***ing weapons and a whole hell of a lot more powerful weapons than we would!</STRONG>

Shows how little you understand of politics and the national power structure. Believe it or not, but the government needs its citizens. Nuking your own populace is tantamount to suicide. Even the people who don't get killed will be seriously peeved. Besides, would any sane general use a nuke against his own people? Admittedly, I'm making an assumption about a man's sanity, but consider this: the military itself would fragment in a revolution actually had enough support to succeed. It happened during the French Revolution when the soldiers turned around and shot at the government rather than firing on their own people.

The thought of rising against the government with what you can buy at Wal-Mart is ridiculous, people.

Is it? You show a lack of understanding of basic military facts. First of all, any revolt would likely rely on guerrilla tactics at first (taking your enemy's equipment to use against him). Second, there's a lot more out there than what's available at Wal Mart. If you look at the picture posted to the thread, I doubt that gun came from a department store. And again, no rag tag group of radical rebels could beat a modern army, but a revolt with enough popular support would almost certainly draw in the military.

And personally, I'd rather have there be no guns floating around but the military. The masses are just too stupid and too irresponsible to be given such power over another's life.

And there's the crux of it. One very big thing your forgetting is that the government and army are run by people from those same masses, and are probably just as stupid as us on the whole. Worse than that is that the power that the government offers attracts people with bad intentions like flies. True, it pulls people with good intentions, too, but I don't think I trust the people in power to judge their own intentions for me. Sure, I don't need a gun to figure out whether or not someone is bad, but I would definitely need one if I actually wanted to do something about it, rather tan just btch and moan about it.

I also find your arrogant attitude to be highly disturbing. Are you bothered by the idea that content providers don't trust people not to violate their copyrights (with laws like the DMCA and SSSCA)? What about a law that made non-official use of cars illegal, since more people die in car related incidents than gun related every year, after all. I only used your own logic to arrive at these scenarios. You cannot restrict who has the right to be an adult, because there will inevitably be bad (read: inequitable, racist, elitist, etc.) laws about who can be one. You also cannot eliminate adulthood (your scenario) since, besides violating basic rights, it creates a degenerate society.

BlakcGriffen

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: BlackGriffen ]

[hytek]

Posted by Arty50:

This sounds good until you take into account the "drunken idiot looking for a bar fight" element of society. Let's face it, most people don't handle alcohol too well. Bars would become a bloody mess.

This might happen, but I can guarantee you it won't happen very often.

Posted by Beewee:

Man you'd be surprised how many times I have heard that argument. "If a criminal knew that 5 out of 6 people was armed..."
But a criminal doesn't know, nor do they care. It isn't that safe to rob a bank, or department store, or even a 711 but it still happens. Why? Because criminals want some merchandise, or enough money to get high, or just a get rich quick scheme. Also if some guy bursts into a grocery store waving a pistol most people would get down on the floor. (Nobody likes to get shot.)

It isn't safe to rob a bank, a department store, or a 711?

Who the hell is stoping them now. Nobody, that's who. A guy can just waltz right into a 711, wave a gun around, b!tch slap the clerk, take all the money out of the register, shoot anybody they want, and jump in the car and drive off. Yeah, the cops will be there... soon as the robber leaves to take notes. But, if a robber came into a 711 waving a gun around in a town with the right to carry, then that robber doesn't stand a chance. If somebody walked into a store trying to rob it with a gun, and then the next thing they know they got 5 customers and a pissed off store clerk pointing their guns at them, they're going to be the ones hitting the floor, not the other way around.

Posted by Beewee:

And suppose the people on the planes (during 9/11) would have had guns -- a stray shot is fired, an innocent person is killed; or worse it hits a window and the whole plane depreasurizes.

And the other alternative is that two planes hit and destroy the WTC, one hits the pentagon, another crashes in Penn., and 3000 people from 60 different countries die needlessly.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: hytek ]

[driven]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>

20 rounds is allready banned (new ones at least), are you suggesting ALL semi-autos should likewise be banned?</STRONG>

Yes they are ... and old ones have to be plugged or otherwise restricted.

[driven]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
<STRONG>I've seen my views on gun ownership and the second amendment change quite a bit over the years. While I consider guns dangerous and will never own one, I've realized that it's essential for citizens who can handle guns responsibly to own and carry them without a hassle. It's mostly due, strangely enough, to watching the legal skirmishes over digital content and piracy.

For instance, I cringed when the DeCSS stuff started flying around. Why should someone be prosecuted just because they make (or use) a program that can 'crack' the access-control encryption on DVDs to watch them on Linux? If they do something illegal with the content, like distribute it over the Internet, then prosecute them for that. But don't prosecute them just for linking to the DeCSS Software if they have no intent of using it to break the law! Why should we outlaw technology?

Then one day, I read some right-wing propaganda from those gun-nuts that said something like,

I cringe everytime Gun Control laws start flying around. Why should someone be harassed just because they own (and use) a gun? If they do something illegal with the gun, like rob a grocery store, then prosecute them for that. But don't harass them just for owning a gun if they have no intent of using it to break the law! Why should we outlaw technology?

See the similarities there? I gained a new perspective on the Gun Control debate from that exercise. I believe that any law that tries to ban a technology under the theory that you can assume what the technology is used for is bad law and not the type of thing we elect our representatives to do. So I am vehemently against laws like the DMCA which outlaw technology that can be used to violate copyright (but often aren't), and I'm coming around to being against laws that ban weapons technology because they can be used in violent crimes (but often aren't).

Did that make sense to anyone, or am I just weird?</STRONG>

It makes perfect sense to me. I like your analogy.

[driven]

Originally posted by TomCondon:
<STRONG>

Actually, many so-called reasonable people want guns to be banned. Many of these people join gun control organizations to forward this goal in an incremental manner. These poeple would overturn the second amendment in a heartbeat if they could. The resistance to these incremental steps is portrayed as extremist. Rights are generally not lost all at once. They are slowly eroded. This way, people do not really notice.</STRONG>

And it should be noted that this isn't a "slippery slope" argument. The actions of the gun control groups are extremly well planned and quite deliberate.

[driven]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>We have military dominance of the air, land and sea. The next step would be space. Space based systems could be used to silence and oppress any nation one could choose. They could even be used to oppress people 'anywhere'. What would be the point of 'the right to bear arms' when you could be zapped by a laser from space? So we have to make our voice heard against fascist programs like Death Star...sorry, Star Wars.

Personally if legislation on arms is going to be changed, it should be that only people in full-term employment who have a mortgage and are above a certain age should bear arms. As long as the arms are taken out of the hands of irresponsible, unemployed and uneducated people then we might be able to reduce SOME of the gun crimes. But then there is always the black market.</STRONG>

While we are at it, let's limit voting on employed educated people with a mortgage as well.

[driven]

Originally posted by Beewee:
<STRONG>

Man you'd be surprised how many times I have heard that argument. "If a criminal knew that 5 out of 6 people was armed..."
But a criminal doesn't know, nor do they care. It isn't that safe to rob a bank, or department store, or even a 711 but it still happens. Why? Because criminals want some merchandise, or enough money to get high, or just a get rich quick scheme. Also if some guy bursts into a grocery store waving a pistol most people would get down on the floor. (Nobody likes to get shot.)
</STRONG>

This reminds me of an interview with about 20 prisioners on a PBS special a few years ago. One of the questions they asked the various prisoners was "What do you think of gun control laws?" Their response? "We love them .. it makes our job a lot easier." (These were folks in prison for armed robery.)

<STRONG>
And suppose the people on the planes (during 9/11) would have had guns -- a stray shot is fired, an innocent person is killed; or worse it hits a window and the whole plane depreasurizes.</STRONG>

In which case ... we would have lost one aircraft full of people. (Pennsylvania).

With NO opposition: We still lose an airplane full of people ... and a skyscraper full of people.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>Unfortunately, BRussel, the data you fail to provide wouldn't be valid anyway.</STRONG>

These are the same tactics the cigarette companies used to deny a link between smoking and death. No true experimental studies can be done, with random assignment to conditions, so you say "nah nah, you haven't really proved it." But what you don't say is that this is the exact same way all epidemiological research is done.

Do a medline search - studies on guns have become more common in the medical journals these days, as epidemiologists and medical researchers have broken free of the taboo and begun to view firearms as a risk factor for death just like any other - like smoking, diet, exercise, family history, etc.

Are there other factors related to violence? Of course. So what? You're not arguing that the presence of one factor rules out another, are you?

Another thing - You talk about crime, but I'm talking about gun deaths. Not the same thing. The majority of gun deaths are suicides and accidents, not crimes.

[edit]
Gun deaths are much higher in the US. It's the International Journal of Epidemiology, and the facts are just compiled from law enforcement agencies from the different countries, like the FBI.

Bureau of Justice Stats showing that homicides, particularly gun homicides, are higher in the South.

A survey showing that gun ownership is higher in the South.

Someone earlier said my 20,000 number was a lie.

That's my estimate, but it comes from the fact that there have typically been about 35,000 total gun deaths per year in the US over the years, and over half are suicides and accidents of gun owners and their families. Plus, about 10% of homicides are domestic homicides, like a husband killing his wife or vice-versa.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]

[ringo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>
The majority of gun deaths are suicides and accidents, not crimes.</STRONG>

I'd like to see some proof. What's your reference?

[BRussell]

Oh, another thing. You people who say we need guns in case we want to overthrow the gov't, there's a word for you: traitors. It's called treason, fellas. That's in the Constitution, too.

Some of your comrades in arms: Johnnie "Taliban" Walker, Timothy McVeigh, Russ Weston. Good company.

If any of you take up arms against the US, I'll see you on the battlefield. I'll be on Lincoln's side, under the US flag.

[driven]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Oh, another thing. You people who say we need guns in case we want to overthrow the gov't, there's a word for you: traitors. It's called treason, fellas. That's in the Constitution, too.

Some of your comrades in arms: Johnnie "Taliban" Walker, Timothy McVeigh, Russ Weston. Good company.

If any of you take up arms against the US, I'll see you on the battlefield. I'll be on Lincoln's side, under the US flag.</STRONG>

Didn't we do this once before? (Around 1861) ??

I'd hate to rehash the whole thing again.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Oh, another thing. You people who say we need guns in case we want to overthrow the gov't, there's a word for you: traitors. It's called treason, fellas. That's in the Constitution, too.</STRONG>

Actually it's called democracy and fighting to maintain your freedoms instead of bending over and taking it up the ass by a government that wants to take them away. The argument is not that we want to be able to overthrow the government whenever we want to, it's that we need to be able to do so in the event that the government turns into an oppressive one. Technically it is treason, but so was the American revolution. Are you saying that we shouldn't have revolted againt the British to gain our freedom? Are you saying that we should conform to the wishes of a tyrant for not reason other than the fact that he says so? The government does not exist to control the people, the people are supposed to control it.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: nonhuman ]

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Another thing - You talk about crime, but I'm talking about gun deaths. Not the same thing. The majority of gun deaths are suicides and accidents, not crimes.</STRONG>

Well if they're not crimes, then what's the problem? There is nothing wrong with someone taking their own life if they choose to do so. Fatal accidents will happen with or without the benefit of guns. Proper education will lower the number of accidents and probably reduce the severity of the ones that do occur.

[driven]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>
Technically it is treason, but so was the American revolution. </STRONG>

The way things turned it, it may have been a waste of time. &lt;sigh&gt;

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Oh, another thing. You people who say we need guns in case we want to overthrow the gov't, there's a word for you: traitors. It's called treason, fellas. That's in the Constitution, too.

Some of your comrades in arms: Johnnie "Taliban" Walker, Timothy McVeigh, Russ Weston. Good company.

If any of you take up arms against the US, I'll see you on the battlefield. I'll be on Lincoln's side, under the US flag.</STRONG>

Nice ad hominem. What's the matter, run out of arguments? Problem is, I'd consider a traitor against Nazi Germany to be a hero. Not just some lone wacko like John Brown at Harper's Fairy, but an organized resistance. If you consider the corruption of the American government to be impossible, then you really are arrogant, like so many others claim all Americans are. How about an external invasion? If you think that one's impossible too, then your arrogant on that count, too. Admittedly, these two aren't the strongest arguments that gun advocates present, but they're not invalid either.

Also, treason requires a specific plot, not just a general wariness about centralized power.

BlackGriffen

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by hytek:
<STRONG>Why don't we just let everyone that's not a convicted felon carry a consealed weapon and then nobody would want to f*ck with anybody. You gotta think, you wouldn't have to worry about somebody kicking your dog, pinching your old lady on the butt at a party, or being mean to your kids. People would have to show a little respect for each other, which is something the world needs more of and respect is a good thing anyways.
</STRONG>

This is where my perspective starts to differ from many gun owners, like this one. You say that in a world where everyone can be armed, people will have a lot more respect for one another. But I think that's wrong. People will not have any more respect for each other, they will just have more respect for the added threat that each person represents. It is the threat of force that is respected, not the person wielding it. And lack of respect for the other guy (coupled with the "Short Attention Span" mentality that too many people have) is what causes most of our problems in the world.

One argument that I reject is that if more citizens were armed, they'd be able to pro-actively stop crime through the use of their weapon. Vigilante justice, eh? This makes the assumption that the person doing the shooting is rational and always 100% right. You may be able to accurately analyse and characterize a threat in a short amount of time, but do you have that much confidence that everyone can? Would you have confidence that all of the armed people around you don't see you as a threat?

For instance, here's a story which I offer to help illustrate my point. (I heard it secondhand from someone who is prone to embellishment, and some facts may not be straight, but that's not the point of the story). A friend of mine had to take a business trip a few months after the terrorist attacks, when everyone was still on edge. While the plane was in the process of landing, after the stewardess told everyone to stay seated, an Arab-looking guy in a turban got up and walked to the front of the plane. He was about to say something when one of the passengers, a big burly guy, jumped out of his seat and started wailing on the guy. It took all of the flight attendants to subdue the passenger. It turned out that the Arab-looking guy was there in an official security capacity (I'm not sure if they had started the Sky Marshall thing by that point, but it was a similar concept), and it was just standard procedure for him to help watch and secure the cabin. The passenger was given a hard time when the plane landed, and was probably charged with assault, but that's not my point.

How many of you would have made the same assumption he did? If you were packing, you would have aimed right for his head first, or would you have taken the trouble to ask him whether or not he was planning to kill everyone? This guy made the wrong choice, but the consequences were far less than they would have been if he actually killed the guy. Even if you would have made the right choice, I guarantee others would not.

Can you ever justify the use of deadly force in the ten seconds it might take in your head to react, knowing that if you make the wrong choice, it can put you in the same category as the people you are defending against in the first place?
I can't. Which is why I'll never carry a gun.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
<STRONG>Can you ever justify the use of deadly force in the ten seconds it might take in your head to react, knowing that if you make the wrong choice, it can put you in the same category as the people you are defending against in the first place?
I can't. Which is why I'll never carry a gun.</STRONG>

If it takes you 10 seconds to react you're probably either already dead, or there wasn't a threat anyway...

But yes, I can justify the use of deadly force if that's what it takes to protect the lives and safety of myself and those close to me.

[climber]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>
.......Someone earlier said my 20,000 number was a lie.

That's my estimate, but it comes from the fact that there have typically been about 35,000 total gun deaths per year in the US over the years, and over half are suicides and accidents of gun owners and their families. Plus, about 10% of homicides are domestic homicides, like a husband killing his wife or vice-versa.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</STRONG>

You made the number up, with NO data to back it up. Then attatched a reference to a statistic from the FBI numbers..

That IS a lie.

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: climber ]

[BRussell]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>You made the number up, with NO data to back it up. Then attatched a reference to a statistic from the FBI numbers..

That IS a lie.</STRONG>

Oh, so I have to spoon-feed you everything or I'm called a liar because you're too lazy to look up simple statistics? This is basic mortality data. There are a million references to it on the internet - just google "gun deaths" and you'll find thousands of them.

Here's the first one that popped up for me.

There were a total of 32,436 people killed by guns in the U.S. in 1997. Of these:

* 17,566 were gun suicides
* 13,522 were gun homicides
* 981 were unintentional or "accidental" shootings
* 367 were shooting deaths of undetermined intent
[Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Center for Health Statistics]

[Myrkridia]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hytek:

<STRONG> You gotta think, you wouldn't have to worry about somebody kicking your dog, pinching your old lady on the butt at a party, or being mean to your kids. People would have to show a little respect for each other, which is something the world needs more of and respect is a good thing anyways.</STRONG>

So if everybody has a gun then everybody would get instant respect from one another? "Hey I saw that move you made on my girl!" BANG!

<STRONG>Put it this way, if a criminal knew that every convinence store clerk and every convinence store customer in town was armed, no criminal would even go near a convience store.</STRONG>

Criminals who hold up gas stations are scared off by the security cameras, or the high risk of being arrested or shot by the cops, so what makes you think arming the clerks is going to make any difference? If they're willing to risk all that for $500, I think they'd be willing gamble with their life.


<STRONG>Better yet, if every passenger on the four airlines that went down on 9/11 would have had the right to carry a consealed weapon, then those terrorists would never have even attempted those attacks. Their brains would have been splattered against the wall before they would have even had a chance to make it to the cockpit door. :^\</STRONG>

Then on 9/11, the terrorists' "brains would have been splattered against the wall" plus a few dozen holes in the plane, and it probably would have crashed anyway when it depressurized.

I'm not saying we should ban guns, I just like the idea of having them in the trained hands of intelligent individuals. If everyone who owned a gun took at least one day every week and went to a shooting range then I wouldn't have a problem with everyone owning a gun. It's not the guns that worries me, it's the accuracy of the person using it.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>

Peh...
No criminal wants to get shot either.
The guy bursting into your grocery store or bank only has power because he thinks he's the only one with a gun. Take that power away and he's just some schmuck with a bad attitude who's in a hurry to die.</STRONG>

And if a gun battle ensues between the criminal and 2 or 3 employees
with a couple innocent "unarmed" shoppers getting in the line of fire...
Beewee's right they don't care who's armed or who's not, they just want money, clothes, steros, ect. If they are willing to put their freedom on the line for a couple hundred bucks, then a couple are willing to put their lives on the line. Wait wait.. I'm being to hasty.. Ya.. Ya you're right we should arm EVERYBODY provided that they don't have a criminal record. Let's not just stop at hand guns, lets let every law abiding citizen own his or her Uzi, or M16. Wait what about grenade launchers, and RPG's! Have coupon days with buy 2 Claymores get the third one half off!! Ya then when that stupid crook comes into a Shopko.. Hehehe he'll die in a real hurry.

[ringo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>There were a total of 32,436 people killed by guns in the U.S. in 1997. Of these:
* 17,566 were gun suicides
* 13,522 were gun homicides
* 981 were unintentional or "accidental" shootings
* 367 were shooting deaths of undetermined intent
[Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the National Center for Health Statistics]
</STRONG>

This conveniently ignores crimes where guns were used, but no death occurred as a result. Ask someone raped at gunpoint if they're a victim of gun violence. I'd bet their answer is "yes."

Suicide, debatable as a right, is also a crime. So chalk your 17,566 back on the crime side, not the innocent victim side. Besides, guns don't make people suicidal. Someone who is truly suicidal will kill themselves with a razor, or a noose, or a full bathtub and a toaster. Guns don't make people commit suicide.

That leaves us with 981 accidental shootings and 367 of unknown intent. Sum = 1348. By your own numbers, this pales in comparison to the 13,522 homicides.

(Hoo-Ya, 250 posts)

[ 03-19-2002: Message edited by: ringo ]