Gun Control

[Scott]

Comparing? I would want to carry a gun with me when I go out into the wild just as much as I'd want to have a gun with me any other time. I've twice had to pull out my gun in Philadelphia with all those police that can watch every area of the entire city. :rolleyes: Thankfully, I've never had to pull the trigger, but thank god I had it with me. I carry a pistol with me whever I go. I'm not one of those people that think the government is going to take over and become a dictatorship if we all turn our guns in, but I do want a gun for my protection as well as someone elses when I'm with them. Gun control is a horrible idea, and thought up by idiots. Just like Prohibition, people are going to get what the government bans, but instead of guns being in hands of people like myself, they are going to be in the hands of criminals. What a great idea!

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Comparing? I would want to carry a gun with me when I go out into the wild just as much as I'd want to have a gun with me any other time. I've twice had to pull out my gun in Philadelphia with all those police that can watch every area of the entire city. :rolleyes: Thankfully, I've never had to pull the trigger, but thank god I had it with me. I carry a pistol with me whever I go.

Just where is it you are going that is so terribly dangerous then?

I find it odd when somone says they are *unnable* to live without one on them at all times. I have never needed one and I have travelled in some of the worst parts of NY area as well as some quite unsavory locales in more than one third world country.

Why is it some seem to need such an item so often while others have no such need.

[Kosh]

Gun control is never the answer. Gun controls hurts the innocent citizens and never deters criminals who know how to get guns the illegal way.

Besides, if we restricted guns, people will find other ways to kill. Baseball bats, knives, and any array of blunt objects that we can't think of.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Gemstone101
Comparing? I would want to carry a gun with me when I go out into the wild just as much as I'd want to have a gun with me any other time. I've twice had to pull out my gun in Philadelphia with all those police that can watch every area of the entire city. :rolleyes: Thankfully, I've never had to pull the trigger, but thank god I had it with me. I carry a pistol with me whever I go.

Just where is it you are going that is so terribly dangerous then?

I find it odd when somone says they are *unnable* to live without one on them at all times. I have never needed one and I have travelled in some of the worst parts of NY area as well as some quite unsavory locales in more than one third world country.

Why is it some seem to need such an item so often while others have no such need.

I hoped I would never need it, and I still hope I never have to pull the trigger. The first time I needed it, I was on south street in Philly, and some guy came up in front of me and put a knife to my stomach and said "give me your wallet." I pulled up my gun, and poked him in the stomach with it, he looked down, and backed up and said "no trouble, no trouble, it's cool man" and walked away. The second time I needed it was when 3 guys came up to me and asked for my money, I just pulled out my gun, they backed off and left. Your lucky you haven't had people threaten you or whatever, and I hope it never happens to you. Just because you haven't had this problem doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I don't NEED the gun, but I'm glad I have it for my protection. I hope you aren't put in the situation I was, but if you are.... good luck.

Oh, by the way. The reason I started carrying a gun...... First off, I always had a handgun when I hunted. Anyway, a friend of mine was stabbed in the stomach when some guy asked him for his money. He gave it to him, and the guy stabbed him anyway. After that, I've carried my gun. I don't care if your a navy seal, if some guy has a knife and has the balls to stabb you, you are in trouble unless you have something yourself.

[imported_Kranar]

Man thank God I live in Canada.

The worst thing I can think of is living in an area that I fear so much, that I feel I have to carry a gun to protect myself.

No wonder the U.S. has 10s of thousands of murders every year, you guys are scared of each other!

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kranar
Man thank God I live in Canada.

The worst thing I can think of is living in an area that I fear so much, that I feel I have to carry a gun to protect myself.

No wonder the U.S. has 10s of thousands of murders every year, you guys are scared of each other!

I don't live in a bad area. I do travel to/through places that a lot of things happen though, Philly, Chester, etc. I don't feel threaten anywhere I go. I just have protection in case something does happen.

[imported_Kranar]

<< The second time I needed it was when 3 guys came up to me and asked for my money, I just pulled out my gun, they backed off and left. Your lucky you haven't had people threaten you or whatever >>

Third time you'll need it... the aggressor will have a gun himself, and the second you pull your gun out to defend yourself, he will shoot you.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< The second time I needed it was when 3 guys came up to me and asked for my money, I just pulled out my gun, they backed off and left. Your lucky you haven't had people threaten you or whatever >>

Third time you'll need it... the aggressor will have a gun himself, and the second you pull your gun out to defend yourself, he will shoot you.

If some guy has a gun pointed at me, he can have my wallet. I'm not billy the kid.....

[Chyrain]

it cracks me up this whole gun control issue. Why do criminals in inner cities have guns in the first place? because scaredy-cat white folk buy into media propagana about the dangers of living in this country (please.) and who reside in suburbia buy guns and then get their houses robbed and their fire arms stolen.

yeah, that's really solving the problem.

rah rah rah! *star kick* go white america!

[Chyrain]

Originally posted by Gemstone101
If some guy has a gun pointed at me, he can have my wallet. I'm not billy the kid.....

well excuse my language then...but what the fuck are you protecting? Some guy points a gun at you, you're gonna hand over anything he wants....including the gun you always carry around, eh?

Three cheers for you, buddy.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Chyrain
it cracks me up this whole gun control issue. Why do criminals in inner cities have guns in the first place? because scaredy-cat white folk buy into media propagana about the dangers of living in this country (please.) and who reside in suburbia buy guns and then get their houses robbed and their fire arms stolen.

yeah, that's really solving the problem.

rah rah rah! *star kick* go white america!

It cracks me up that you would make such a stupid comment like that. Criminals will ALWAYS try to have the upper hand. No guy is going to come up to me with his bare hands and say, "Give me your wallet." He's going to have a knife or something. Well if I don't have a weapon, I'm not messing with a guy with a knife. It has nothing to do with law abiding people having guns. Criminals need the upper hand and need to put fear in someone to get what they want. It's SO easy to get your hands on a gun, obviously you are one of the people that buy into the bullshit media that says criminals steal all their guns. Congradulations on making one of the dumbest comments I've heard on this subject.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Chyrain

Originally posted by Gemstone101
If some guy has a gun pointed at me, he can have my wallet. I'm not billy the kid.....

well excuse my language then...but what the fuck are you protecting? Some guy points a gun at you, you're gonna hand over anything he wants....including the gun you always carry around, eh?

Three cheers for you, buddy.

I'm not a moron. If some guy has a gun pointed at you, you would have to be the biggest idiot in the world to try something. Once you get a high school education, you'll learn to choose your battles wisely. If your dumb enough to reach for your gun when you have a gun already pointed at you, then you are an idiot.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Criminals will ALWAYS try to have the upper hand. >>

Exactly why I think carrying a gun puts someone in danger. You carry a gun, and that causes the criminal to have to carry a gun, because the criminal will want the advantage.

If both you and the criminal carry a gun, it's more likely that the criminal will use it.

[imported_Kranar]

Doctors Miller and Hemenway at Harvard University conducted pretty extensive research that showed that people carry guns out of fear that the next guy is carrying a gun.

"Gun Use In The United States" and "National Attitudes Concerning Gun Carrying in the United States" detail the research.

A community with guns is a community of fear.

There are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and FBI statistics show that 41 percent of homicides are done in the heat of passion using a gun, because you get ticked off, and you have a gun there right with you or near you, and you use it and kill your target.

That's why I think this illusion that guns make you safe is false. Guns don't make people safer, they just make people scared. Everyone is carrying a gun to defend themselves from everyone else who's carrying one. It's quite a vicious cycle.

[Edited on 7-26-2003 by Kranar]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kranar
Doctors Miller and Hemenway at Harvard University conducted pretty extensive research that showed that people carry guns out of fear that the next guy is carrying a gun.

"Gun Use In The United States" and "National Attitudes Concerning Gun Carrying in the United States" detail the research.

A community with guns is a community of fear.

There are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and FBI statistics show that 41 percent of homicides are done in the heat of passion using a gun, because you get ticked off, and you have a gun there right with you or near you, and you use it and kill your target.

That's why I think this illusion that guns make you safe is false. Guns don't make people safer, they just make people scared. Everyone is carrying a gun to defend themselves from everyone else who's carrying one. It's quite a vicious cycle.

[Edited on 7-26-2003 by Kranar]

I don't believe guns make me perfectly safe, I believe they make me safer. Twice, it has kept me from losing my wallet, and more possibly. That's enough to make a believer out of me.

Criminals will target a person without a gun before someone with a gun. I'm sure if someone was walking up to rob you and saw you had a gun, he would walk the other way. Criminals WILL get guns whether it's legal or not. The only thing taking away guns is going to do is take them away from people who do follow the law.

[Bestatte]

I'm anti-gun. I'm also anti-gun control, as I understand it to be now in the states.

No one comes into my house with a gun of any kind, including the police, unless I ask them to or unless they have a search warrant or warrant for my arrest.

If a cop comes to the door asking about a neighbor, he can either put his gun in his glove compartment or he can damned well talk to me through the screen outside on the front porch.

My husband used to have b-b rifles, and I made him keep them in the basement of our condo, locked up in a cage we built with drywall and 2x4's with a padlock on the gate. And then a few little fuckers broke in, stole the rifles, and shot at a window of a condo up the hill. Inside the room where the window was, an 18-month old girl was sitting in her high chair being fed her babyfood for lunch. The b-b's missed her face by an inch.

The little fuckers who did this were only 11 and 12 years old. They thought it was funny.

No one has any business in the possession of firearms in the suburbs or urban areas. Not law abiding citizens, not criminals, no one.

Unfortunately, criminals will break the law to get them, and law-abiding citizens won't. And the advantage will fall on the criminal as it always does.

The solution? I don't think there is one. But I don't think the current gun control proposals are the answer.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Criminals will ALWAYS try to have the upper hand. >>

Exactly why I think carrying a gun puts someone in danger. You carry a gun, and that causes the criminal to have to carry a gun, because the criminal will want the advantage.

If both you and the criminal carry a gun, it's more likely that the criminal will use it.

Well if I'm not allowed to carry a gun, a criminal is still going to one up me. He'll have a knife, a bat, or whatever. The only difference is now I have no way of protecting myself against someone with a weapon.

[Bobmuhthol]

Youths with guns = Stupid.

Youths who are registered members of the NRA with guns = Heroes.

[Scott]

The NRA sucks.

[Bobmuhthol]

You suck, baby eater.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Bestatte
I'm anti-gun. I'm also anti-gun control, as I understand it to be now in the states.

No one comes into my house with a gun of any kind, including the police, unless I ask them to or unless they have a search warrant or warrant for my arrest.

If a cop comes to the door asking about a neighbor, he can either put his gun in his glove compartment or he can damned well talk to me through the screen outside on the front porch.

My husband used to have b-b rifles, and I made him keep them in the basement of our condo, locked up in a cage we built with drywall and 2x4's with a padlock on the gate. And then a few little fuckers broke in, stole the rifles, and shot at a window of a condo up the hill. Inside the room where the window was, an 18-month old girl was sitting in her high chair being fed her babyfood for lunch. The b-b's missed her face by an inch.

The little fuckers who did this were only 11 and 12 years old. They thought it was funny.

No one has any business in the possession of firearms in the suburbs or urban areas. Not law abiding citizens, not criminals, no one.

Unfortunately, criminals will break the law to get them, and law-abiding citizens won't. And the advantage will fall on the criminal as it always does.

The solution? I don't think there is one. But I don't think the current gun control proposals are the answer.

My parents told me about guns, some don't. My father being a hunter has a lot of guns, and he explained the dangers of guns and such. When I was younger, I wouldn't have touched a gun (except for when I started hunting when I was 12) unless my father was there. Stuff like that happens because their parents never told them the dangers of a gun.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
You suck, baby eater.

Shut up you WEAK NOBLE! You'll never be a knight!

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm over half way there, 252 post boy. Stop the spamming. Geez.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Unfortunately, criminals will break the law to get them, and law-abiding citizens won't. And the advantage will fall on the criminal as it always does. >>

The criminal will want the advantage period, whether you own a gun or not. Whether guns are legal or not.

Right now as it stands, owning a gun (legally) is 6 times more likely to be used to kill someone illegally, than to defend yourself. Gun control does one very important thing, it shapes peoples attitudes towards guns. Is a gun really a symbol of power and freedom like many in the U.S. believe? Is owning a gun such a sacred thing? One of the goals of the my government in establishing better gun control was to show us that we don't need guns to be free and we don't need guns to be safe. Guns should be used only as a tool, not as a weapon. There are many traditions that make use of guns, including sports, and all of them should be valued. But that's all guns should be good for. Australia adopted that policy in 1996, and they've been reaping the benefits.

When citizens come to the conclusion that guns don't make them safe, that they can live a happy, normal life without treating a gun like a commodity, it just has a very positive effect.

Research shows, owning a gun just causes your neighbour to own a gun, and that just causes everyone to own a gun... The U.S. is now at a point where there is slightly more than 1 gun per man, woman, and child. Ask yourself... are you really safe now? Your murder rate is still sky high. Maybe it will take 2 guns per man, woman, and child before you're safe? Maybe three?

My answer is it will take 0.

[peam]

Michael Moore sucks.

[Bobmuhthol]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. I don't think you want that.

[imported_Kranar]

<< If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. I don't think you want that. >>

That's precisely what I want. You carry a gun around, you deserve to go to jail, you deserve to be an "outlaw". That's exactly what what I've been trying to say this entire time.

Are you saying that because criminals can commit a crime, that citizens should be allowed to commit a crime too? Geez... since criminals/outlaws are the only ones who commit murder, I guess murder should be legal.

I mean heck, let's expand on your line of thought to see how logically consistent it is:

If you outlaw drugs, only outlaws will have them.
If you outlaw prostitution, only outlaws will have them.
If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaws will have them.
If you outlaw X, only outlaws will have them.

So I guess by your logic we should just legalize everything.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

[Bobmuhthol]

Drugs, prostitution, and nuclear weapons don't have the capability to kill things, though. My logic is flawless.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Drugs, prostitution, and nuclear weapons don't have the capability to kill things, though. >>

Wow... I never knew nuclear weapons and drugs didn't have the capability to kill people. Ya learn something new everyday.

But... putting aside the fact that nuclear weapons somehow don't kill people, you totally ignored X. What do you want to replace X with? Murder?

If you outlaw murder, only outlaws will murder people.
If you outlaw assault, only outlaws will assault.
If you outlaw abuse, only outlaws will abuse.

Or... does murder not have the capability to kill people either?

Just because an outlaw is going to do it, doesn't mean it's alright. Yes, a criminal is going to commit a crime, that should be obvious, and it's absurd to say that because a criminal is going to commit it, that everyone should be allowed to commit it.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

[Bobmuhthol]

Self defense is not a crime. Protection is not a crime. Murder is a crime.

--Skateboarding is not a sandwich.

[imported_Kranar]

Now you're changing your argument. That's fine, but don't say it's okay to do something because criminals can do it, because that's absurd.

Guns are not self-defence. Just like nuclear weapons are not self-defence, just like having a tank isn't self-defence. I bet you anything, I *COULD* defend myself from a crime if I drove a tank to work, but it is not self-defence simply because I am a threat to others.

Guns are 6 times more likely to result in a crime than in self-defence. 600 percent more likely to take the life of an innocent human being, than to protect you. Are you really that scared of your surroundings, that scared of where you go, that you're willing to carry something that is 6 times more likely to kill someone who's innocent? Mind you... that 600 percent figure includes the chances of a criminal using your own gun against you, it includes you accidently missing your target and shooting someone else, it includes heat of passion murders.

There are just so many ways that people endanger others when they carry a gun... you think you're protecting yourself by owning a gun, but in reality you're putting everyone around you in harms way.

[Bobmuhthol]

You aren't 600% more likely. You're 500% more likely, and 600% AS likely. Learn some math, Kranar.

[Scott]

Australia restricted the use of guns and murder, assults, robbery's, and home invasions have all increased. Before the ban, crimes had been decreasing. Australia has the higher violent crime rate then the US as well.....

Making guns illegal isn't the best option.....

[Bobmuhthol]

You think they'd learn after prohibition.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Australia restricted the use of guns and murder, assults, robbery's, and home invasions have all increased. Before the ban, crimes had been decreasing. Australia has the higher violent crime rate then the US as well..... >>

Internet myths are miraculous and span the knowledge base in its entirety. Luckily snopes.com is available to dismiss most internet myths.

"Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.
Status: False."

Infact... the opposite is quite true according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a primary source:

http://www.abs.gov.au/

It's for these exact reasons I URGE people to research things using academic sources instead of common internet sources and so on. Not that snopes is academic, but it's the only source I can find that dismisses that widely distrubuted myth. My library has access to the Gale Academic Database, which is where I found those articles by Dr. Hemenway and Dr. Miller.

Aside from that, looks like snopes.com has come to the rescue several times on this BBS to dispell commonly accepted myths.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

[Scott]

Originally posted by Kranar
<< Australia restricted the use of guns and murder, assults, robbery's, and home invasions have all increased. Before the ban, crimes had been decreasing. Australia has the higher violent crime rate then the US as well..... >>

Internet myths are miraculous and span the knowledge base in its entirety. Luckily snopes.com is available to dismiss most internet myths.

"Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.
Status: False."

Infact... the opposite is quite true.

It's for these exact reasons I URGE people to research things using academic sources instead of common internet sources and so on. Not that snopes is academic, but it's the only source I can find that dismisses that widely distrubuted myth. My library has access to the Gale Academic Database, which is where I found those articles by Dr. Hemenway and Dr. Miller.

Aside from that, looks like snopes.com has come to the rescue several times on this BBS to dispell commonly accepted myths.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

Figured you say that. However the only place saying that this is false is the government, using ridiculous standards. Many studies, have said otherwise. I don't understand why you believe this "www.snopes.com" crap over australian newspapers, studies, and the NRA.

[Scott]

England has also had the same effect as Australia....

[imported_Kranar]

<< the only place saying that this is false is the government, using ridiculous standards. >>

I don't believe www.snopes.com over much. It's just the only non-academic source I can refer you to since academic sources aren't exactly freely available on the internet. What you posted is infact a myth, a common myth. I don't even think the NRA has even debated the issue, they only focus on the U.S.

The Australian census uses the same standards that the FBI uses. They simply publish how many robberies occured, how many murders occurs, how many rapes occured so on so forth. If 10 occured, then 10 occured. If 1000 occured, then 1000 occured.

http://www.abs.gov.au/

Help yourself out. There are no "standards", there isn't even any analysis, just raw numbers, raw data. Not to mention it's a primary source, and primary sources override secondary sources.

Anyways, Australia is Australia, and Canada is Canada. But I must say I am INCREDIBLY proud to live in a country where I don't have to feel like carrying a gun is for my own safety. I sincerly do, and I must say I would be very worried if the day comes and I feel I must carry a gun in public because something bad could happen to me. I mean that's really a nerve wrecking thought, the idea that I need a gun in public because I fear something of such a serious magnitude would happen to me.

I mean, it's just a great feeling to know that when I go outside, the people in my city aren't holding a gun for protection. The guy sitting next to me on the bus isn't carrying a gun, the woman at the coffee shop isn't carrying a gun. If you don't think that way, and if most Americans don't, then all the power to you. It's your country, you're a democracy, you decide what's best for you. But I offer my perspective on this as a Canadian, and you're free to interpret it as you wish, and I must say when there is one gun for every American and the U.S. still suffers as high a murder rate as it does... I just feel that maybe you guys should want to evaluate and look into alternative viewpoints.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

[Scott]

It isn't a myth. Theemail about certain stats was a myth, however studies other then the Australian government say otherwise. England has the same problem. I did look on Snopes to see if there was anything to discredit England's gun control statistic's and there wasn't any........

Edit: Australian not Austrian.....

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Gemstone101]

[imported_Kranar]

So then it's your position that the Australian government; in it's gathering of statistical data that it receives from law enforcement, is not as capable of compiling those statistics as... the NRA? Newspapers?

I mean... I've never known any newspaper to actually record every single homicide, rape, robbery, theft, assault, on a national level. Certainly the media in the U.S. is incapable of doing so, which is why they always refer to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Which newspaper in Australia has such a system of data collection? A system, which as you say... is superior to that of Australia's own law enforcement.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

[Scott]

Yes I am. The government doesn't want to look dumb for what they did. Why has this worked in Australia and not England?

[imported_Kranar]

England does not have a gun buy-back program.

Perhaps it didn't work in England because England doesn't have this system.

Anyways... if you think that a newspaper is better suited to gather statistical data than law enforcement, then I'm afraid we disagree on such a different level that this argument becomes redundant. I must respectfully agree to disagree.

I am curious however, to know what newspaper in Australia is capable of compiling such a large volume of statistical information.

[Edited on 7-27-2003 by Kranar]

[Scott]

The prohibition of handgun's, cutting down on rifles and shotguns......

[Bobmuhthol]

This is some damn topic for something only three people are posting in.

[imported_Kranar]

It is an interesting argument, but like most arguments, there can be no definite conclusion.

I simply hope I have offered some insight into the issue, and I respect the insight that you two have provided.

[longshot]

More insight...

I live in Japan where guns are outlawed. The people who have guns:

1) police
2) Yakuza

The bad guys still have guns, and the average citizen doesn't. This is of course bad...

But, on the other hand, when little Tanaka fails his college entrance exam and goes crazy, the best he can do is a knife.

You can only go on a "knifing spree" for so long...

[draconis nematoda]

Originally posted by Kranar

Research shows, owning a gun just causes your neighbour to own a gun, and that just causes everyone to own a gun... The U.S. is now at a point where there is slightly more than 1 gun per man, woman, and child. Ask yourself... are you really safe now? Your murder rate is still sky high. Maybe it will take 2 guns per man, woman, and child before you're safe? Maybe three?

My answer is it will take 0.

How does your neighbor know you own a gun, unless you go around waving the bugger, or visa versa?
:?:

[CrystalTears]

There's a difference between owning one in your home and being able to carry one on your person. You need a license to carry a firearm on yourself or with yourself outside of your home, and getting that license isn't always that easy. I'm sure people find ways to get it, but I don't think "for protection" is a choice when going for the license. It has been a while since I've seen the license requirements, but it's owning one and walking around with one are two different issues.

[Slider]

few points i would like to make here, first off, as a licensed handgun owner, and being in law enforcement i have seen many instances where a handgun used by private citizens have saved lives, or prevented crimes from being commited. No statistical evidence i have ever seen, and i have access to a lot of statistical data, have ever reflected this fact for the simple reason that many of these incidents are never reported to the police to begin with. Secondly, many people or groups tend to scew statistical data to support their arguments; case in point, the number of "assault weapons" used in crimes. Now supposedly these raw numbers where taken from the FBI's annual report of crimes commited in the U.S. However the number of automatic weapons used was LESS then 1/10 of 1% according to the FBI. So, how you ask, do they come up with that "fact"? Simple, there is NO definition of an "assualt weapon" in either law enforcement or the judiciary, thus they can label any weapon as an "assault weapon" that they want. According to Handgun Control, an assualt weapon is ANY weapon capable of carrying more than 10 rounds. Also did you know that the number of "murders" commited by handguns also include every instance of police officer involved shootings? Even if those shooting are deemed justifiable by both IA and the DA's office? These are just a few instances of how statistical data has been scewed to support the position of these groups. Oh, and one more point on the "buy-back program". Detroit has that program, and we have found that unfortunatly, it has had the opposite effect on crime that was envisioned. First off, many criminals have found that the best way to aquire a handgun is to wait outside the precinct house untill someone shows up to sell their handgun, approach them, and offer $100.00 for it, instead of the $50.00 that the police give for it. Rousing success on that program, hmm?

[Edited on 7-28-2003 by Slider]

[i remember halloween]

Outlawwing guns serves no purpose. It's so easy to get anything in this country if you really want it. There will still be bank robbers and stick ups and gang wars and kids getting hit by stray bullets. You'll just remove the second thought that a wouldbe robber may give. It's irresponsible to disarm the law abiding while you cannot stop the criminals.

[Edited on 7-28-2003 by i remember halloween]

[Warriorbird]

The sad thing is, both sides have their massive issues.

You outlaw guns, the wrong people will still get them.

Yet, in turn the NRA folks go on and on about guns saving lives...saving women...so on...

The number of accidental shootings, disputes that become lethal due to guns in the home, suicide increase due to gun ownership, and the vastly increased likelihood of a woman that buys a gun to commit suicide with it or have it used against her in a robbery?

At the core, people suck. Maybe if we started shooting more of the stupid people, things'd be better. But who are the stupid people, in turn? I'm sure everyone who posts here is thought stupid by some other person or group for their views/actions.

[Skirmisher]

I actually enjoyed target shooting the few times I have tried it. I don't know if I would be up for hunting ever, but I don't have anything deep down against hunters if they actually eat what they kill. I have even looked into purchasing a weapon myself but have yet to act upon that so do not consider myself a radical anti-gun person or anything. I also have several friends and family members who do own guns and they all are in favor of gun control/ waiting periods for purchases.

The pity about the NRA is that they really do serve alot of good, teaching young kids about safety and proper manners to handle weapons among other things.

The problem is the smaller radical minority in the NRA who are so obtuse as to ignore many of the problems with guns in the US with their myopic adamant stance against any sort of gun controls.

[Parkbandit]

Guns are not just for self protection.. they are also for hunting.

My uncle owns a citrus orchard. He has wild boars all over the place which root up the trees and dirt roads, destroying the trees and his product.

With gun control, should we simply let the beasts have at the orchard or should we run after them with sticks and knives?

I enjoy hog hunting. It is a thrill for me as a hobby as well as serves a purpose of protecting my uncle's crops.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I use firearms to hunt, I would use them for self protection. I also attended hunting and firearms safety courses growing up. Don't impinge my liberties because you believe that firearms are bad. When individuals are raised to respect an items destructive capabilities, there would be far less problems. The problem with children and firearms is the responsibility of the adult who should be supervising them.

Give them consequences and repercussions, and I’m certain access to lethal weapons goes away. I would NEVER go near a firearm without my father present growing up, and we had them everywhere, loaded, all around the house. Me, I wouldn’t do that, but I tell you what, the problem with firearms goes much deeper than just having a weapon around… it’s the nature of our country to place blame and responsibility anywhere but where it belongs – the parents. I believe children are a product of their parents teaching, with our ever-pervasive society of “It’s not my fault” and “I’ll sue you”, no one takes responsibility for anything. If a parent knew that their child “wilding” out on the town would have consequences to THEM, do you think they’d let them do it?

My children won’t be out of control, abused, or suffer from a lack of attention. If my child is loading up a shotgun in his room and making tapes about killing classmates, I’m damn well going to know about it – and it would have never progressed that far. The PARENTS of the two Columbine children should be looking at themselves deeply, as well as the police.

On a different note, I heard on the news this morning that talking on your cell phone while driving is 50% more likely to be in a car accident that a drunk driver. Should throw all the punks driving and yapping on their cell phones in jail. DUIC - Driving under the influence of a cellphone.

[Edited on 7-28-2003 by Suppa Hobbit Mage]

[i remember halloween]

people with cell phones should be thrown in jail

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Chyrain
it cracks me up this whole gun control issue. Why do criminals in inner cities have guns in the first place? because scaredy-cat white folk buy into media propagana about the dangers of living in this country (please.) and who reside in suburbia buy guns and then get their houses robbed and their fire arms stolen.

yeah, that's really solving the problem.

rah rah rah! *star kick* go white america!


I do so love the flawed racial sticht. I'm really at a loss as to how it came up since the original poster never mentioned the race of the would be assailants. You seem to have read more into than I did.

Race has been used as a crutch in too many debates of this nature and it's really getting old.

As for the actual topic...

I count myself among those that were raised in a home with guns. I grew up in a small farm community and just about everyone hunted. There were no home robberies, car jackings, hold ups, muggings, or suicides involving guns. The entire county, over a ten-year span, had one suicide. That involved an 80-year-old man with a malignant brain tumor and a 3-story drop onto a concrete pad.

I, like every other child in the community, was taught about the dangers of a firearm. When I came of age, I was taught how to safely use a firearm. I think that's what's missing in most violent cases involving a gun. That respect was never taught.

I was never tempted to pick up one of my father's guns no matter the situation. Either before I was allowed to or after I was taught how to use one. My father was, still is, a Vietnam vet and was never shy about explaining what a gun can do to a human body. That always stuck with me.

I really miss living in a small community. The thought of my neighbors owning guns never crossed my mind. I never lived in fear of my safety or life. I live in an urban area now and on a daily basis I read and hear of robberies, car jackings, two or three bank robberies a year, muggings, and rape. I own 6 guns. Two are Remington shot guns, one Browning rifle, and thee hand guns (one 9mm, two .357s). I haven't hunted since I bagged my first deer at age 15, but I keep my guns serviceable and practice regularly.

The shotguns and rifle I keep locked in a heavy steel gun cabinet tucked away in my home office. I keep the 9mm in a quick release 4 digit safe attached to the underside of my wife's nightstand (she practices to). One .357 in the same under my night stand. The other .357 is locked in the garage gun safe. Do I feel more secure? Not at all. A gun can't make you feel secure or safe. Knowing my wife knows how to use and respects guns let's me sleep better. If someone broke into my home I would not hesitate using a gun. I'm very sure I would not shoot to kill. In fact I would prefer the perpetrator see the gun and leave. If not, I'm a good enough shot to incapacitate a person without killing them.

Knowing there are people out there that seem to think that since I own firearms I am more likely to commit a crime simply infuriates me. Knowing there is an ignorant populace out there that seems to think that banning guns will solve the crime issue makes my stupidity aneurysm swell that much more. Criminals will gain access to any tool possible that helps them commit their crime of choice.

Remember a few years back when this guy in NY was robbing subway booths with lighter fluid and matches? Should we now ban all flammable substances?

In the words of Archie Bunker ... "Would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?"

You can kill a person with just about anything imaginable. Those that can't gain access to a knife will use a screwdriver. By the logic of some, that makes your local mechanic or electrician apt to commit a crime.

What's next, are we going to go home to home looking under sinks and throw people in prison simply because there is a possibility that they could mix some house hold cleaners together and make an explosive substance?

Here's a thought. Let's enforce our laws and reduce the number of loopholes that exist in them. Let's stop this racial thing and make the laws matter.

"It wasn't a hate crime your honor. My client, Mr. Crack Head, was simply after the old lady's money. He was driven by his addiction and didn't mean to stab/shoot her for the 10 bucks. In fact, she should have had sympathy for his inner-city upbringing and just offered him all that she had. She was of course at fault because her upbringing was that of a blue-collared, middle classed upbringing by two loving parents. So as you can see, it was her fault."

Give me a break.

[imported_Kranar]

<< You can kill a person with just about anything imaginable. Those that can't gain access to a knife will use a screwdriver. By the logic of some, that makes your local mechanic or electrician apt to commit a crime.

What's next, are we going to go home to home looking under sinks and throw people in prison simply because there is a possibility that they could mix some house hold cleaners together and make an explosive substance? >>

Jeez... when you put it that way, let's just give people the right to own some nukes. I mean heck, why restrict someone's right to own a nuke? You clearly made the case that if a criminal can't get a nuke, then they'll find another way to kill people. Or tanks... I want to drive a tank to work tomorrow, and I don't want the government restricting my right to do so because I'm no more likely to kill someone with a tank than with a screw driver.

My question is: If people can really kill others with screw drivers, knives, kitchen appliances and so on... then why are 71 percent of the 11000 murders a year comitted with a gun?

Here's why: You are TWELVE times more likely to kill someone using a gun, than killing them using another means. That's a fact.

Another fact according to the FBI is that guns are used to commit 93 percent of all heat of passion homicides. Heat of passion homicides account for 41 percent of ALL murders in the U.S. Rage of passion as in, we get into a fight, I get freaking mad out of my ass... I grab a gun and I shoot you. Happens between many husbands and wives during a dispute. It's so easy to kill someone using a gun that I don't even have to think about it, I just pull the trigger and then cry about it later once I realize what happened. If I grab a baseball bat or a screw driver I won't be able to kill you before I come to my senses. Heat of passion.

[Edited on 7-29-2003 by Kranar]

[Scott]

I'm just wondering Kranar, what is your suggestion to solve this problem? Take away all guns from everybody? Restrict them to just hunting rifles and such and outlaw handguns and other concealable weapons? I'm just wondering what you think is the best idea to this problem

[imported_Kranar]

Maybe it's just my upbringing and the social attitude of my country, but honestly I don't see how anyone can think a gun is a nessecary defensive tool. I mean if a gun is self-defence, then heck may as well let people carry bombs in their house. May as well turn everyone in the U.S. into a one-man militia.

I don't live in the U.S. and I never have, but if the U.S. is so dangerous and the police there are that bad that most citizens need a gun for self protection, then I honestly don't know how to solve the the problem.

However, I don't think it's that dangerous, atleast I hope it's not that dangerous. So if in the off chance I'm right, then my suggestion is to re-shape social attitudes away from the myth that guns will protect you, and treat guns like tools. Keep them for hunting, keep them for sporting, keep them for productive means.

Violent criminals will have guns, of course they will. Criminals can access many things regular citizens can't, that's WHY they're criminals! We've just seen that the most extreme criminals will use airplanes if they have to to kill people. That in no way means citizens should have guns though. You have had your guns for 100s of years and how much safer have they made you? The U.S. is still suffering one of the highest violent crime rates in the free world!

So my only recommendation, my plea infact, is to stop this illusionary belief that you're safe with a gun. It's a proven fact that owning a gun is 6 times more likely to kill an innocent person than to defend. Find an alternative means, heck use stun guns if you have to. They don't kill or do any permanent damage and they knock the target out instantly until the police can come.

Like I said, most of what I believe comes from an entirely different point of view on guns, and maybe in the U.S. it's natural to see guns are valuable self-defence tools, where I live, it's quite the opposite.

[Slider]

Err..Kranar, not sure where you are getting your data from. but maybe this will help

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf

This is the FBI's report on violent crime in the U.S. in 2001, (i would have used 2002, but it is still in it's preliminary stage, and has not yet been released, sorry)

Quote
Weapons Distribution
Data concerning weapons usage are
collected for the crimes of murder, robbery, and
aggravated assault. Personal weapons such as
hands, fists, feet, etc. were used in 31.1 percent
of those crimes. Firearms were involved in 26.2
percent of incidents. Knives or cutting instruments
were used in 14.9 percent of violent
crimes. Other dangerous weapons were
employed in the remaining 27.8 percent of
offenses. (See Tables 19 and 2.10.) Weapon
information is not collected for forcible rape.

So, as you can see, 14,9% of all violent crimes are commited with knives, roughly half of the number that involve firearms, so yes, many people are assaulted, murdered, or robbed using knives, however, no where near as large a number are commited with firearms as you seem to beleive. Also, please note the "other" catagory wich, at 27.8% is higher than incidents involving fireamrs, and consists mainly of "weapons of opportunity" ie. baseball bats, screwdrivers, lead pipes, or any handy blunt object.

Also, please note that according to the same report, and again i Quote:

comparison of the 2001 violent crime estimate
of 1,436,611 with the 2000 estimate demonstrated
a 0.8-percent rise. However, the 2001
number was substantially lower than the violent
crime volumes of both 5 and 10 years ago.
Violent crime estimates in 2001 were 12.2
percent lower than the figure in 1997 and 25.7
percent below the 1992 estimate.


So, as you can see, violent crime in the U.S. while showing a slight increase is still considerably lower than it has been in the past. If you are interested, the FBI's websight has PDF versions of the above statistics, and again, this is the RAW numbers, not what you see after being "tweaked" to prove a political, or personal point of veiw. ( not that anyone would do that of course....)

For further information i direct you to the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Report wich can be found here.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Kranar
Maybe it's just my upbringing and the social attitude of my country, but honestly I don't see how anyone can think a gun is a nessecary defensive tool. I mean if a gun is self-defence, then heck may as well let people carry bombs in their house. May as well turn everyone in the U.S. into a one-man militia.

I don't live in the U.S. and I never have, but if the U.S. is so dangerous and the police there are that bad that most citizens need a gun for self protection, then I honestly don't know how to solve the the problem.

However, I don't think it's that dangerous, atleast I hope it's not that dangerous. So if in the off chance I'm right, then my suggestion is to re-shape social attitudes away from the myth that guns will protect you, and treat guns like tools. Keep them for hunting, keep them for sporting, keep them for productive means.

Violent criminals will have guns, of course they will. Criminals can access many things regular citizens can't, that's WHY they're criminals! We've just seen that the most extreme criminals will use airplanes if they have to to kill people. That in no way means citizens should have guns though. You have had your guns for 100s of years and how much safer have they made you? The U.S. is still suffering one of the highest violent crime rates in the free world!

So my only recommendation, my plea infact, is to stop this illusionary belief that you're safe with a gun. It's a proven fact that owning a gun is 6 times more likely to kill an innocent person than to defend. Find an alternative means, heck use stun guns if you have to. They don't kill or do any permanent damage and they knock the target out instantly until the police can come.

Like I said, most of what I believe comes from an entirely different point of view on guns, and maybe in the U.S. it's natural to see guns are valuable self-defence tools, where I live, it's quite the opposite.

Ah Kranar, I do like hearing your opinion, even when I don't agree with it.

Essentially the issue boils down to a base, or several differing bases‘. Firearms are just a brick in the wall that is the problem.

I'm pretty sure if one were to bother to dig and gather facts about the back grounds of those that commit violent crime with a firearm, you may see childhood issues such as abuse, lack of education, mental illness, and most glaringly, lack of training and respect of said firearms.

When you take the problem (i.e.: deaths due to firearms) down to the root, you're going to find several causes.

Hell, let's take teen pregnancy and abortion down to the roots. Parental neglect, lack of education, lack of sexual education, lack or unavailability of birth control. Think of any more? Would a teen be likely to get pregnant or need an abortion were all of the aforementioned catalysts not present? The likely answer is no. Yet we still have the anti-abortion bandwagon. How much of an impact do you think there would be if even half of that anti-abortion energy were redirected toward the root of the problem?

The same holds true with firearm issues. If even half of the energy put into taking away firearms or even defending the right to own firearms was redirected toward the actual social issues, those staggering figures you posted (that happen to include ALL deaths and injuries taken and doled out by law enforcement) would likely be less than half.

Unfortunately for the U.S, and many other nations, our government doesn't advocate social reform to the cause of most problems, but a means to pacify the immediate issue.

Gun control, abortion, pro-life... yada yada, so on and so forth are the here and now that is shoved in our face. We don't look at the big picture and say "Hmmm... You know if we spent more on education and other social reform programs, this wouldn't be so much of a problem."

You feel these issues less and less in Canada. Anyone can pretty much attend college and get health care, it's socialized. I believe education past high school is socialized anyway.... Correct me if I'm wrong. It is not like that state side. Thus we have to deal with the higher crime rates.

It's political and beaurocratic all at the same time.

And no, I don't believe I'm twelve times more likely to pick up a gun in the heat of passion or rage. I was reared differently. The thought of taking a life turns my stomach, and the few times I have been at the point of rage, I have taken out on the punching bag, or some poor farmers corn field. That is how I was taught to vent, at the inanimate, not the living.

Another issue you must look at is our Second Amendment. It was placed there for a reason. Consider the general populace of the U.S. to be part of the checks and balances of the Federal and State governments. What would you do, Kranar, if your own Canadian government declared martial law and enforced curfews? What would you do if they decided that every person not of European descent, or of original Canadian citizenry (naturalized citizens, former immigrants) were to be gathered up and then transported to camps in the northern most regions of your nation? Your firearms were taken years ago. Will you fight with forks, knives and screwdrivers in the face of fully automatic assault rifles? It could be any atrocity to your freedom, family and lively hood. You and your neighbors have no way of defending yourselves. How are you to retaliate?

Look at Iraq. Look at pre-WWII Germany. Look at any instance where the people's weapons were taken away. This is why we have our Second Amendment.

[imported_Kranar]

<< Err..Kranar, not sure where you are getting your data from. but maybe this will help >>

Your stats are absolutely correct. My reference was only to homicide, whereas your numbers refer to murder and assault and robbery combined. There are far more assaults than robberies, and far more robberies than homicides, so the statistics don't surprise me. The purpose of my statistic in my argument was to say: Hey, if criminals can kill people using screw drivers and knives and so on... then why are 71 percent of homicides (and only homicides) committed using a gun?

Not that 71 percent of ALL crimes or even violent crimes use guns, but just 71 percent of homicides.

Hope that clarifies it.

<< And no, I don't believe I'm twelve times more likely to pick up a gun in the heat of passion or rage. I was reared differently. The thought of taking a life turns my stomach, and the few times I have been at the point of rage, I have taken out on the punching bag, or some poor farmers corn field. That is how I was taught to vent, at the inanimate, not the living. >>

Yes you would act in that way because you're well disciplined. However, I think the misconception here is that murderers are all people who wear black masks and stalk the streets at night, or are creepy out of control people. Unfortunately, 41 percent of all murders in the U.S. are just people who are damn angry and happen to have a gun available. Husband/wife disputes, loans between "friends", people who aquired a gun legally thinking it would be used in self defence, who end up using it to kill someone who's innocent. No... 41 percent is not the majority, but yes, that's a significant number.

I think if you eliminate guns for self-defence, you'll see that number drop.

<< Gun control, abortion, pro-life... yada yada, so on and so forth are the here and now that is shoved in our face. We don't look at the big picture and say "Hmmm... You know if we spent more on education and other social reform programs, this wouldn't be so much of a problem." >>

I definitely agree with this. I don't think the government can even just step in one day and say "Everybody give up your guns."

I'm for changing social attitudes towards guns rather than having the government stepping in and force it. I just think the government should play a more active role in shaping social attitudes towards guns.

<< Your firearms were taken years ago. Will you fight with forks, knives and screwdrivers in the face of fully automatic assault rifles? It could be any atrocity to your freedom, family and lively hood. You and your neighbors have no way of defending yourselves. How are you to retaliate? >>

Quite frankly, if the U.S. army started a war against a state, or a minority, or implemented martial law in a city/state, you can have all the guns you want. It won't do a thing.

You don't really think people with assault rifles or even bazookas can take out the U.S. army, do you?