Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]
gun control
    #1975538 -

*Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

That amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments - governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.



A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal.

An unarmed man has no chance at all against an oppressive, tyrannical government.



Remember this the next time you hear the New World Order Gang touting the virtues of more gun control.

WE MUST RESIST


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975545 -

interesting numbers.

where did you snatch this from?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: afoaf]
    #1975564 -

I had it from a report I did

I'll have to find the link.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975573 -

you will now get a storm of people posting to point out that gun control was established in china, germany, and cambodia before the offending regimes came to power.

which i'd like to just point out beforehand is totally irrelevant.

you'll also get people posting to say that guns are no match for the US military...

this will be the argument of those with a poor historical perspective or understanding of the nature of rebellion, revolution, civil war, or combat in general.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975629 -

http://www.cphv.com/artworld.htm
here is the link.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975638 -

1999 Australia establishes gun control.
Law-abiding citizens were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms for destruction, a program costing the government more than $500 million.

The results Australia-wide:

Homicides are up 3.2%
Assaults are up 8%
Armed Robberies are up 44%

In the State of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in ?safety? has been observed after such a monumental effort was expended in ?ridding society of guns.?

In a mere 100 years, more than 56 Million people, unable to defend themselves because of gun control, have lost their lives and property. Gunsin the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens as criminals will always find a way to obtain weapons

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975659 -

good post Joe, now you'll get some replies claiming you're an extreme right-winger, insensitive and a redneck.


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

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1975676 -

I am.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975682 -

Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens as criminals will always find a way to obtain weapons

not absolutely true but certainly a clear trend.

gun control may make it harder for criminals to get guns. it will make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to do so. whatever the street-level actualities are, the statistics tell the full story. gun control does not decrease crime; more often it increases it. it is an expensive, intrusive governmental policy that robs free citizens of one of their most fundamental rights and bears the earmark of bad legislation: it makes a crime out of something which is not a crime.

a people disarmed are not free.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975690 -

As long as there is plumbing in existence, I have access to firearms.

:smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975701 -

ha, good for you.


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

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1975801 -

Whether gun control is a good thing or not, this is an invalid, stupid, and underhanded way of presenting an argument.

Yes, gun control has been used by dictators in efforts to weaken the populace. Does this mean that gun control = dictatorship? No. Not at all, not even remotely.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Phluck]
    #1975819 -

are you willing to trust governments who in fact favor taking guns away from their citizens? I for one don't trust the government to give me the truth, let alone trust them to not turn on its citizens.

Gun Control may not immediatly equal dictatorship, but it does make it easier to have one if they so desire.


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

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Phluck]
    #1975843 -

can you give a counterexample of genocide occuring against an armed populace?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1976121 -

Gun death's have gone up here 200% in the last 5 years..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1976129 -

_JOE_ said:
I am.


...and I love you for it.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1976148 -

seriously. blanket gun control is a completely irrational policy, (unless you happen to be a tyrannical ruler, and then it makes perfect sense).

people convicted of felonies (violent ones), the mentally ill or disabled, and children should be the only ones barred from owning or carrying guns. you shouldn't even need a permit to carry a weapon. if you're an adult with a clean record, your right to carry is a given....

people could of course prohibit carrying of weapons on their own property if they desired, and the government could restrict it in places like courthouses. this blanket banning of guns in entire cities is completely unconsitutional to say the least.

there should also be few restrictions on the types of guns allowed. there should be no laws restricting magazine capacities, no laws restricting semi- or fully automatic fire, and no laws against bayonet mounts, pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Bhairabas]
    #1976149 -

where? link?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1976257 -

JOE, could you check this...

Quote:
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=32
Melbourne - The US National Rifle Association (NRA), led by actor Charlton Heston, and other pro-gun groups are actively promoting misinformation on the results of Australia's tough Uniform Agreement on Gun Laws, adopted by all States and Territories following Martin Bryant's April 28 1996 rampage and massacre of 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

Claim 4. In Victoria there was a 300% increase in homicides following the new laws. In fact the homicide rate in Victoria dropped by 19.8% in 1998. Victoria has for many years had the lowest homicide rate of the six Australian states.


Quote:
http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/documents/research/2000/aussie_guns.htm
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.



BTW, I saw the NRA "infomercial" on Australia (I downloaded it) and it was a spin job. If you cite Aussie sources be accurate, as what you've posted (on Australia) is bunk. Put simply, it's safer in Australia than in the US because people here are not armed to the teeth.

If you would like to see your source -- a chain letter -- then see it undressed re: the homocides, robbery & assaults. Hit this link...

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html

IMO, it's some crafted NRA chain letter, with a "Hi Yanks" to sound so cobber LMAO, so not content they pimped an "infomercial" of misinformation. Pathetic. But hey, why let truth get in the way of an agenda?


--------------------
Convert Metric and Imperial.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Starter]
    #1976285 -

here's a good discussion about statistical analysis of the supply of guns and its effect on crime in the US:

page

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Starter]
    #1976290 -

Claim 4. In Victoria there was a 300% increase in homicides following the new laws. In fact the homicide rate in Victoria dropped by 19.8% in 1998. Victoria has for many years had the lowest homicide rate of the six Australian states.

Ouch!

If you would like to see your source -- a chain letter

That had to hurt  :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Starter]
    #1976363 -

my stats are from 99 your are from 98 and before

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1976368 -

It's from a chain letter tho?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1976453 -

not that I'm aware of.


I'll search to find who exactly made these stats
not who is reporting them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1976499 -

>>>I'll search to find who exactly made these stats

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html

Read the chain letter (which is the *source*) in the link ^above. At the same link you'll read this...

"1999 - 14 (17.6% decrease from 1998 to 1999)."

...so much for not 1999 eh. Gets beter, that's 14 in a whole state, the 2nd most populated state of Oz and the article goes on and says...

"Regardless, in the United States - where most major cities have 7-14 homicides in a month - we would kill (pun intended) for crime rates that low."

Yep, an American site undressing the spin. So I can't be accussed of bias. I think quit while behind and best hope the rest of the other nations info wasn't *sourced* similar?


--------------------
Convert Metric and Imperial.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Starter]
    #1977983 -

Have any of you gun advocates used your gun to save a life (At home in America, not at war)?

Have any of you advocates seen someone hurt or killed by a gun (OK... now war can count)?

I don't know. All this gun talk is driving me crazy. Freedom! The right to bear arms... bla... bla... bla...

...and now for something completely different!

I smoke cigarettes and every time I've moved to a new state, they outlaw smoking in bars and resturaunts a year or two after I arive. Every time this happens, I hear the same bitches and moans from my fellow smokers (especially at bars!). Smokers feal like a right had been taken away when they were banned from smoking. They have had their rights taken away. But it isn't the end of the world. What? Do they realy think America is a free country? Hahaha...haha...ha...

Why don't Americans have hash bars :bong:? Why can't Americans grow psylocybes ? Why no acid or extacy :pill:? Come on... there's more logic behind gun control than drug control. Guns have been used to kill innocent victims. Drugs have been used to make innocent victims horny.

But back to cigarettes :spliff:... the simple fact is, smoke can bother and physically harm everybody who breathes it. Non smokers (especially employees of a smoke filled establishment) could suffer the same effects as a smoker would.

Guns are similar to cigarettes. They smoke, they kill and they sometimes claim innocent victims. If I can step outside and have a smoke, can't we all give up our semi automatic handguns and automatic weapons?

For those of you that insist on keeping guns for protection, can I suggest some Karate classes? The classes will, also, improve your psychadelic experience.  :mushroom2:  :ooo:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1977991 -

For those of you that insist on keeping guns for protection, can I suggest some Karate classes? The classes will, also, improve your psychadelic experience. 

:laugh:  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1978020 -

I've been a martial arts student on and off since the early 80s. Most serious self defense instructors I've had (as opposed to sport fighting) are also gun owners.

Don't bring chop-socky to a gunfight. Alex Gong found that out the hard way a couple of months ago, and he was damn near invincible in the Muay Thai ring.

Then again, don't bring most karate to a streetfight, either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978029 -

Fortunately, I've never been in a gunfight. You don't tend to see many guns in the UK. (Maybe because guns are controlled)


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1978038 -

Don't bring it to a knife fight, either. If someone has a knife, shoot them or run. It's actually a lot easier to take a gun away from an assailant than a knife.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978040 -

I don't know why people are in to military martial arts/self defense. It's really not that great. You don't need Kung-Fu and shit when you have grenades and machine guns (do they even use bayonettes anymore?)


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978044 -

Personally I'd rather take my chances against the knife.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1978052 -

It depends on the distance,skill of the attacker,etc.

I think I'd probably go with a knife too,but I'd rather get a clean shot in the head than get stabbed to death.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1978053 -

Yes, they use bayonets sometimes. They are a great deterrent for crowd control.

Unarmed Combat is very important to learn if you are doing any sort of policing, especially weapons retention. Traditional martial arts arent very good for this, but modern 'scientific' ones are. Krav Maga and Jeet Kun Do are good examples, or Denfendu.

You are correct that the average infantryman will probably never use his hand-to-hand training, which is why most of them get very little of it. They are much better off using that training time on other things.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1978055 -

Notice, Americans don't have grenade and machine gun control issues?

I'm talking about something more spiritual than Karate (I know... I said karate... don't hurt me!) like Shing-Yi, Tai-Chi or Bah-Ghua. Something that will teach you about balance, harmony, zen, killing.... and open your mind man...


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1978063 -

Hey, it's your funeral. Ask any CQB instructor, or someone over on selfdefenseforums.com.

What kind of training do you have? I've been asking you that for like 2 months now.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978074 -

The best defense is a cabin in North Dakota!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978077 -

You'd rather fight someone who had a gun rather than a knife?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1978079 -

On second thought... I just saw "Fargo" again... watch for wood chippers.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1978101 -

If I was forced to try and take a wepon away from someone, then a gun is a lot easier than a knife at short distances. You just need to get the gun off-line, i.e. not pointed at you, and then it doesn't matter if it discharges. Also, if you have a good grip on it the slide cannot recoil, or the cylinder cannot rotate.

With a knife you can just try to absorb the damage with a non-vital part of your body and try to force the blade away while you inflict damage. You can't actually grab a knife, for obvious reasons.

If the guy with a knife is far away, say 30 feet or greater, then you can just run away. If someone is aiming a gun at you from more than 15 feet you are probably just fucked. Most robbers or rapists don't stay that far away, though.

Decades of police research has shown that the distance an average attacker can cover before being shot is 21 feet. If anyone pulls a knife on you at that range shoot them unless you can run.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978115 -

Unless they are just showing you their knife.

"Hey! You! Look at my cool knife!"

BLAM!

I don't know about everybody else, but, in my life, I've had more knives shown to me than pulled on me.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1978123 -

obviously. don't try showing cops your neat new knife, though

hey, alliteration :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1978127 -

Officer, Help! Come here! My knife won't work!

BLAMMO!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1978655 -

Have any of you gun advocates used your gun to save a life (At home in America, not at war)?

i haven't. different studies have found that guns are used defensively in the US between 800,000 and 2.5 million times a year. the most recent studies placed the number at 2 million times a year.

How Often Are Guns Used In Self Defense?

Have any of you advocates seen someone hurt or killed by a gun (OK... now war can count)?

does seeing video recordings count?

I don't know. All this gun talk is driving me crazy. Freedom! The right to bear arms... bla... bla... bla...

why should peaceful, law-abiding citizens be disarmed?

Why don't Americans have hash bars ? Why can't Americans grow psylocybes ? Why no acid or extacy ?

irrelevant to the discussion.

there's more logic behind gun control than drug control.

no there isn't. they both seek to prohibit actions which harm no-one. the act of owning a gun, or using drugs, are both victimless crimes.

in the case of drug restrictions, your right to get stoned is violated.
in the case of gun restrictions, your right to defend your own life is violated.

Guns have been used to kill innocent victims.

by criminals. let's talk about gun homocides for a minute... here are some stats about the people who are out there killing people:

-81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.
-66% have two or more arrests.
-67% have at least one felony arrest.
-56% have two or more felony arrests.
-70% have at least one conviction.
-54% have at least one felony conviction.

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics

meanwhile, the average jail time for rape is something like 4 years and average jail time for murder is something like 6 or 7 years.

here's a novel idea: instead of trying to reduce crime by banning gun ownership by law-abiding citizens (which will not work anyway), we crack down on crime by enforcing extremely tough measures against gun possession by ex-cons, and give people more time than 7 years for murder when they kill someone.

Guns are similar to cigarettes. They smoke, they kill and they sometimes claim innocent victims. If I can step outside and have a smoke, can't we all give up our semi automatic handguns and automatic weapons?

this is an extremely poor analogy. let's say you're simply carrying a pack of cigarettes inside, and not smoking them (analogous to carrying a weapon and not shooting people)... what's wrong with that?

For those of you that insist on keeping guns for protection, can I suggest some Karate classes?

fists are useless against an armed attacker.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1978799 -

why should peaceful, law-abiding citizens be disarmed?

Perhaps because any peaceful law abiding citizen can be transformed into a violent lunatic after a few bottles of beer? I'd rather have someone coming at me with his fists than firing a pistol at me.

no there isn't. they both seek to prohibit actions which harm no-one. the act of owning a gun, or using drugs, are both victimless crimes.

I've no problem with the act of owning a gun, it's the act of someone firing bullets at me I take exception to. If they're happy to own a gun with no bullets that's fine - they can own as many guns as they want.

in the case of gun restrictions, your right to defend your own life is violated.

No it isn't. Why stop at guns? What if your assailant comes at you with a grenade launcher and your .38 is useless? Would you support the right of everyone to own a grenade launcher? Or is preventing this a violation of your right to defend your life?

And the last thing I need is some asshole pulling out his .38 in blind panic and accidentally putting 6 bullets into my loved ones as he attempts to "defend his life" from his assailant. What if firing bullets to defend your life puts an innocent passersby right to life at risk? (btw how does that fit in with libertarian philosophy?)


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1978939 -

Perhaps because any peaceful law abiding citizen can be transformed into a violent lunatic after a few bottles of beer? I'd rather have someone coming at me with his fists than firing a pistol at me.

citing hypothetical anecdotes statistically proven to be extremely rare does little for your argument.

have a read...

"Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four.

Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records.

Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule...."

- Gun Homocides

I've no problem with the act of owning a gun, it's the act of someone firing bullets at me I take exception to. If they're happy to own a gun with no bullets that's fine - they can own as many guns as they want.

if it is not having bullets fired at you which is your concern, what about someone having a gun with bullets in it... but not firing it at you? as far as you're concerned, the result is the same, is it not?

No it isn't. Why stop at guns? What if your assailant comes at you with a grenade launcher and your .38 is useless? Would you support the right of everyone to own a grenade launcher? Or is preventing this a violation of your right to defend your life?

there is a large difference between owning a grenade launcher and owning a pistol. the primary difference is that a grenade launcher makes an extremely poor defensive weapon. in fact, a grenade launcher is a far less effective weapon for defensive purposes than a .38.

again.... this is totally fallacious reasoning.

Argument of the Beard

And the last thing I need is some asshole pulling out his .38 in blind panic and accidentally putting 6 bullets into my loved ones as he attempts to "defend his life" from his assailant. What if firing bullets to defend your life puts an innocent passersby right to life at risk?

again you stoop to the level of citing statistically insignificant horror stories... surely after seeing this tactic used by the drug warriors for decades you would have realized how fallacious it was... apparently not.

do yourself, and everyone else here, a favor and learn how to construct a valid deductive argument. a little reason goes a long way. here:this site is an excellent introduction. at the very least, familiarize yourself with the common logical fallacies.

two you would do well to read up on are:

Tu Quoque Fallacy
Straw Man

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979034 -

The only purpose of a handgun is killing people. Handguns aren't effective hunting weapons. They are good defensive weapons. I prefer to use my brain.

Excerpt from mushmaster:
Have any of you gun advocates used your gun to save a life (At home in America, not at war)?

i haven't. different studies have found that guns are used defensively in the US between 800,000 and 2.5 million times a year. the most recent studies placed the number at 2 million times a year.

How Often Are Guns Used In Self Defense? (Link)
__________
This study is pointless. Dude. You can't count crimes that didn't happen. Actual estimates are much more conservative than 2.5 million. This study says nothing of violent crime. This study counts how many guns were drawn to prevent any crime.

A farmer, drawing his shotgun at his 15 year old daughter's frisky boyfriend would (technically)count as a gun drawn to prevent crime.

The study does nothing to answer this: How many people actually committed a crime by drawing their gun in the first place?

*Excerpt 2:
let's talk about gun homocides for a minute... here are some stats about the people who are out there killing people with guns:

-81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.
-66% have two or more arrests.
-67% have at least one felony arrest.
-56% have two or more felony arrests.
-70% have at least one conviction.
-54% have at least one felony conviction.
______
How many members of this forum have police records? I do.

Excerpt 3:
Guns are similar to cigarettes. They smoke, they kill and they sometimes claim innocent victims. If I can step outside and have a smoke, can't we all give up our semi automatic handguns and automatic weapons?

this is an extremely poor analogy. let's say you're simply carrying a pack of cigarettes inside, and not smoking them (analogous to carrying a weapon and not shooting people)... what's wrong with that?
_____________

The analogy was more for fun than serious... and remember I only want to restrict handguns and autos.

Handguns are easily hidden in urban environments.

I was refering to a smoking gun and a smoking cigarette but ok... let's use your example.

In your analogy, only the gun carrier could kill me with one shot. The person with the pack of smokes would be out on a smoke break while I was shot.

Something I find we all have in common:

Fear.

Gun owners are afraid of everyone who wants to hurt them.

Pacifists are afraid of all the gun owners. Hard to tell the difference sometimes between a criminal and someone who uses a gun for self defense.

Excerpt 4:
there's more logic behind gun control than drug control.

no there isn't. they both seek to prohibit actions which harm no-one. the act of owning a gun, or using drugs, are both victimless crimes.

in the case of drug restrictions, your right to get stoned is violated.
in the case of gun restrictions, your right to defend your own life is violated.
______
Yes but drugs don't kill people who don't use them.

Excerpt 5:
For those of you that insist on keeping guns for protection, can I suggest some Karate classes?

fists are useless against an armed attacker.
_________

I'll take my chances. I can still leave my house without fear of being shot. In fact, terrorists in airplanes are the only people who have come close to murdering me. Fists are useless against them too.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979071 -

The problem with gun control is the only people who give there guns up are law abiding citezens.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979078 -

The only purpose of a handgun is killing people. Handguns aren't effective hunting weapons.

though it's irrelevant, i'd like to just correct you and point out that many people use handguns for hunting. people also shoot targets (i believe this is an olympic sport, no?).

handguns are also good just for brandishing. studies have shown that in 98% of cases, merely drawing a firearm, and not firing it, is enough to dissuade an attacker.

This study is pointless. Dude. You can't count crimes that didn't happen.

yes you can. it's pretty obvious when someone is attacking you, and it's also very obvious to see when your presentation of a firearm thwarts that attack.

we're not talking about someone saying, "yeah.. i was in a really shitty neighborhood, so i walked with my handgun slightly exposed so that people would see it and i wouldn't get mugged... no one attacked me that day, so yep, check another one off for a handgun preventing a crime".

Actual estimates are much more conservative than 2.5 million.

correct. 2.5 million is the highest number. i've seen as low as 800,000. at 800,000, it's still an extremely significant point to consider.

This study says nothing of violent crime. This study counts how many guns were drawn to prevent any crime.

give me one example of a non-violent crime that could be thwarted by the victim drawing a gun.

The study does nothing to answer this: How many people actually committed a crime by drawing their gun in the first place?

of course it doesn't. it's addressing the point of self-defense, not crime.

How many members of this forum have police records? I do.

do not compare the records of murder convicts to the members of this forum, compare them to the general population. (i would venture to say that few of us have criminal records anyway, and extremely few have felonies.)

Gun owners are afraid of everyone who wants to hurt them.

broad, untestable generalization.

Pacifists are afraid of all the gun owners. Hard to tell the difference sometimes between a criminal and someone who uses a gun for self defense.

and another.

Yes but drugs don't kill people who don't use them.

correct. this is why they are very poor for self-defense, while guns are much better.

I'll take my chances. I can still leave my house without fear of being shot. In fact, terrorists in airplanes are the only people who have come close to murdering me. Fists are useless against them too.

good for you. what about others who do not wish to take the same chance?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #1979080 -

The problem with gun control is the only people who give there guns up are law abiding citezens.

ding ding ding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979083 -

there is an attitude very common amongst gun ban-ers.

it is:

guns are weapons. they are used to kill people. therefore, guns are bad. therefore, we should ban them.

to date, i have yet to find that the line of reasoning extends any further than that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979099 -

citing hypothetical anecdotes statistically proven to be extremely rare does little for your argument

It's rare for people to get violent after drinking? What planet are you from? Is a violent man more dangerous with a gun or without a gun?

have a read...

None of this has the faintest thing to do with my point. Straw man?

there is a large difference between owning a grenade launcher and owning a pistol

As big a difference between fists and having a gun?

in fact, a grenade launcher is a far less effective weapon for defensive purposes than a .38.

Again, this really has nothing to do with the point. Not to mention being utterly ludicrous. If i want to kill you I can do it far more effectively with a grenade launcher than a .38.  Why isn't this a "violation of your right to life"?

again you stoop to the level of citing statistically insignificant horror stories

I presume you imagine the cases where people pull guns on burglars and women pull guns on mass murderes down dark alleyways are statistically significant?  :rolleyes:

do yourself, and everyone else here,

Why not do everyone a big favour and just answer the points instead of constantly ducking the issue or posting the same tiresome personal insults you've been repeating for months? 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979101 -

I carry a gun. a 9mm.
My girlfriend carrys a gun also
we both went to conceal and carry class
and got our permits
we had to take a class in saftey and proper handling of a gun
go over laws about carrying a concealed weapon
you have to take a test over all this.
what to do and not do in certain situation.
we also had to go out to the range and do drills
shooting to prove we had dead on marksmanship
you have to be dead on or you don't pass this part of the test.
if you fail either of the tests you don't qualify
then you have to submit your fingerprints to the FBI and your local sherriff. then they both have to decide if you get your permit.
you have to pay over 300 for the class and application fee and fingerprinting charge all of this is non refundable if you get turned down.
people who get these permits are not some nuts.
who have no shooting skills
they are competent people
who are good shooters.
were not just going to be blasting away at someone in a crowd.
we know the gun laws better that anyone
we know what will happen after we use our gun
we know if we do something wrong
we know will be fucked

I also have a friends whos aunt and uncle had people kick there door in demanding car keys and money,they proceded ti shoot his uncle with a 22 rifle
he feel back onto the couch
while his wife ran into there bedroom retreving her handgun
the attackers came at her she put 2 rounds into one guys chest and an a round into his neck
stopping his progress toward her
this frightended the other attacker into runnning out of the house.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979105 -

I also have a friends whos aunt and uncle had people kick there door in demanding car keys and money,they proceded ti shoot his uncle with a

I'm afraid mushmaster has insisted statistically insignificant stories like this don't count  :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1979134 -

It's rare for people to get violent after drinking? What planet are you from? Is a violent man more dangerous with a gun or without a gun?

it is statistically rare for someone to go into a drunken or angry rage and start shooting people. you could have figured that out from reading the link i posted.

None of this has the faintest thing to do with my point.

ah... apparently you did not read it.

Straw man?

you also do not seem to be familiar with the definition of a straw man. perhaps this is why you so frequently use this fallacious strategy of argumentation.

i directly attacked your statement. i did not misrepresent, exaggerate, or caricature it. the fact is that it is very rare for someone to go into a drunken rage and start shooting.

As big a difference between fists and having a gun?

no. there is a large difference between these as well. however, one important aspect that they both share is that they can both be effective defensive weapons. a grenade launcher cannot.

Again, this really has nothing to do with the point. Not to mention being utterly ludicrous. If i want to kill you I can do it far more effectively with a grenade launcher than a .38. Why isn't this a "violation of your right to life"?

can someone with some military training back me up here?

a grenade launcher is a poor defensive weapon.

for one, it is typically very large. carrying one with you to defend yourself from muggers and the like is unreasonable.

two, a grenade launcher is useless for using indoors or at close ranges. this makes it totally useless for any civilian defensive applications.

a grenade launcher can kill more effectively than a pistol. of course. it is an excellent weapon for attack. it is, however, a very poor defensive weapon. this is all precisely why it is unwarranted for civilians to be authorized to own grenade launchers.

I presume you imagine the cases where people pull guns on burglars and women pull guns on mass murderes down dark alleyways are statistically significant?

what?

Why not do everyone a big favour and just answer the points instead of constantly ducking the issue or posting the same tiresome personal insults you've been repeating for months?

haha... classic alexism. classic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1979136 -

I'm afraid mushmaster has insisted statistically insignificant stories like this don't count

they don't alex. we're talking about general trends. aggregates. the BIG PICTURE.

anecdotes have no place here.

if i was of the impression that anecdotes were a valid point for argumentation, i would have already linked to this: The Armed Citizen: Search Archives

Edited by mushmaster (10/04/03 02:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979182 -

Mush: give me one example of a non-violent crime that could be thwarted by the victim drawing a gun.
_______-
I did.

Re read my post. If you don't want to, allow me to recap:

A farmer draws a shotgun at his daughter's frisky boyfriend and chases him away.

There.

A non violent crime was prevented.

here's another

A street dealer tries to sell a farmer cocaine. The farmer draws his gun, chases the dealer away and a non violent crime is prevented.

Here's a third and funny (ie: don't rebute it!) one.

A grandma tried to jaywalk. A farmer pulls a gun and tells her to get back on the sidewalk.

Go prevention!

Not only were guns used in all these preventitive acts, they were unneccicary.

Mushmaster quote: yes you can (When he was told crimes that don't happen can't be counted)
____
Now, Mush, you can't call a crime that wasn't committed a crime. Who's to say it would have happened if it never did? You know that whole tree falling in the woods thing?

2nd excerpt:
i'd like to just correct you and point out that many people use handguns for hunting. people also shoot targets (i believe this is an olympic sport, no?).
____
You missed my point completely. Handguns were designed to kill people at close range. Sure they can be used in hunting... so can blow darts. It doesn't mean they are as effective as a rifle.

Handguns ARE effective at being concealed.

You go on to say handguns can be used in target practice (Where you use human shaped targets!) and in the Olympics (Not handguns buddy. You're confusing facts.)


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979194 -

I do like your fealon gun control idea.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979210 -

A farmer draws a shotgun at his daughter's frisky boyfriend and chases him away. there. a non-violent crime was prevented

unless you are referring to rape, which is a violent crime, there is no crime being threatened or prevented here.

A street dealer tries to sell a farmer cocaine. The farmer draws his gun, chases the dealer away and a non violent crime is prevented.

haha. please. that's absurd. the gun did not prevent any crime. saying "no thank you" would have been enough.

the studies were about use of guns used in self-defense. only one of your "examples" could be possibly construed as such, and even then only by an extreme lapse in reason.

Now, Mush, you can't call a crime that wasn't committed a crime. Who's to say it would have happened if it never did? You know that whole tree falling in the woods thing?

yes, i suppose at the last minute, it is entirely possible that the armed attacker would just drop it and exclaim, "hahaha... i'm just playin' with you man... it's cool... let me buy you a drink". i suppose the possibilty for this would be greatly increased as well if it happened to be the first of april...  :smirk:. please.

by this logic, it is impossible to prevent any crime from occuring before it actually does.

You go on to say handguns can be used in target practice (Where you use human shaped targets!) and in the Olympics (Not handguns buddy. You're confusing facts.)

Olympic Sports: Shooting 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979226 -

*Mushmaster excerpt: A farmer draws a shotgun at his daughter's frisky boyfriend and chases him away. there. a non-violent crime was prevented

unless you are referring to rape, which is a violent crime, there is no crime being threatened or prevented here.
_______
Statutory rape is exactly what I'm referring to. Those laws can be very vague. Especially on the farmer's front porch!

*Excerpt #2: A street dealer tries to sell a farmer cocaine. The farmer draws his gun, chases the dealer away and a non violent crime is prevented.

haha. please. that's absurd. the gun did not prevent any crime. saying "no thank you" would have been enough.

the studies were about use of guns used in self-defense. only one of your "examples" could be possibly construed as such, even by the most extreme lapses in judgement.
________
You asked me to list non violent crimes that could be prevented, then you go back to your study of violent crime and handguns. I repeat. You asked for NON VIOLENT examples. I was only providing you with what you asked for. You can't disagree with that.

Self defense is a different thing entirely. Equally hard to study but different.

Excerpt 3: http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/disciplines_uk.asp?DiscCode=SH

Touche. There is a 25m and 50m comp. I didn't even know that. Knew about the air pistols and rifles. I learned something today.

Now, I know handguns are good for killing and Olympic events. Now, I feel bad for thinking hadguns should be outlawed. They are so useful. I could do great things with a handgun... I could kill at close range or... win the gold!

I can sleep easier. Thanks.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979261 -

On second thought, after looking at 2000's medal winners in shooting, I see no Americans. I also, see a lot of winners from countries with more strict gun control laws than America.

Guess my Olympic dreams are shattered.

Perhaps Americans don't need our handguns after all. Maybe then, we'll start winning.

Washington Post Oct 2000
Shooting
Men?s air pistol
Gold: Franck Dumoulin, France
Silver: Wang Yifu, China
Bronze: Igor Basinsky, Belarus

Men?s free pistol
Gold: Tanyu Kiriakov, Bulgaria
Silver: Igor Basinsky, Belarus
Bronze: Martin Tenk, Czech Republic

Men?s rapid fire pistol
Gold: Serguei Alifirenko, Russia
Silver: Michel Ansermet, Switzerland
Bronze: Iulian Raicea, Romania

Men?s trap
Gold: Michael Diamond, Australia
Silver: Ian Peel, Britain
Bronze: Giovanni Pellielo, Italy

Men?s double trap
Gold: Richard Faulds, Britain
Silver: Russell Mark, Australia
Bronze: Fehaid Al Deehani, Kuwait

Men?s air rifle
Gold: Cai Yalin, China
Silver: Artem Khadjibekov, Russia
Bronze: Evgueni Aleinikov, Russia

Men?s running target
Gold: Yang Ling, China
Silver: Oleg Moldovan, Moldova
Bronze: Niu Zhiyuan, China

Men?s rifle prone
Gold: Jonas Edman, Sweden
Silver: Torben Grimmel, Denmark
Bronze: Sergei Martynov, Belarus

Men?s rifle three-position
Gold: Rajmond Debevec, Slovenia
Silver: Juha Hirvi, Finland
Bronze: Harald Stenvaag, Norway

Here's the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/olympics/daily/oct00/01/list2.htm


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979262 -

when it is said that a gun was used for self-defense, it is meant that the gun was essential and primary for self-defense. it is meant that without the gun, self-defense would have been much more difficult or impossible.

if the gun isn't used in self-defense, it's not used in self-defense.

citing examples of possible exceptions where a gun was used, but not essential, to self-defense is flawed. your cocaine reference is an example of this.

the "victim" was not forcefully threatened, and so a gun was unnessessary for self-defense. the gun was not used in self-defense. it was merely waived around to unnecessarily frighten someone.

as far as "statutory rape"... the courts have decided that until a certain age, a person is unable to properly consent to sexual activities with someone a certain age older than them. 'statutory rape' is thus so-named because it is considered by the courts to be a non-consensual sexual act. the courts have decided that sex with a minor is actually an initiation of force. if you agree with this position, then your farmer example is an example of a gun being used to prevent a violent crime. if you don't agree with it, then in your view statutory rape is neither forceful nor a 'crime' in the true sense.

to use force in self-defense, you must be threatened by force. it really is that simple. self-defensive use of force means defense from force.

the fact that your examples are so poor certainly bears testament to this.

you're really grasping at straws. is there are no better way to refute the studies we're talking about?

Now I know handguns are good for killing

in 98% of cases, merely brandishing a firearm is enough to dissuade a would-be attacker. it is a rare instance for someone to be compelled to take the life of another person in self-defense.... when it does happen, it is justified. do you believe that it is never justifiable to kill another person?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979273 -

I think it is unjustified to shoot first and ask questions later.

I've had 100% success without a gun (except for my run in with the flying terrorists!).

I can think of no time in my life where I wished I had a gun for protection.

I can think of no time in my life where I needed a gun for protection.

As an unarmed citizen, I just avoid fights. It works. I'm living proof.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979279 -

stop for a moment. step back from this debate and the position you've tied yourself to. open your mind.

try looking at this from a fresh perspective, untainted by formerly acquired notions and ideas.

the studies are entirely valid. you are refuting them with ridiculous arguments for no other reason than that you personally do not wish to believe them.

can't you see that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979283 -

there are many other citizens who are living proof that guns do work in self-defense.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979284 -

Don't Libretarians believe the GOVERNMENT's only purpose is to protect its citizens?

Why not let the military, police and criminals use the handguns?

We can stick with our shotguns, rifles and pellet guns. Guns that can catch us a dinner!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979304 -

i'd really like to repeat:

there is an attitude very common amongst gun ban-ers.

it is:

guns are weapons. they are used to kill people. therefore, guns are bad. therefore, we should ban them.

to date, i have yet to find that the line of reasoning extends any further than that.

i have yet to hear any gun ban-er who can hold his own in a debate on the subject. not once has the position held up to logical scrutiny. not once.

on many issues, there are valid points on both sides. usually, disagreement is born of different values, not different perceptions or different levels of ignorance.

on the gun debate, i have found this not to be the case. the values we are arguing for are not controversial. it is pretty universal that we all wish to see a reduction in violent crime. we all think safety from crime is a good thing. where we differ is our opinion on how this can be best acheived.

it is not values the cause our differences in this debate, but levels of awareness... extent of knowledge.

i have consistantly found gun ban-ers to be extremely ill-informed about the facts of gun policy.... full of false notions and ideas which are rarely gracefully abandoned.

while i can respect positions born of different values, i cannot respect an arguement born out of ignorance and defended out of necessity of ego.

i am tired of debating this. i only hope that at least some people reading this discussion are a little better informed after reading the arguments made.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979305 -

yes, this is the only rightful purpose of government.

the government cannot be everywhere. individuals have a right to defend themselves from an initiation of force.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979311 -

Your link about guns and self defense is good but it lists a range of 100,000 - 2.5 million (Not a very solid study if you ask me)... not 800,000 like you have repeatedly stated. Yes, 800,000 is the lowest number listed in this study but ABC news uses 100,000 to 2.5 million. Since they are neutral, I'll use their stats.

Check the links that are on that page. Several of them cast quite a bit of doubt on your study. I did read it with an open mind.

I think we should have a right to bear arms. I just see handguns as more harm than good. I feel the same about automatic weapons.

Guns made to kill PEOPLE and sold to CIVILIANS are no longer needed in America. The Wild West was won.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979323 -

think what you'd like. the facts are out there and it does not appear that your mind is open to change on this.

your last post contained at least one fallacious argment and one glaringly inaccurate statement, but i suppose it will only be a waste of my time to point them out.

fortunately, our constitution still protects the right for peaceful citizens to keep and bear arms. though respect for the 2nd ammendment comes and goes in our legislative bodies, i have a feeling that the general right to own weapons will not be stripped away any time soon. for this i am glad. should the day come when the right is stripped away, i will not surrender my weapons, and neither will any other american who loves freedom more than he does his government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979331 -

Mushmaster said: guns are weapons. they are used to kill people. therefore, guns are bad. therefore, we should ban them.

to date, i have yet to find that the line of reasoning extends any further than that.
_____

To some, this is all the reasoning needed.

I only feel this way about handguns and automatic weapons. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you stop lumping me with EVERYBODY else.

I think people should be allowed to own hunting weapons. People should be allowed to protect themselves. A shotgun works well as a preventative weapon. Just pump a shotgun and a tresspasser will run. They won't even need to see it.

I live in an urban environment. It is very hard to get a concealed weapon liscence in this city. This is because handguns are so easily hidden. There is no need for a handgun in a city... unless you are a criminal or afraid of criminals.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979387 -

Quote:
give me one example of a non-violent crime that could be thwarted by the victim drawing a gun.


Freeze! Put down the joint and no one gets hurt.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979407 -

*Mushmaster said: your last post contained at least one fallacious argment and one glaringly inaccurate statement, but i suppose it will only be a waste of my time to point them out.
_______
Then I will.

108,000 sorry 108,000 is the low estimate not 100,000 (that covers my glarringly inaccurate statement)

and...

I didn't fully express my logic for using ABC's numbers instead of Mushmaster's and this may have made the ABC study sound like it contained different info than it actually did.

Alow me to explain.

Mushmaster, as you get to know me, you'll learn I do my research. If I don't write my logic out for you to read every time, it is simply because I prefer to make points rather than explain them. I'm not the fastest typist.

ABC News used more than one study (hence neutral) to generate their number. Phillip Cook's study and Gary Kleck's. I didn't make this clear in my earlier post (I wanted to inspire mushmaster to re-read his link with an open mind. He asked me to do it.)

"Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between."

"Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist"

From what I've seen, Cook's argument (As embraced by ABC news, is a more neutral argument. Kleck sounds a little biased in his arguments. I'm not saying his arguments aren't sound, I'm just saying I prefer to use the more neutral estimates provided by Cook.

From what I've seen (I don't know him well), Cook seems to be more independant simply because I can't tell weather he is pro or anti gun by reading his findings.

Here's an excerpt from the ABC link:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_damage.html

"Believe It or Not
Take, for example, the question of how often guns are used for self-defense.
Gun control advocates say firearms are used 108,000 times a year for self-defense.
Gun control opponents say the figure is as high as 2.5 million times a year.
Whom do you believe?
The 108,000 figure comes from the Justice Department?s National Crime Victimization Survey, the nation?s most comprehensive survey of victims. But gun control opponents discount the number, arguing that many people who used guns to protect themselves successfully don?t consider themselves victims and thus are not counted by the study.
They prefer the 2.5 million estimate from Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who surveyed 5,000 households and examined other studies. Gun control advocates reject Kleck?s conclusions because, they say, his sample size was too small to be accurate."

There, that should cover my fallacious argument.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979440 -

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

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?

Dr. Kleck's Answer:

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979442 -

the fallacy was implying the the statistics were not valid because they were not entirely consistant. there's even a name for this fallacy but i haven't the time to dig it up.

the inaccurate statement was claiming ABC news to be neutral when it's commonly accepted that the print media is liberally biased, especially when it comes to gun control.

there are numerous problems with the survey arriving at the 108,000, some of which are described by Dr. Kleck's response in the above post.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979444 -

I think people should be allowed to own hunting weapons. People should be allowed to protect themselves. A shotgun works well as a preventative weapon. Just pump a shotgun and a tresspasser will run. They won't even need to see it.

i'm glad you recognize a person's right to defend themself while in their home. i'm not entirely certain why you would deny them this right once they step out the door.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979456 -

I'm against most gun control measures, but just to play devil's advocate, I'll use some of Thomas Hobbes's philosophy. All human beings are more or less equal in their ability to kill another human being. With the exception of the sick and elderly, we pretty much all have that ability. So if we're all equal in this aspect, how do we maintain order in society? The answer: we hand over the right to kill to one person or group(the government) in exchange for protection from others who would wish to kill us. All government's power is based on the fact that they can kill you. Therefore, giving other people the ability to kill would cause chaos and disorder.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979475 -

A person's home is private property.

City streets are public property.

I don't want guns at public gatherings. I don't want them in Public schools. I don't want them on public transportation.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979481 -

Well said silversoul7 but did you have to play devil's advocate?

Dude!

That's MY job!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979521 -

hobbes' flaw was that we do not establish rightful government by handing over authority to anyone... we make a pact amongst ourselves. we do not have the authority to initiate force against other individuals, and so we cannot grant this right to anyone else. a good government has no special rights above the citizens it exists to protect, at least not any right to initiate force. it only has obligations.

the role of government is to defend individuals from force, but it is not all-powerful and it cannot be everywhere at all times. there is also no guarantee that it will not become corrupted and itself become an initiator of force. therefore, the existance of government does not eliminate the need for citizens to provide for their own self-defense in emergency situations, much less the right.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979525 -

your rights do not change as you travel from place to place.

if your actions do not initiate force against another individual, you should be free to act as you please, free from forceful intrusion, no matter where you happen to be

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979578 -

So you believe guns should be allowed at school?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979581 -

People in an urban environment deserve to be free of guns if they chose. This is where gun laws and smoking laws are similar.

Remember my "Irrelivant" first argument?



--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979587 -

Silversoul7,

I think mushmaster just wants his guns on public transit.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979595 -

public schools shouldn't even exist.

if the owner of a private school wishes to ban weapons inside, restrict visitors, enforce a dress code, prohibit possession of cigarettes, etc., that's fine.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1979600 -

People in an urban environment deserve to be free of guns if they chose. This is where gun laws and smoking laws are similar.

that's absurd. you don't have any right to be "free" of other people carrying weapons. their possession of a weapon is no business of yours.

there are many who follow your line of reasoning who would like their neighborhoods to be "free" of marijuana users...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1979709 -

So only people whose parents can afford it should get an education? I see it now. You ban public schools, so then poor people can't get an education, and can't get jobs. You then end welfare, so these uneducated people can't get any food to eat, except through stealing. And of course you keep your firearms to fend off these poor, starving, uneducated thieves. Brilliant!


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979779 -

If people are so paranoid that they need concealed weapons in public places to feel safe,they need to move somewhere else or start taking their Thorazine.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1979791 -

Gun laws and drug laws are the same. You can't rationally be for or against one and not the other.

Some people abuse drugs and kill innocent people, some people abuse guns and kill innocent people.

Just because you like drugs and not guns doesn't mean you can be a hypocrite. Just like "Stoopid Amerikans" to be all in favor of their own rights but not give two shits about anyone elses.

That's called selfishness.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1979802 -

I think that cocaine should be legal, but I think you shouldn't be allowed to own a grenade launcher without a permit. Is that hypocritical?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1979808 -

Guns and drugs are not the same. You can't kill somebody from 50 yards with cocaine.

I'm for decriminalization or limited legalization of all drugs, but I don't want grams of heroin being sold at the local Quick-Stop. By the same token,I don't think citizens should be able to own handguns and military grade weapons.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1979851 -

"You can't kill somebody from 50 yards with cocaine."


How is range relevant? There are things that guns do that drugs don't and there are things that drugs do that guns don't. Has anyone ever gon into DTs and a coma because they couldn't get any more bullets?

We can sit here and swap bad analogies all night if we want. The bottom line is Guns kill, get over it. Drugs kill too, get over that too. Neither are any more dangerous than the other. It just depends on how you use them.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1979860 -

I think you should have to have a permit to own cocaine.

I don't think I would give both a grenade launcher permit, and a cocaine permit to the same person though.

Most people should be allowed to own grenades and grenade launchers. OR cocaine.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1979902 -

I don't think it's a bad analogy at all. As has been said a million times before,when you misuse a firearm you're likely hurting other people,when you misuse drugs,you're probably just hurting yourself.

Quote:
The bottom line is Guns kill, get over it. Drugs kill too, get over that too. Neither are any more dangerous than the other. It just depends on how you use them.



I don't know about that. I feel a little more comfortable holding up this bottle of Xanax and beer in the fridge than I do having a loaded weapon lying around.

Another thing: people have been using drugs ever since the dawn of Homo Sapiens (many of the same drugs used now). It's useless to control them when they grow themselves or can be easily made. Humans have only been shooting each other with machine guns for only a hundred years or so.

I thing some of the libertarian analogies applied between guns and drugs are seriously flawed.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Edited by monoamine (10/04/03 09:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1979920 -

Then dont have a loaded weapon lying around.

Would you feel safer if your neighbor were shooting guns or if he were doing donuts in his pickup druck and driving up and down the street at incredible speeds blasted out of his gourd on meth and PBR?

Abusing drugs does kill other people. I wouldn't be surprised if they kill more people than guns even though guns are legal and most drugs are not.

P.S. many "gun deaths" are really drug deaths.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1979930 -

If you shoot someone in the head there is only one outcome (assuming it hits vital parts of the brain): death.

While one person may drink PBR and be methed up doing donuts,another person will just sit and watch TV on the same drug combonation.

Quote:
P.S. many "gun deaths" are really drug deaths.




Please elaborate. I don't quite know what you mean.

P.S. Most cancer deaths are really "heart failure".


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1979940 -

not necessarily. My friend Harry put a slug through the roof of his mouth and out the top of his head and he's fine. He lost a slight amount of motor skills.

Granted, his is not the usual outcome of such an action.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1979943 -

While one person might shoot hay bales another might shoot small children using the same kind of gun.

What if you shoot someone in the toe, how many outcomes are possible?

Drugged up people kill people with cars or guns or electric guitars. I'm not going to pull a made up statistic out of my ass, but I'm willing to bet that more innocent people are killed by people on drugs than are killed by people (with or without drugs) with guns.


If someone is willing to accept the risks of allowing drugs in society, then they should be willing to accep the risks of other people's potentially deadly hobbies.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1980037 -

How many people are killed by drunk drivers every year?

Alot, and yet you don't really hear any talk about banning alcohol.

Baby Hitler is right, drugs do sometimes kill other people.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: sirreal]
    #1980044 -

I might should mention that when I say "drugs" I am including alcohol.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1980333 -

monoamine said:
If people are so paranoid that they need concealed weapons in public places to feel safe,they need to move somewhere else or start taking their Thorazine.


I live way out in the country I my car bearks down i have to walk miles on unlit streets to get to aphone or my house
I should be allowed to live where I want and protect myself if such a occourance like my car breaking down.
I also have to drive thru thru the hood to get to my work
I've had peole try to carjack me before
I feel the need to protect myself
my girl is 5'3" I feel she has the right to protect herself too
from all the kooks and crazies in this world
I don't see the problem with concealed handguns
were trained to use them, we take written tests on how to use them
and laws reguarding useage situations
we go to the gun range and have to demonstrate our skills
and our backgrounds are checked by the FBI and local sheriff
to make sure we are perfect citizens with no criminal history

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1980379 -

Just don't move to Uganda Joe, you'll be fine... even without a gun.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1980466 -

of course it doesn't. it's addressing the point of self-defense, not crime.

Tell me something, how many people who brandish or use a gun are likely to claim "self-defence" and how many do you think will claim "I just did it cos the dude was pissing me off"?

Can you see that it's fairly likely everyone is going to claim "I only use a gun in self-defence"? Isn't that what every drug-dealing gangbanger the world over says?

studies have shown that in 98% of cases, merely drawing a firearm, and not firing it, is enough to dissuade an attacker.

As one famous criminal in the UK said "Anyone who pulls a gun and doesn't use it has to be some kind of idiot. You pull a gun on me and don't use it..well, I know what I've got to do to you tomorrow now don't I?".

I don't know the kind of people you meet but I imagine most people who have some punk brandish a gun at them arn't going to walk away and leave it at that.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1980481 -

At this point I would like to clarify one point: "So?"

What does that mean? People shouldn't be allowed to have guns? What if they find shooting stuff to be "all spritchul n' shit"?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1980486 -

or just plain fun.

Nothing like the 'ching ching ching' of a .30 caliber machine gun to get you going at 3am :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1980496 -

I prefer wacking off.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1980507 -

you are comparing apples to oranguatans.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1980543 -

No wingnutx, you brought up the fruits and monkeys.

I compared the "Ching...ching...ching..." of a 30 cal. machine gun to jacking off.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1980549 -

Orangutangs aren't monkeys. They're apes.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1980550 -

Unless, of course, the gun was shooting blanks.

Then, and only then, would I withdraw my comparison.


Ha cha cha!

:lol:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1980552 -

Please, lets not get the apes AND monkeys involved.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1980697 -

Apples and oranguatans share 50% of their genes.

What about compairing oranguatans and Orange Tang??


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981072 -

So only people whose parents can afford it should get an education? I see it now. You ban public schools, so then poor people can't get an education, and can't get jobs. You then end welfare, so these uneducated people can't get any food to eat, except through stealing. And of course you keep your firearms to fend off these poor, starving, uneducated thieves. Brilliant!

this thread is about guns, not schools... so i won't get into the whole public school debate. the thing about public schools is that they're not 'public'.

"public schools" are no more public in reality than a police station, the whitehouse, a courthouse, tank, or aircraft carrier. they are really government property. the gov't can enforce special rules over its own property. you cannot just walk into the whitehouse with a rifle.

a city street is a public place. a school, courthouse, or presidential mansion is not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1981079 -

If people are so paranoid that they need concealed weapons in public places to feel safe,they need to move somewhere else or start taking their Thorazine.

there are many people who do not have the luxury of living and working in some shiny suburb.

there are people for whom the possibility of violent attack at home or at work is very real.

people have every right to secure for themselves the means of self-defense, and it really doesn't matter if you, or anyone else, thinks they're paranoid and in need of medication.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1981093 -

a grenade launcher is a very powerful offensive weapon with little defensive value. i don't think citizens have any right to grenade launchers.

it might be noted that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, the meaning of which in those days was restricted to man-portable weapons- pistols, shotguns, muskets, and rifles. this would be opposed to ordnance, the term for cannon and artillery weapons. though grenade launchers are man-portable, i think they would not be considered arms.

even in revolutionary times, citizens were not allowed to keep ordnance because artillery is an indescriminate offensive weapon with little defensive value- much like a modern day grenade launcher.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1981144 -

Tell me something, how many people who brandish or use a gun are likely to claim "self-defence" and how many do you think will claim "I just did it cos the dude was pissing me off"?

i have no idea, and neither do you. unprovable, untestable, unknowable speculations are useless.

Can you see that it's fairly likely everyone is going to claim "I only use a gun in self-defence"? Isn't that what every drug-dealing gangbanger the world over says?

i'm not sure what you're getting at with these statements. what's your argument? what argument are you refuting, and on what grounds?

As one famous criminal in the UK said "Anyone who pulls a gun and doesn't use it has to be some kind of idiot. You pull a gun on me and don't use it..well, I know what I've got to do to you tomorrow now don't I?".

useless anecdote. who cares what one criminal said? surely you've had enough instruction in science and mathematics to understand that if you want to establish something as a general trend, something true for the bulk of the population, your sample size must be fairly large... one person certainly doesn't qualify. i could probably find one criminal to quote who lives off the thrill of attacking armed victims and intentionally seeks them out... so what?

the chance of running into an unarmed would-be car jacker, rapist, or mugger and then running into that same person the next day, or any time in the future, is ridiculously improbable. if you did, i would speculate that they'd be more likely to just leave you alone than look down the barrel of your pistol two times in a row.

i'm a criminal. i mug people. the other day, i tried to mug someone and they pulled a gun on me. what do i do? do i go get a gun and spend the next few weeks prowling the streets looking for him? or do i just go find someone else to mug? hmm... tough call indeed  :smirk:...

I don't know the kind of people you meet but I imagine most people who have some punk brandish a gun at them aren't going to walk away and leave it at that.

i think they would. surveys have shown that nothing scares criminals more than the possibility that their victim may be armed.

come on... do you think about your arguments before making them?

...people should not be allowed to carry weapons... and the self-defense arguement is flawed, because some people might piss off a criminal while defending themselves who will come back later for vengeance? is that the argument here? do you honestly think that that is a valid position at all?

we can argue all day about what such-and-such a criminal will do in such-and-such a situation. it's all empty speculation. we can predict and hypothesize about how criminals and their victims will respond and react in different circumstances, but without surveys and studies, we've got no proof, or even evidence, for the theories we might cook up.

there are numerous statistical surveys and studies that will show that people who are armed are less likely to be hurt or wounded in a violent attack, and that criminals (at least in places where it is a possibility) are worried and concerned that their victim in a crime may be armed. this is a truth established by credible means far beyond mere speculation backed up by absolutely nothing, save perhaps the testimony of but one single criminal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981213 -

i'm amazed that there are people here who truly believe that it is wise to disarm law-abiding citizens and leave guns only in the hands of criminals and the government.

i'm amazed that the same ones who acknowledge that the most unreasonable part of the drug war is that it criminalizes victimless action would not have the acumen to understand that the same is true of gun-banning.

i suppose if it was actually proven to reduce crime, it might be debatable, but the fact is that it is not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981216 -

If everyone had a gun or nobody did, I'd feel better.

I don't like it that SOME people have weapons and SOME don't.

When drawn, the simple fact is guns are usually pointed at someone who DOES NOT have a gun.

That doesn't sit right with me.

No point. Just opinion.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981248 -

I think gun control has to be implemented at SOME level. Do I think people should be allowed to own guns? Sure, but not just ANY firearm. Rifles? Absolutely. Handguns? If you insist. Assault rifles? Only with a special license. Machine guns? No. Rocket launchers? Absolutely not!


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981253 -

Land mines are defensive weapons.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981281 -

these pages contain some good info on the topic of 'assault' weapons and machine guns.

Full Auto Weapons

"Assault Weapons"

these weapons are rarely used in crimes. the gov't is just afraid to let people have 'military-style' weapons, and laws against these weapons are easy to enact and make politicians look good to a mostly ignorant populace.

also... how do you define "assault rifle"? a full-auto rifle? a semi-auto with a large magazine capacity? one that just looks nasty?... it's a tough line to draw. if you read the text of the assault weapons ban, you'll find that the government has taken to defining assault weapon on such ridiculous characteristics as the shape of the grips on the weapon and whether or not it can be fitted with a bayonet.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981299 -

You ever think that maybe the reason that machine guns are so rarely used in crimes is because they're illegal? Wasn't it a bit different in the 1920's? Who the hell needs a machine gun to defend themselves anyway? Seems to me they're far more useful for drive-by shootings.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981322 -

Most people can't hit the broad side of a barn with anything full auto. It's really a lot harder than it looks.

I'd still like one :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981352 -

i think that whether or not fully automatic weapons should be legal or not is certainly quite debatable. there are very valid arguments against civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons.

full-auto weapons are pretty rare, and this may account for their extremely small frequency of use in crimes.

i would not be entirely opposed to restrictions against full-auto weapons.

that, in my opinion, would not be entirely unreasonable. the government's definition of 'assault weapon', if restricted only to full-auto weapons, would be a fairly reasonable one in my opinion. as it is now, their definition is too broad.

i must admit that one reason i am not entirely opposed to restrictions against full-auto weapons is because a person with a little technical know-how can without much difficulty convert a semi-auto to a full auto.

full-auto weapons are really only good for military uses and crimes. if the shit ever really hit the fan in this country, i'd like to have a full-auto weapon. until then, it's pretty much useless for civilian defensive purposes. if shit did go down, one could simply convert their semi-auto weapons to full-auto; i don't think such restrictions disempower armed citizens in any unbearable way.

Edited by mushmaster (10/05/03 01:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981361 -

The government does not consider my AR-15 to be an assault rifle, but if I put a bayonet lug on it then it would be. How silly is that?

Damn shame, too. I was really hoping to do some drive-by bayonettings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981430 -

Rifles? Absolutely... Assault rifles? Only with a special license.

how would you differentiate the two?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981545 -

I suppose you have a point there. I guess when I think of "assault rifle," I think of an automatic or semi-automatic rifle designed for military operations. Anyway, my point is that we have to draw the line somewhere. Do you really want anyone to be allowed to own a bazooka or grenade launcher? How about a nuclear weapon? At a certain point, you'll find weapons that can do WAY more damage than any drug could.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981800 -

I suppose you have a point there. I guess when I think of "assault rifle," I think of an automatic or semi-automatic rifle designed for military operations.

i would restrict the definition to full-auto weapons. any gun manufacturer could design a rifle specifically for civilian use and chamber it in .223, give it a 30 round detatchable magazine, and a pistol grip. who's to say that it's not entirely designed for and suitable for civilian target shooting and home defense purposes?

i do not think that the government's current scheme of defining 'assault weapon' by what they think it's appropriate for, using characteristics such as caliber, magazine capacity, stock features, presence of flash suppressors, recoil compensators, or bayonet lugs is reasonable at all. it's too arbitrary and it really doesn't add up. does it really matter whether wingnutx's AR-15 has a bayonet lug on it?

how do you know what it's "designed for"? the line becomes impossible to draw.

Do you really want anyone to be allowed to own a bazooka or grenade launcher? How about a nuclear weapon?

these are all very powerful offensive weapons with very little, if any, defensive value.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1981818 -

mushmaster said:
Do you really want anyone to be allowed to own a bazooka or grenade launcher? How about a nuclear weapon?

these are all very powerful offensive weapons with very little, if any, defensive value.


That's essentially what I'm saying. I think the line should be drawn at the point where a weapon's defensive value is very small compared to its offensive value. Tell me--how much defensive value does a fully automatic assualt rifle have compared to its offensive value?


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: silversoul7]
    #1981929 -

* these are all very powerful offensive weapons with very little, if any, defensive value.

Land mines are the way to go. Very difficult to shoot 'em at folks.

Defense! Defense!

I, also, support moats and hot, burning, oil to be poured over compound walls on unsuspecting invaders.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1982499 -

I think ownership of shotguns and bolt action "hunting rifles" should be legal for any citizen over the age of 18 with a record clear of violent crime. Any other weapons,should be totally illegal.

Concealed weapons permits and handguns should have strict requirements and you should have to reasonably demonstrate that you're life could be in some kind of danger if you were not allowed to own such firearms.

This system could be implimented over a long period to get a large portion of illegal firearms off the street while allowing non violent citizens to protect themselves from illegal firearms.

Firearms manufacturers should be strictly monitored. They would only be able to put out military grade weapons (anything explosive,automatic,non bolt action semi auto,high rate of fire) in limited quantities for strictly military use (meaning army,navy,air force,national guard.If it is shown that very small amounts of illegal weapons are on the streets, police officers would only be allowed to carry pistols,shotguns,and bolt action rifles.)

It's kind ridiculous that ownership of C1 and C2 drugs are more strict than firearms in this country.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982525 -

if handguns are banned, can i carry a shotgun with me in public instead?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1982580 -

Here's what I think....nevermind. Mushmaster already said it. :tongue: 


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1982617 -

Yes,but you can't bring it into any public buldings (by public I mean anything that isn't a private residency).

Local governments can enact laws establishing where you can carry it elsewhere. For example,you can't walk around NY city with one if such laws are enacted. Like if you live in buffuck Egypt,local laws would likely establish that you could carry one around (you know,the forest and stuff).

You can keep it in your car as that is considered private.

I hope people will respond back,but people with concealed weapons are usually overly paranoid. I don't see how anyone could carry around a loaded pistol all day. I also think it's a bad idea because contrary to public hysteria,it is unlikely that you will be violently attacked by a random person.Usually said people just want your car,wallet,etc and have little interest in attacking you,it's best just to comply in these situations.. Brandishing a gun in said situations could be a very bad idea. The attacker could have a weapon himself. And I admit that I live in a very low crime area,but I often visit friends that live in relatively high crime areas (crack apartments basically). If someone pulled a weapon and didn't use it,they would likely be dead within a couple days.

Pepper spray and tazers are pretty effective if someone were to violently attack you (assuming it's not with a gun).


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982664 -

I hope people will respond back,but people with concealed weapons are usually overly paranoid. I don't see how anyone could carry around a loaded pistol all day. I also think it's a bad idea because contrary to public hysteria,it is unlikely that you will be violently attacked by a random person.Usually said people just want your car,wallet,etc and have little interest in attacking you,it's best just to comply in these situations.. Brandishing a gun in said situations could be a very bad idea. The attacker could have a weapon himself. And I admit that I live in a very low crime area,but I often visit friends that live in relatively high crime areas (crack apartments basically). If someone pulled a weapon and didn't use it,they would likely be dead within a couple days.

a whole slew of baseless assumptions and personal opinions, some inconsistant with statistical data.

it may surprise you that you are far less likely to be hurt in a violent crime if you have a gun to defend yourself than if you don't. yet another false assumption on the part of a gun-banner. this is exactly the sort of thing i'm taking about when i say gun-ban-ers are ill-informed and full of false notions.

statistical analysis will not establish any positive correlation between rates of handgun ownership and crime rates, much less a causal relationship. i'm afraid that while you can presume what you will, the general trends simply do not support the assumption that stricter gun laws result in lower crime rates, nor do they support the notion that carrying a weapon, and using it in self-defense, places you in any greater danger than you would be without it.

if that was a case, you'd have a point to argue behind. as it is, your argument basically consists of enforcing your personal opinions and preferences ("but people with concealed weapons are usually overly paranoid", "I don't see how anyone could carry around a loaded pistol all day.", " it's best just to comply in these situations.. ") on other people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982720 -

Way to only care about your own rights.

You make a great Amerikkkan.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1982723 -

The statistics you are using to back up your arguement don't differentiate between self defense with weapons used at home and concealed weapons in public places.

You can use all the statistics if you want.Statistics can be interpreted a thousand different ways.

Using logic,most criminals aren't interested in hurting you,they just want your personal property or they have a personal grudge.Random acts of violence are actually quite rare. If you are an average Joe that just minds his own business,it's extremely unlickly that you will be violently attacked by a stranger.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1982750 -

Quote:
Way to only care about your own rights.




Bullshit. I take the rights of people in high regard. I don't have the desire the ever own a gun,yet I recongize that certain people do.That's why I'm very much against any kind of universial gun ban.

The rights of individuals need to be balanced with the rights of soceity to be protected as a whole. People want machine guns,etc,so manufacturers make them. The vast majority of firearms start out legal,but somewhere along the line enter the black market. If we cut off the source,then these weapons won't exist. It's pretty hard to do a drive by with a hunting rifle.

And don't give me bullshit drug analogies because drugs are hardwired with human brains.Drugs can easily be manufactured or grown.Firearms construction is sophisiticated.

I'm not a knee jerk reactionary. I've read info from both sides of the fence and these are the conclusions I haved reached.They are my opinions.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982758 -

monoamine writes:

If you are an average Joe that just minds his own business...

Like driving along not expecting to have your car jacked, for example.

...it's extremely unlickly that you will be violently attacked by a stranger.

And more unlikely still if you show him you are armed.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982805 -

And don't give me bullshit drug analogies because drugs are hardwired with human brains.Drugs can easily be manufactured or grown.

OK, as long as you don't give me any of that "guns are dangerous" bullshit.


So if someone can make their own guns and bombs they should be allowed to have as many as they want? `Cause I'm an engineering major, and I could so fucking make my own assault rifles and those bigass mounted guns that can take out a house and shit with the shit I be learning . :loveeyes:

For that matter, I could make an Oklahoma City style truck bomb right now if I wanted to.  :crazy2:


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1982817 -

these are all very powerful offensive weapons with very little, if any, defensive value.

So what happened to the argument you've been pushing about "if we have weapons we'll fight off a tyrants army,navy and airforce"? Don't you think a grenade launcher each would give people a better chance of fighting off the marine corps than a .38? Is a .38 apeice is really going to stop a division of tanks and F-16's?

it may surprise you that you are far less likely to be hurt in a violent crime if you have a gun to defend yourself than if you don't. yet another false assumption on the part of a gun-banner. this is exactly the sort of thing i'm taking about when i say gun-ban-ers are ill-informed and full of false notions.

Evidence?

Bill Hicks once quoted the gun deaths in america and the UK as being something like 14,000 in america "where everyone has guns" to 14 in the UK "where no-one has guns". He said "But there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone with it..and you'd be a communist to make one"


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Phred]
    #1982824 -

Quote:
If you are an average Joe that just minds his own business...

Like driving along not expecting to have your car jacked, for example.

...it's extremely unlickly that you will be violently attacked by a stranger.

And more unlikely still if you show him you are armed.




Uh..last time I checked car jackings happen rather quickly. What do you do? Have a loaded gun sitting on your lap at all times? Almost any crimonologist will tell you the best thing to do when getting robbed,car jacked,etc. is to comply.

And how do you show these strangers you are armed? Do you go waving a gun around?




--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982829 -

Horror stories like that are statistically insignificant anyway mono. You could quote just as many stories where someone started shooting and killed innocent people or shot themselves in the foot or had the gun taken away from them by a burglar and got shot with it.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1982837 -

Quote:
OK, as long as you don't give me any of that "guns are dangerous" bullshit.



Guns are a lot more dangerous than drugs.All drugs do is cause a chemical reaction in the brain they may or may not be dangerous.Even though I'm aware that people use them for other things,guns are pretty much solely designed to kill and maim. Drugs are just chemicals.

Quote:
So if someone can make their own guns and bombs they should be allowed to have as many as they want? `Cause I'm an engineering major, and I could so fucking make my own assault rifles and those bigass mounted guns that can take out a house and shit with the shit I be learning .



Where did you get this? I never said nor implied nor said anything that would warrant what you said. I don't care where they come from,they should be equally illegal. Good luck making an M-16.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982850 -

Guns are a lot more dangerous than drugs

Amen. I've never heard of anyone being attacked with a mushroom. They're simply too soft to hurt anyone with.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982852 -

Quote:
monoamine said:Drugs can easily be manufactured or grown.



--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1982862 -

Yes,I did say that.That's why drug laws are unenforcable.

It's a little bit harder to make firearms.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1982865 -

Funny. I've never heard of someone getting hopped up on assault rifles and driving their van into a car full of small children.

Some drugs are more dangerous than others, just as some guns are.

Even though most drugs are illegal and most guns are not, There are still more drug related deaths each year than gun related deaths.

Drugs are every bit as dangerous as guns. How can you even deny that?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1982893 -

Quote:
Funny. I've never heard of someone getting hopped up on assault rifles and driving their van into a car full of small children.



Neither have I. But I do know that illegal drugs rarely cause things like this on a large scale.

Quote:
Some drugs are more dangerous than others, just as some guns are



True,but you can directly be killed by any kind of gun.It doesn't work that way for some drugs.

Quote:
Even though most drugs are illegal and most guns are not, There are still more drug related deaths each year than gun related deaths.


Yeah relating to legal drugs. Take out alcohol and tabacco and you're wrong. This is a prime example why I don't use many stats.


Quote:
Drugs are every bit as dangerous as guns. How can you even deny that?



Well,I've experimented with enough drugs and I'm still here,alive and well. If I experimented with weapons,the outcome would have likely been different.

If drugs are so dangerous,how come they aren't used in warfare very much? Oh...that's right,the CIA tried that and it failed miserably.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1982930 -

Let's make some guns illegal!








...and lets make some drugs legal!








Any questions?


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1982933 -

I can shoot myself up with HEROIN more times than I can shoot myself with a gun.

And... I guarantee I'd like heroine better than being shot!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1982948 -

I'll extend an olive branch Hitler,I'll join the Guns and Dope party if you do too.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1983028 -

I'd join the guns and dope party if there were one.

I'm not counting people who die from their own drug use by the way, I'm only counting innocent people that die from other people's drug use.

I think we can both agree that alcohol is more of a threat to public saftey than Cannabis, LSD, shrooms, mescaline, DMT, and all other psychedelics combined, and would remain so even if they were legal and as available as alcohol is today.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1983267 -

Using logic,most criminals aren't interested in hurting you,they just want your personal property or they have a personal grudge.

you have a strange definition of logic. some criminals want to forcefully hurt you. some may only want to forcefully take your possessions. you have a right to defend against either of them.

whether or not you think it's wiser to comply or wiser to resist is a great way to decide what your own personal conduct will be should you be violently attacked. even if you think it's dangerous to resist- hell, even if it actually is dangerous, it isn't a decision you've got any place making for other people. people have a right to resist and defend against violent attack.

Random acts of violence are actually quite rare. If you are an average Joe that just minds his own business,it's extremely unlickly that you will be violently attacked by a stranger.

do i need to remind you that studies have shown between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive uses of guns by civilians per year?

if you are an average joe that minds his own business, why shouldn't you be allowed to keep a gun?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1983344 -

So what happened to the argument you've been pushing about "if we have weapons we'll fight off a tyrants army,navy and airforce"? Don't you think a grenade launcher each would give people a better chance of fighting off the marine corps than a .38? Is a .38 apeice is really going to stop a division of tanks and F-16's?

right off the bat, this is a red herring. the bulk of my argumentation has been in support of civilian use of weapons, not insurgent use, and your statement, even if based on valid assumptions, would have little bearing on the argument at hand. i'll address it anyway. a .38 might not be very useful for military engagements but a rifle sure would be. this is why virtually every soldier in the entire world is equipped with a rifle. if grenade launchers are so militarily valuable, and regular small arms so useless, it is most curious that almost every soldier in the world carries a rifle, while few carry both a rifle and a grenade launcher, and virtually none carry a grenade launcher exclusively.

rifles are very useful both in military and civilian applications. grenade launchers have very specific, limited military use, and essentially no civilian usefullness.

attacking my premise that civilians should be allowed to own small arms as a last line of defense from tyranny because i do not favor allowing civilians to own grenade launchers, chemical warheads, and armed jet fighters isn't logically sound at all.

Evidence?

i base that statement on the information found here: Is a Gun an Effective Means of Self-Defense?

Bill Hicks once quoted the gun deaths in america and the UK as being something like 14,000 in america "where everyone has guns" to 14 in the UK "where no-one has guns". He said "But there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone with it..and you'd be a communist to make one"

it's interesting that bill hicks did not note that in coutries like israel and switzerland, where the people are armed to the teeth, the homocide rate is very low. in switzerland, the rate is even lower than britain. perhaps bill hicks is also unaware that homocide rates amongst japanese-americans are lower than that of japanese nationals themselves (who have much less access to firearms than their american relatives).


maybe he ignores the fact that homocide rates in europe were already low before gun restrictions went widely into effect.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_katesreal.html#h7.2


or that statistical analysis of international homocide rates will establish no significant correlation between gun ownership and homocide rates.

"In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.) Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels." "

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


he probably hasn't taken the time to read this rather simple statistical analysis:

"Similarly, there were 662 murders in England and Wales in
1984[4]. This gives 1.35 murders per 100,000 people. The
U.S. murder rate in 1987 was 8.3 per 100,000 people[5]. Even
if we assume that:

1. In the absence of firearms, not a single murderer using a
firearm in the U.S. would have used another weapon to commit
murder (very unlikely);

2. further assuming that not a single privately owned
firearm was used to prevent a murder from happening in the
U.S. (very unlikely);

3. assuming that not a single murder in Britain involved a
firearm (not true);

subtracting out the 59% of murders committed with firearms
in the U.S. in 1987[6] still gives a rate of 3.4 per 100,000 -
- two and a half times higher than Britain. How valid is it
to compare British and U.S. murder rates?"

http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/murder.txt


homocide rates have more to do with social and cultural conditions than rates of gun ownership. there no consistant statistical data confirming otherwise... bill hicks is only a comedian.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1983359 -

Horror stories like that are statistically insignificant anyway mono. You could quote just as many stories where someone started shooting and killed innocent people or shot themselves in the foot or had the gun taken away from them by a burglar and got shot with it.

correct. if you want to talk about general trends, if you want to talk about truths which can be applied to the general population at large, ditch the hypothetical story-telling and bring some hard statistics to the table.

if you just want to tell stories, i haven't the time. if it's stories that interest you, perhaps you'll enjoy reading through an archive of literally thousands of news reports of americans defending themselves from attack succesfully with firearms: The Armed Citizen: Search Archives

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: monoamine]
    #1983386 -

The rights of individuals need to be balanced with the rights of soceity to be protected as a whole.

what rights does society have?

society cannot have rights, i'm sorry.

individuals have rights.

And don't give me bullshit drug analogies because drugs are hardwired with human brains.

unfortunately, so is coercion. so are weapons.

Firearms construction is sophisiticated.

workable AK-47 clones have been made in makeshift foundries in pakistan and southeast asia. small tube-guns have been produced in prison. it's quite possible to make a shotgun out of a peice of pipe- these were once very popular in the phillipenes.

i'm quite certain that the technology, skills, and materials present in the united states greatly exceeds that available to pakistani militants and prisoners.

it is very possible, if not downright easy, to make a do-it-yourself firearm.

I've read info from both sides of the fence and these are the conclusions I haved reached.

keep reading.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1983468 -

Funny. I've never heard of someone getting hopped up on assault rifles and driving their van into a car full of small children.

Nah, come off it Baby. You can't blame alcohol for someone drinking and driving. Alcohol doesn't lead you outside, sit you in the car and start the car up.

Drugs are every bit as dangerous as guns. How can you even deny that?

How can you even suggest they are?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1983499 -

the bulk of my argumentation has been in support of civilian use of weapons, not insurgent use,

I thought I read you saying something about "name one act of genocide on an armed populace".

a .38 might not be very useful for military engagements but a rifle sure would be.

Didn't do the taliban much good. And they were hardened fighters. How effective would Uncle Earl and his friend Bubba be after a lifetime sat in an office shooting at a tank with a rifle? My guess is the second the tank fired a shell or two they would drop their rifles and run in the opposite direction so hard their knees would hit their chins. If any town attempted to fight back a tyrant would simply drop a daisy cutter on it anyway.

he probably hasn't taken the time to read this rather simple statistical analysis:

Or maybe he read this rather simple statistical analysis:

UK - Gun homicde (per million) - 1.3
US - Gun homicide(per million) - 62.4

The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

France's per-capita rate of murders is one-eighth that of the United States. (www.allsafedefense.com)

In 1992, handguns killed 13 people in Australia, 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 60 in Japan, 97 in Switzerland, 128 in Canada, and 13,200 in the United States. (Handgun Control Inc., cited in The Washington Post, 1998)
Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
In a study of 15 countries that have stricter licensing and registration laws than the United States, the gun homicide rate of the US was over 3 times that of the countries with the next highest rate. (www.mppgv.org)

http://www.handgunfree.org/HFAMain/research/abroad/


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1983524 -

Nah, come off it Baby. You can't blame alcohol for someone drinking and driving. Alcohol doesn't lead you outside, sit you in the car and start the car up.

just as you cannot blame guns for gun crime. guns do not lead you down to the liquor store to rob the cashier.

How can you even suggest they are?

look at the number of deaths related to alcohol and cigarettes, and compare that to deaths by firearms. you will find that alcohol and tobacco kill 50 or 60 times as many people per year than die from murders by firearm. even if we only count illegal drugs, there are still more killed per year by illegal drugs.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1983529 -

Quote:
Firearms construction is sophisiticated.




I made a muzzle-loading shotgun when I was 11 or 12 years old. It was powered by match heads. Worked like a charm.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1983533 -

guns do not lead you down to the liquor store to rob the cashier.

Sure makes it a lot easier to make the cashier hand over the money tho.

you will find that alcohol and tobacco kill 50 or 60 times as many people per year than die from murders by firearm.

Really is a specious argument. Are you saying you would be as happy giving inmates access to guns as you would giving them access to tobacco? Which do you think would be more dangerous?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1983550 -

I thought I read you saying something about "name one act of genocide on an armed populace".

the BULK of my argument...

though the idea that insurgency and military-scale conflict is indeed a reason for citizens to maintain arms, wasn't the BULK of my argument, i still refuted your ".38 caliber" argument, because it's still a part, and a valid part, of it.

Didn't do the taliban much good. And they were hardened fighters. How effective would Uncle Earl and his friend Bubba be after a lifetime sat in an office shooting at a tank with a rifle? My guess is the second the tank fired a shell or two they would drop their rifles and run in the opposite direction so hard their knees would hit their chins. If any town attempted to fight back a tyrant would simply drop a daisy cutter on it anyway.

you're missing the point. rifles are effective infantry weapons. that's why virtually all infantrymen carry them.

as for your stats: i couldn't find any of them on the CDC website; some of the link at that anti-handgun site do not even work. most of those stats are total figures, not per capita numbers, and the sample size of different nations is very small.

the figures for suicide and accidents are misleading... since the baseline risk is not established, saying numbers like "16 times more likely" means nothing. it could be that european children have a .0002% chance of being killed in a firearm accident while the risk for american children is .0032%. why not just compare per capita rates for the variables in question? why twist numbers around?

i would render the data into per capita figures, but unfortunately there is not enough information given by your stats to do so, and i cannot find the sources the sites you cite are citing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1983557 -

Remember the 'Liberator' pistol?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1983570 -



"The correct name for the Liberator Pistol is the "Flare Projector" Caliber .45 (FP-45). During 1942 over a six month period one million pistols were produced. Actual production of the pistol was about 11 weeks. Using that figure, 300 people produced a pistol with 23 parts every 6.6 seconds, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 11 weeks. This is probably the only pistol that could be made faster than it could be loaded. Loading takes about 10 seconds."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1983575 -

If guns are the wonderfuly safe invention some people make them out to be, why can't everybody have one at any age?

I know, children's hands are too small to carry some guns. Why not make child sized handguns? The Liberator looks about right.

I've been reading mushmaster's posts and I have turned 180 degrees. Now I say, "Guns for everyone!"


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Edited by Rose (10/06/03 10:28 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1983589 -

I wouldn't let my 3 year old nephew play with a book of matches, a sheet of blotter, or a steak-knife. That doesn't mean that an adult shouldn't have those things.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1983597 -

Matches, blotter and steak knives for everyone too!

Let's see which is the biggest killer.

I'll put my money on the guns.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1983608 -

Add beer to that list and you've got a new contender.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: wingnutx]
    #1983611 -

Mix 'em all, and you have an ubersoldier!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1983814 -

And what about your theory that "drugs are as dangerous as guns"? Does this mean you would be as happy issuing all prisoners with handguns and rifles as you would giving them tobacco?



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1983970 -

I think we can safely leave tobacco out of this unless someone has some good statistics on death by sidestream smoke. There are still more deaths of innocent victims caused by drug and alcohol abuse than there is with guns.

Let's not forget also that a large part of gun deaths are caused as much by drugs as they are by guns.

Way to only care about your own rights Al. You'd make an excellent Amerikkkan too.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1984116 -

There are more smokers and drinkers in America than gun owners.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1984126 -

And what about your theory that "drugs are as dangerous as guns"? Does this mean you would be as happy issuing all prisoners with handguns and rifles as you would giving them tobacco?

excuse me? my theory? and why the quotes?

i never said anything of the sort.

perhaps you are referring to baby hitlers statement that "Drugs are every bit as dangerous as guns." to which you said "how can you even suggest they are?".

i was just suggesting that maybe what was meant by 'dangerous' was its overall potential to cause harm. looking at statistics, it would seem obvious that the overall harm caused by people using drugs is greater than the overall harm by people using guns.

whether or not i particularly agree with this definition is something i did not express or imply. the fact is that i don't. i would judge something's "dangerousness" in this sense as its potential harm people excluding the individual using it. by this definition, guns clearly are far ahead of drugs.

in this response by monoamine, "Well,I've experimented with enough drugs and I'm still here,alive and well. If I experimented with weapons,the outcome would have likely been different."

he seems to define "dangerous" as including potential harm to the individual user of guns or drugs. his statement that he likely would not "be here, alive, and well" if he had used weapons in his life is absurd, unless he is taken to reckless and irresponsible behavior, in which case his safefy is quite at risk when using drugs as well; gun accidents are extraodinarily rare... but i digress, we are straying totally away from the realm of relevancy here.

whether it is drugs or guns which are more dangerous, and what definition we tag on the word "dangerous" is totally irrelevant.

...no... i wouldn't give weapons to prisoners. i wouldn't prohibit them from law-abiding citizens either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1984145 -

Guns for prisoners would give the PRISONERS A CHANCE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES from sodomy.

Evryone should have the right to protect themselves. Right?


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1984236 -

Nice job but it appears facts don't matter to some.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1984872 -

Facts kill ten million children under 5 every 32 seconds.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1985097 -

Quote:
Nice job but it appears facts don't matter to some.



Sometimes "the facts" are hard to find. Statistics can be compiled and interpreted a million different ways. Like the two studies used by "pro gun" people are pretty well done studies,but upon reading them in their entirety,I've concluded that some people distort them to fit their own agendas. And if you want to be scientific about the whole thing,you need several studies that are reproduced to establish any kind of facts or good theories. Until that is done,I think I'll use Einstein's way of thinking in pure concepts and logic,while keeping the few well done studies at the back of my mind.

Like Ann Coulter always cites this goofy twenty-something year old study that says that married people have more enjoyable sex.This study was poorly done and hasn't been reproduced,so until it is-I'll assume she's full of shit.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Edited by monoamine (10/06/03 09:00 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1985160 -

Well, Gary Kleck's 5000 person Defensive gun use study is certainly all inclusive!


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1985490 -

My girlfriend just asked me a great question after reading some of mushmaster's old posts in this thread.

Why, when gun loving Americans are asked to give up their guns, do they claim their rights are being taken away? Many of the same people could go to an outdoor concert, have a bottle of water confiscated by security and just accept it as the price of livin' in the USA?


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1985569 -

A concert isn't public property. If you don't like the rules they have there, don't go.

You didn't have to give up the water. You could have left with it.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1985585 -

Quote:
Why, when gun loving Americans are asked to give up their guns, do they claim their rights are being taken away? Many of the same people could go to an outdoor concert, have a bottle of water confiscated by security and just accept it as the price of livin' in the USA?



1.) Read the bill of rights

2.) When you enter the grounds of a concert, you are voluntarily agreeing to their rules


Edit: Damn I'm slow on the draw...

Edited by Observer (10/06/03 11:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1985631 -

There are still more deaths of innocent victims caused by drug and alcohol abuse than there is with guns.

What do you mean "innocent victims"? Do you mean if you drink and smoke heavily for 30 or 40 years your health might be affected? Or do you mean drunk drivers killing "innocent victims"?

Let's not forget also that a large part of gun deaths are caused as much by drugs as they are by guns.

Come again? Are people are being attacked by deadly wraps of cocaine?

If this was the case why arn't thousands of people being killed by guns in the UK where there is just as big a problem with drugs?

Way to only care about your own rights Al.

Not my rights I'm worried about. I'm more worried about the rights of people getting blown away by assholes with guns. John Lennon for example.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1985652 -

Is this what it's all about to you? Is that why you want to deprive people of their rights? Because some rock star got his head blown off?



--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1985661 -

No, innocent people getting shot is what it's all about to me. And there are no rights being deprived to anyone for christs sake.

Again, could you clarify what you mean by "innocent people" killed by drugs? Is this innocent people who choose to take drugs?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1985677 -

No I've clarified that a dozen fucking times. I'm talking about people who get killed because some asshole got drunk or hopped up on coke, or crack, or mushrooms, or LSD, or vicodin, or whatever, and ran them over, or shot them, or stabbed them, or tried to peel them because they thought they were a bananna.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1985698 -

BH: *A concert isn't public property. If you don't like the rules they have there, don't go.

*You didn't have to give up the water. You could have left with it.
_____
*Observer:
1.) Read the bill of rights

2.) When you enter the grounds of a concert, you are voluntarily agreeing to their rules
_____

We're talking about WATER here not anthrax. The concert my gf had in mind was in a (Very big) PUBLIC park. It was free to the PUBLIC. It was on a GREAT LAWN.

There were no vendors selling h2o (or anything else!) inside and we had to show up hours before the show to get a good seat. Once inside, we could not leave and return.

Funny, they never confiscated my weed.

Damn cottonmouth!

The terrorists are winning!

Of course, I support terror by smoking pot. :rolleyes:
 


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1985730 -

Drugs do cause crime. Mainly because they are ILLEGAL, addictive, and they cost so damn much.

Addiction often leads to theft and violent crime.

Mental health problems lead to pealing a person like a banana (now there's a mental image!).


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1986001 -

I don't think it is legal to hold any sizeable event and not supply free water and restrooms.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1986360 -

Evryone should have the right to protect themselves. Right?

no. not everyone can be trusted with a weapon, nor should weapons be allowed in every location. convicted violent felons should not be allowed to carry weapons.

people give up their right to carry a weapon for self-defense when they prove that they would just as soon use it to initiate force.

a violent criminal has done so. a peaceful, law-abiding citizen has not.

in america, the general population possesses an estimated 200 to 240 million guns, only a fraction of a percent of which are used each year to commit violent crimes.

adults with clean records have every right to possess firearms for sport and self-defense. convicted violent criminals do not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1986362 -

Why, when gun loving Americans are asked to give up their guns, do they claim their rights are being taken away? Many of the same people could go to an outdoor concert, have a bottle of water confiscated by security and just accept it as the price of livin' in the USA?

you're entering private property.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1986385 -

according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 25,168 people (who had not been drinking) were killed in alcohol-related collisions 2000.

compare that to the stats for murders by gun that year.

total killed by driving drunk in 2000 was 41,821.

compare that to all gun deaths that year.

it would seem that drunk driving (a type of irresponsible drug use) is not only more dangerous to the individual actor than guns are, but to innocent other people as well. go figure.

http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,2476,00.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986412 -

I had a friend of mine read this post. This person was absolutely undecided on the issue of gun control.

After reading the entire post, He concluded that the only arguement that made real sense was the one presented by the pro-gun side.I guess I should have said the :wink: pro-right side.
 


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Edited by sirreal (10/07/03 08:52 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: sirreal]
    #1986414 -

excellent.  :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986471 -

total killed by driving drunk in 2000 was 41,821.

No, you misunderstood, that's the total of ALL traffic deaths.

According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2000 America experienced the largest percentage increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths on record. 17,380 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 41,945 total traffic fatalities.

In 2001, 17,400 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,116 people killed in all traffic crashes.(New Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, NHTSA 2002)

In 2002, 17,419 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,815 people killed in all traffic crashes, according to NHTSA data.


http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html

compare that to all gun deaths that year.

Total firearms deaths for 1998: 30,708, down 5 percent from 1997 (32,436) and down 22 percent from a 1993 peak (39,595).



Looks like the number killed by guns is WAY ahead of drunk drivers.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1986476 -

No I've clarified that a dozen fucking times. I'm talking about people who get killed because some asshole got drunk or hopped up on coke, or crack, or mushrooms, or LSD, or vicodin, or whatever, and ran them over, or shot them, or stabbed them, or tried to peel them because they thought they were a bananna.

Any figures to back that up? We've established there's WAY more gun deaths than drunk driving deaths for example.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1986493 -

Because some rock star get his head blown off?

come on man. show some respect.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1986505 -

No, you misunderstood, that's the total of ALL traffic deaths.

yep, looks like i did. you're right on that.

Looks like the number killed by guns is WAY ahead of drunk drivers.

you are aware that either way, this has little bearing on the subject at hand, right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986514 -

Just pointing out the facts mush.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control *DELETED* *DELETED* [Re: Xlea321]
    #1986561 -

Post deleted by mushmaster

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986580 -

just pointing out the facts mush

well while we're at it, let's talk about these numbers:

Total firearms deaths for 1998: 30,708, down 5 percent from 1997 (32,436) and down 22 percent from a 1993 peak (39,595).

ah... here they are:  [url=http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:emovywEfu3MJ:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/sheets/frmdth.wk1+1998+30,708+1997+32,436+1993+39,595&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]US DOJ[/url]

ok... first of all, we're using numbers that are 5 to 10 years old, when more recent numbers are available. why would someone do this?

ah.. well... let's see if we can't figure this out:

YEAR.. TOTAL GUN DEATHS.......HOMOCIDE.......SUICIDE.......ACCIDENTAL
1993.............39,595....................18,571..........18,940.........1,521........
1994.............38,505....................17,866..........18,765.........1,356........
1995.............35,957....................15,835..........18,503.........1,225........
1996.............34,040....................14,327..........18,166.........1,134........
1997.............32,436....................13,522..........17,566...........981.........
1998.............30,708....................12,102..........17,424...........866.........
1999.............28,874....................10,828..........16,599...........824.........

notice a trend? (and during the same period, the number of guns, as well as the number of people, in the united states, has increased... most puzzling :smirk:).

ah... so you were citing the older, larger numbers... the oldest of which is almost 140% larger than the most recent.

hold on a sec... not done yet...

they were stats for total firearms deaths, which include not only homocides, but suicides (of which there were many more per year than homocides) and accidents. never mind that the data for homocides also includes justifiable homocide. i thought "innocent victims" were the pressing issue here.

wouldn't the FBI's murder statistics be far more honest and relevant to this discussion? i think so. here they are:


FBI Statistics 

add the number for murder onto the number for accidental deaths, and there you have the number of innocent victims... much, much lower than between 30 and 40,000.

innocent victims killed by guns in 1999 = 9304

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986594 -

You can stop now. The debate has been won! :cool:

Just kidding. Keep it up.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Edited by sirreal (10/07/03 11:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: sirreal]
    #1986632 -

the sad thing is that even after the those of the opposing position have given up, even after their position has been shown to be totally lacking in logic... even when they can no longer rationally support their beliefs and this thread has passed on, they will still be believing the same old bullshit with the same passion as before.

it's really very sad.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986691 -

poll time.


i believe that these restrictions on type of rifles that private, adult, law-abiding citizens may own, are appropriate:
no restrictions.
restrictions on automatic weapons
restrictions on semi-automatic rifles with large (20+ rounds) magazine capacity
restrictions on all semi-automatic rifles



Votes accepted from the dawn of the universe until the end of time

View the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986692 -


i believe that these restrictions on type of shotguns that private, adult, law-abiding citizens may own, are appropriate:
shotguns with a barrel shorter than 18 inches
semi-automatic shotguns
all of the above
no restrictions




Votes accepted from the dawn of the universe until the end of time

View the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986693 -


i believe that these restrictions on type of handguns that private, adult, law-abiding citizens may own, are appropriate:
no handguns allowed
no hanguns with magazine capacity larger than 10 rounds
no restrictions




Votes accepted from the dawn of the universe until the end of time

View the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986695 -



as far as in what locations people may carry weapons:
people should be able to carry weapons anywhere they like, except for governmental or private places where it is prohibited by the owner
local governments should be able to enact laws banning the carrying of weapons in public
people shouldn't be allowed to transport weapons outside their own home, except if they are locked and unloaded, or if they are at a licensed shooting range.
private citizens should not be allowed to carry weapons anywhere.



i hope i put enough options in them...


Votes accepted from the dawn of the universe until the end of time

View the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986710 -

innocent victims killed by guns in 1999 = 9304

I see...so because your first attempt to say drunk drivers killed more people than guns was shown to be nonsense, instead of accepting that you could be wrong, you have moved onto only those people "murdered" by guns to try and prove you were right? To be honest, I was more impressed by your first reply saying you'd misunderstood the figures.

The problem with this is that by any semblance of logic you would then have to compare that figure to those deliberately murdered by drunk drivers.

I think you'll find the number of people deliberately murdered by drunk drivers to be very, very small (if indeed there are any). There is certainly no question whatsoever that the figure would be many thousands less than those murdered by guns.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1986759 -

Quote:
i hope i put enough options in them...


You left one out.

Call me a nut, but I think a law abiding citizen should be able to carry his gun wherever he goes. Even into a government building.


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1986771 -

You're still wrong. :lol: 


--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------

I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: sirreal]
    #1986849 -

I can carry my concealed weapon almost everywhere in my state

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1986901 -

I don't see any reason to seperate murders from accidental deaths.

It looks to me that there is as much reason to bring bac alcohol prohibition as there is to ban guns. People who commit suicide using guns should be eliminated from the statistics as well as drunks who die in auto accidents.

There are many other innocent deaths every year besides those caused by alcohol impared driving alone.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Xlea321]
    #1987120 -

I see...so because your first attempt to say drunk drivers killed more people than guns was shown to be nonsense, instead of accepting that you could be wrong, you have moved onto only those people "murdered" by guns to try and prove you were right?

the total killed by drunk driving is greater than the total killed by guns.

i'm more concerned with the total innocent victims killed though, which is an area i will certainly admit that guns have the upper hand. i claimed otherwise before because i misread the figures.

i did not post these figures about murder to prove anything except that your figures of between 30,000 to 40,000 were misleading, or at the very least were irrelevant to the topic of innocent victims, which, correct me if i'm wrong here, is what we're talking about.

it had nothing to do with our comparisons to drunk driving. i can admit i was mistaken.



The problem with this is that by any semblance of logic you would then have to compare that figure to those deliberately murdered by drunk drivers.

if one was to compare drunk driving deaths vs. gun deaths, yes, it would be correct to compare firearm-murder victims to innocent victims of drunk drivers.

but my point was not to make any such comparison. i am well aware, after having another look at the figures, that i misread them at first and that though drunk driving does kill more than guns do, it almost certainly claims fewer innocent victims.

i was not posting these figures as part of our discussion about drunk driving deaths vs. gun deaths. my above post contains not one reference to drunk driving.

I think you'll find the number of people deliberately murdered by drunk drivers to be very, very small (if indeed there are any). There is certainly no question whatsoever that the figure would be many thousands less than those murdered by guns.

correct. that goes without saying.

ok, so let's review what we know from the statistics: drunk driving kills more people per year than guns do, but almost half of all gun deaths are innocent victims, while not nearly as many innocent victims die as the result of drunk driving (this last part is only an assumption, but one i think we'll both agree is safe to make; we have no data here about innocent victims killed by drunk driving).

so as far as we should be concerned here, guns are more dangerous to innocent bystanders than drunk driving is. i was well aware of that before i made my last post.

glad we've got that settled. i thought we already had.

this drunk driving business has little to do with anything, which is why i'm finished with it, and was even before i made my previous post. i can name alot of things that kill more people than guns each year, and alot of things that kill less. so what?now if we can seperate ourselves from this little red herring and get back on topic, that'd be great.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1987245 -

The 3000 killed on 9-11-01 weren't counted as murder victims? Were they not killed?

That stat blows my mind.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1987255 -

as far as i'm aware, there weren't any firearms involved.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1987352 -

I'm refering to the murder victims by weapon stat from the FBI (The hijackers used weapons to hijack the planes and they used the planes as weapons... vehicular homicide on a very large scale).

I understand why it was left out but it isn't exactly honest. I guess people killed by acts of terrorism aren't murdered in the eyes of the feds.

Of course, this has nothing to do with guns. I'm not even arguing. Just wanted to point this out. It surprised me.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1987363 -

Would they have counted it if the WTC was blown up with a bomb?


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: Rose]
    #1987380 -

That stat blows my mind.

that's discussed on this page.

makes sense if you think about it. it's a sort of statistical outlier.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1987399 -

Cool link.

It is simple realy. When this study began, they didn't intend to study terror (This study began in 1929). They would taint the study mid way if they started tracking terror stats in 2001. They wanted to track good old fashioned American murder.

Still... what happened to never forget? America has changed a lot since 1929. I wonder if any blacks weren't counted among the murdered in the early years of this study.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control *DELETED* [Re: ]
    #1987555 -

Post deleted by mushmaster


Votes accepted from the dawn of the universe until the end of time

View the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1987576 -

oops... i forgot an option for those who were not swayed either way... oh well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1987629 -

I was looking for that one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1987668 -

revised:


i :
am generally in favor of restrictive gun laws and this debate hasn't swayed my opinion in either direction.
am generally in favor of restrictive gun laws and this debate has made me more in favor of them
am generally in favor of restrictive gun laws and this debate has made me less in favor of them
was in generally in favor of restrictive gun laws but after reading this debate i would now describe myself being against such policies.
am generally in favor of liberalized (not liberal, liberalized!) gun laws and this debate hasn't swayed my opinion in either direction.
am generally in favor of liberalized (not liberal, liberalized!) gun laws and this debate has made me more in favor of gun-freedom than i was before
am generally in favor of liberalized (not liberal, liberalized!) gun laws and this debate has made me more in favor of tighter gun laws than i was before
was generally in favor of liberalized (liberalized! not liberal!) gun laws but after reading this debate i'd now describe myself as more in favor of strict gun laws.






Votes accepted from the dawn of the universe until the end of time

View the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: gun control [Re: ]
    #1988971 -

Well, now we know who is reading this thread.

As of this post, five votes have been cast for:

am generally in favor of liberalized (not liberal, liberalized!) gun laws and this debate hasn't swayed my opinion in either direction.

And no votes for anything else.

hmmmmmmmmmm

Should I vote? I might stand out.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The False Promise of Gun Control
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,132 23 04/16/03 05:53 PM
by pattern
* Whither Gun Control? luvdemshrooms 1,532 12 05/23/04 07:23 AM
by Xlea321
* 40 Reasons For Gun Control
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 6,084 31 10/08/13 02:05 AM
by Therian
* Test your knowledge of gun control:
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 6,268 45 09/14/01 06:14 PM
by wingnutx
* Gun Control, does it work?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Granola 3,936 46 12/25/03 05:50 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* The most thoughtful gun-control position I've seen yet... retread 913 5 09/01/04 10:49 PM
by retread
* Gun control part #666 PjS 1,452 7 12/30/01 09:26 PM
by nugsarenice
* Gun Lock Giveaways - Effective Gun Control enimatpyrt 952 10 12/30/03 08:15 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
16,791 topic views. 2 members, 22 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.3 seconds spending 0.167 seconds on 46 queries.