violence: the facts

[Kat]

A friend sent me this link recently. I found it both interesting and disturbing. An overview of violence worldwide. The section on gun deaths really drives it home how lack of strong gun laws contributes to both the crime (and death) rate. Check this out if you're interested:

http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue187/facts.htm

p.s. dang, the 1st link I provided didn't seem to work very well, did it? ;) Try the new one I pasted in...

[lori344]

Kat,
for times sake... which link do we take from your link? I'm I being a blind woman?? :rolleyes:
~lori

thanks for the "re-direct"

[Staceon]

Hi Kat,

By your statement you do mean the numbers above do show(once again) that lack of gun laws leads to fewer crimes? Or in other words the stronger the gun laws the more crime? Sorry your statement did not provide that conclusion, just wanted clarification.

[Kat]

Hi Staceon,

Like I wrote above, it seems to me that lax gun laws (not strong gun laws or control) lead to an increase in death rates due to shootings. However, bear in mind that the facts page does seem to be outdated (most information from the mid-80's, when the article seems to have been published), so I'm not exactly sure how much things have changed since then...

Consider Israel - I seem to recall a large portion of the population owns guns there, yet the reported death rates (on the facts page) due to shootings seems to be relatively small. A friend who visited Israel years ago told me how shocked they were to see everyday citizens toting machine guns in public. I'm not certain if the oddity regarding Israel's gun death rate is due to the fact that the information isn't very current, or if it's due to some other reason, i.e.: not including intifada-related deaths?

Anyhow, it seemed interesting & I wanted to share the link with anyone else who may be curious about the subject of violence. Take it with a grain of salt and bear in mind that this article is 13 years old. :)

[hartman]

Kat,

We he we go again :). So lets get this out in the open where do you stand, do people have the right to own guns? Since you don't directly implicate the US I will just ask on a over all level.

Here is where I stand:

I own a good number of hand guns and rifles. I have a federal permit and a state permit, and all my guns are registered with my local town as required by law. I currently have never committed a crime with these weapons or in any crime in general, other than a few speeding tickets.

Yes violence is very high all over the world today but guns are not to blame. Yes they do an excellent job a killing things but they are controlled by people. People are the problem not guns. Lots of things in this world kill people, knifes, cars, earthquakes, cigarets, fires, etc.. we don't live in a perfect world.

Also in the US we have over 20,000 laws on controlling guns we don't need anymore. In the US the gun control people don't want better laws and less gun violence they want a total ban on guns and confiscation of all weapons, they just don't have the guts to admit it. They know that the US people do not support a total ban on guns, so they use the lies to get what they want.

Hartman

[Kat]

hartman, I didn't post this link so I would get involved in a flame-fest regarding gun control. I posted a link I found interesting regarding violence in general world-wide.

If you would like to discuss gun control or gun laws in the United States, perhaps someone else who is more interested or informed regarding that specific issue would be happy to oblige you.

[Staceon]

Hi Kat,

I spent a better part of a year on some political debate boards and gun control was a hot topic that came up more times than I really care to remember. I have seen this topic approached from wide ranges of perspectives. The problem from your link is not the date it was published, its the underlying point its trying to make. Its a weak argument that is easly refuted.

The obvious examples are given above and the usual rebuttle is examples such as Sweden or as in your example Israel. Tha misses the point. You can find whole ranges of countries that fall into any number of cataegories. Such as the US (high guns/high crime); Switzerland and Israel (high guns/low crime); Japan (low guns/low crime); and Mexico (low guns/high crime). Any two countries can be compared or contrasted to make any point desired. Furthermore you can take countries with the same makeups(such as lack-luster gun laws) and all will have different violent crime rates, some greater, some less than the US. To say this one characteristic is responsible for the difference is to ignore logic.

The line of thought that Britian has lower violent crimes rates because they have lower numbers of gun is flawed too. First they have always had lower numbers, long before strict gun laws in the US. Secondly their violent crime rates(as elsewhere in the world) are going up, compared to US which has been going down for decades. To summarize, there is no consistent global correlation between gun availability and violent crime rates.

[hartman]

Kat,

I'm not looking for a flame war :). Why did you post a topic about violence and infer increased gun control would affect this and then claim you don't want to talk about the subject?

The section on gun deaths really drives it home how lack of strong gun laws contributes to both the crime (and death)

Just asking, you want to show us levels of increased violence and then directly connect it to guns.

Hartman

[Kat]

Interesting, Staceon. Statistics can lie if people manipulate the facts enough to suit their own purposes.

Sorry, hartman, perhaps I shouldn't have written that, don't take offense. I was just shocked to find that the entire Vietnam War claimed 46,121 US lives, while gun deaths at home in the US were responsible for the deaths of 84,644 in the same time frame. I can't think of anything that might explain this, other than the gun laws or controls at the time may have been too lax. Or maybe people were just a lot angrier back then? As a self-professed responsible, law-abiding, and informed gun owner, would you like to offer your perspective?

p.s. And to be fair, since I did initially make a gun-control statement (which in retrospect I regret), I should answer your question. You asked, So lets get this out in the open where do you stand, do people have the right to own guns?

I'm fairly certain you meant to ask if people should have the right to own guns. As to whether people do have the right to own guns, well that varies depending on where you live. To answer your question, yes, I believe people should have the right to own guns, with perhaps some certain reasonable restrictions.

[hartman]

Kat,

No offence taken, some people think that there is a direct correlation between guns and violence, just I don't'.

I was under the impression that we lost 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam War but maybe not all killed were by guns. As for the number killed in the US during that time, I have what I think is wrong with that number, I maybe wrong. I believe that the Vietnam War went from 1959-1972 13 years total for US direct involvement. During that time no US ground troops arrived till 1965, so the major death toll comes from the years 1965-1972 7 years. So if the number of US soil deaths is measured during the whole war it is misleading.


Here are some interesting facts for today

National Center for Health Statistics

NCSH reported firearms-related deaths in America
for 1997 totaling 32,436. There were 9 victims under
one year of age, 75 victims between one and four years
of age, and 546 victims between five and fourteen years
of age. These figures correspond to 0.03%, 0.23%, and
1.6%, respectively. "The true figures show that over
98% of people killed by firearms misuse are not young
children,"

Granted 32K is a lot but most deaths are adults being stupid, not including victims of course.

Hartman

[hesaias]

Well, From a personal line of thought, the right to keep and bear arms , IMO, was not intended to be the mantra for the NRA. I dont believe the Founding Fathers had in mind the way we hold that right today. That being said, it is our right, and I find no harm in exercizing it, responsably.
I do not own a gun, and do not intend to. Too much temptation for kids, and adults who loose thier temper.
Now thats off my chest, heres the deal. More folks are killed by Drunk Drivers each year than by guns.(I think, I could be wrong and will stand corrected if I be so:)
Drunk Driving is illegal, most places, but fplks still do it. Murder is illegal, people still do it. Armed Robbery is againgt the law.... do you see a pattern? The laws in place are not enforced. You have no fear of the concequinces of your actions, you do things you aint supposed to. Its that simple. More laws wont help.
There is a saying in AA circles, "people dont change because they see the light, they change because they feel the heat."
If you are scared you will be whipped publicly, like the fellow in Taiwan(or somewhere), or have some serious reprisal for the small offences, and then the really bad stuff for the murder and mayhem, things might change, might, not will change.
The propaganda will sway folks to either side. Its our right to own guns, own 'em. If you think its wrong , dont. People are still gonna do stupid things, and kill each other.

Did any or this make sence?

[Kahuna Tuna]

Hesaias hit it squarely on the head. It is not a failure to control guns but an abject and total failure of our criminal justice system. I saw an article a few years back that had some staggering statistics on crime and punishment. There are an enormous amount of crimes committed in this country and as you go up the scale of crimes from less serious to most serious you will find virtually all felonies are being committed by repeat offenders. Almost all rapists, murderers, child molesters, and other serious criminals have substansial rap sheets and have been through the "system" numerous times. By the time the average murderer is caught they had had many run ins with the law and more often than not have had substansial jail time as well.

Our court system is a revolving door. Time off for good behavior, time off to ease jail overcrowding, time off because the judge isnt tough enough. In this country when we sentence somebody to ten years in prison more often than not they are out in two or three. This is ridiculous. I wont turn this into a debate on capitol punishment but if you rape somebody, kill someone, molest a child, or commit some other heinous crime you should either be executed or put away for a very long time. Its obvious from the rap sheets of some of these high profile cases that these people are being cut loose to commit crimes again and again. Here in California we enacted the three strikes laws because it was obvious for whatever reason criminals had absolutely no fear of jail and were comitting crimes again and again. I think a big part of the problem is not that our jails aren't unpleasant enough, although I would like to see prisons more so, but that criminals know they are going to get cut loose much sooner, and once they do get out they have that much more experience on how to avoid getting caught in the first place.

I guess that if I could change the way things were it would be that prison itself was more of a deterent, that 20 years in prison meant 20 hard years as it does in most other countries, and that judges should be held accountable for their sentencing or lack of it. I own guns and am a fervent supporter of the 2nd amendment but anybody who uses a gun to commit a crime should be locked up till they are old and gray.

[signu459]

Unfortunately guns are must in our world today!

As Hesais pointed out criminals by nature do not folow the law, hence the name criminal. Why would we think that your average criminal is going to register a gun when he intends on using it to break other laws? It just does not make sense at all. The fact is that guns laws do nothing to deter crime and only make it hard on the average citizen who already follows the law.

If you ban guns or in the U.S's case you make it illeagal for fellon to own a gun, the bad guys will still find a way to get guns. Much like people still find a way to get drugs. But if you disarm the 99% of the population that follows the law then you only make then easy targets for criminals. The secondary probelm with gun laws in the US is that they were not enforced. I think that LaPiere from the NRA was exactly on point when he said that Clinton only wanted the blood and the issue and was not trying to fix the problem ( not a direct quote). During Clintons 8 eight years over 200,000 people were aressted for illeagal gun ownership, but only 3 were prosecuted. The same is true for lots of other guns laws. If you don't enforce the laws then it is easy to tell the unwitting public that gun laws are failing. Then after lying to the public you simply add more laws until you finally reach the ultimate goal of banning guns altogether.

The real facts are that in the US the highest crime rates are in areas with the most gun laws. in England for example where guns were banned several years ago as previously mentioned violent crime has gone up dramaticly. The large increase started shortly after guns were banned. In the US every state that passed a law allowing concealed carry the violent crime rate dropped massivly, usually around 10%. Allowing a person to carry a weapon on their person certainly is not an increase in gun control and violoent crime dropped. Anther problem is that you never hear about a gun saving someones life. the media simply will not report those stats because it goes against thier agenda. But the fact is that Thousands of people each year either save themselves or someone else because they had a gun handy. IMO every women should carry a small handgun in their purse. that would make any potential rapist think twice about attacking.

What is really sad is that we must go to these measures to protect ourselves from crime. No matter how much luxury and technology we have we are no differnt today than we were 1000 or 5000 years ago. Humans will alway have bad guys and always have good guys, I guess it is our nature. I think we have more bad guys today that ever before but that is a social issue and not genetics. fathers day is right around the corner, I wish a lot more American men would start being one.

[hesaias]

Originally posted by signu459
fathers day is right around the corner, I wish a lot more American men would start being one.

Ill second that.

[hcs3]

OK, i'll bite :)

Lots of things in this world kill people, knifes, cars, earthquakes, cigarets, fires, etc..

with the exception of the knife, none of the things above were invented with the purpose of killing. yes, they can kill. but that is not what their orignal purpose was. guns, on the otherhand, were invented to kill. whether it be animals for food, or humans for protection, they are meant to be used for killing. they are an instrument of detruction.

Also in the US we have over 20,000 laws on controlling guns we don't need anymore.

100% in agreeance. we need only 1 law - NO GUNS

Well, From a personal line of thought, the right to keep and bear arms , IMO, was not intended to be the mantra for the NRA. I dont believe the Founding Fathers had in mind the way we hold that right today. That being said, it is our right, and I find no harm in exercizing it, responsably.

this "right to bear arms" was during a time that guns were rifles. the rifles were unable to be concealed - unlike the handguns of today. it was also a during a time when every man was expected to fight in a moments notice, grabbing the family rifle of the fireplace mantle. lastly, it was the primary device used for obtianing food for their family. there are many laws passed 100's of years ago that are no longer needed in todays world. most of those have either been removed, or forgotten. i think th e"right to bear arms" falls in this category.



Unfortunately guns are must in our world today!

the sad, but obvious truth.

my own perspective...

i'd love to see guns removed completely. that'll never happen, so let's look at reality. i have 2 main problems with guns. 1)handguns and 2) automatic rifles.

i don't like the fact that guns can be concealed on anybody's person. with the lack of concealment, i feel gun crimes would go way down. besides police officials, i don't feel anybody should own a handgun.

i also don't like fully automatic weapons. NRA can scream all they want about using guns for hunting, but after you get done emptying a clip from an automatic rifle into the deer, there isn't much left to eat. the automatic feature just make sit easier for the untrained individual to hit what they are aiming at. what happened to the days of shooting 1 bullet and needing a minute or more to reload another single shot? ahh the good ole days ;)

taking it a step further, i'd hold the manufactures responsible. much like the drug scene (another lossing battle), hold the seller responsible, not the user.

lastly, i agree that enough gun laws are "in the books" to get the job done; and i'm not advocating the removal of guns. just sharing my thoughts, and leaving you with one final thought...

sport shooting and hunting can be accomplished through the use of non-automatic rifles; and the best protection man could have is a well trained dog.

henry

[signu459]

I don't think the NRA is advocating the use or ownership of fully automatic weapons. The only case I can think of is the collector who has to go through many background checks to get licensed to own a fully auto gun. Aslo in the back of my head I think they are required to remove the firing pin, which renders the gun useless. I doubt that the average gun collectoris a threat to society. And I know it is illeagal, as it should be, to hunt deer or any other animal with fully auto weapons. Heck in Indiana it is illeagal to hunt with a rifle.

[Staceon]

Oh hail, hail...its the call of the left...a lot of words that sound great(and make great news headlines) but dig a little deeper and you find nothing. First I do agree in the lofty notion that it would be nice to live in a world free from guns, but since we dont live in Disneyland lets gets back to the topic.

Since 1934 civilians have been required to obtain a special license from the U.S. Department of Treasury in order to possess automatic-fire weapons, and since 1986 importation or manufacture of these weapons for private use has been prohibited. In the past 50 years no civilian has EVER been killed by an automatic weapon. The media has a nice way of confusing automatic weapons with semi-automatic, Hollywood doesn't help either. There are no semi-automatic(one shot per trigger pull) that are easly converted to full automatic. Furthermore semi-automatic are rarly used in crimes. Criminals almost always use handguns or shotguns. I have seen one study that went before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that semi-automatics were used in less than 1% of crimes. So now we have got that subject covered, lets move on to some more...

On the concealed carry laws, the fact remains once the law is on the books crimes goes DOWN across the board, in any study. A recent study by University of Chicago economist John Lott found that:

Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any given year, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults. That doesn't even take into account the social, or montary cost(which is paid for in taxes).

Furthermore you are missing the argument that carry laws protect people. How many times have you seen a news headline that says "today a woman protected herself from a would be mugger by showing her gun"? You never see it, one its seldone reported, two just doesn't go over well for the lefties.

Suing the gun manufactorts? Come on, that is just beyond my rational. Not to mention you have got to reverse the well-established tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. Furthermore we dont even want to get into what the cities(the ones suing) use the money for. Do I have to remind you of the tobbacco money?

I could go on and on, but I am sure others will chime in on some of your other comments.

[Rick]

Well one thing is for sure ....gun manufacturing has taken a big hit over the last 5 years .
I worked for Sturm Ruger as a supervisor in the Prescott AZ plant for 11 years and the gun industry is hurting .I don't know if they are now but in 98 Smith & Wesson and a few other top gun manufacturers were going down for the count .Sturm Ruger in the last few months have had a couple big lay offs.
Back in the early 90s we were producing 1400 guns a day .couldn't keep up with the demand .Clinton came into office and by 96 things started to slow down for all gun makers.
No fully automatics were ever made except for the Uzi ,which mr.Ruger bought the patent from in the early 90s.We made maybe 3000 total for law enforcement and then stopped producing them .

Just thought some of you would like to know that gun production has dropped very low .

I hate the violence in the word today,especially in the US ,but unless the laws we have are upheld and the judicial system gets tougher ,it will only get worse .

Rick

[Q-ball]

My views I suppose...I agree with alot of what was said, on both sides. While I do enjoy target shooting my pistol & revolver immensely, I'm sure I could find another hobby if you could guarantee that noone including the criminally intent would ever have one. Noone can make that guarantee of course, although the gun-control would love to say so.
Face it, if there is a ban of guns would simply take them away from people who own them legally for sport or self-protection. England was mentioned, and is a good example. Henry I think mentioned the dog. All well & good if you own your home, but how many apartments have you lived in that will allow you to own a dog? Not an option for me. There have been two instances in my life so far in which I was very glad that I had a pistol available. No, neither time did I end up needing them, in fact the other person never found out that I had it. However, they were both situations that if the police had not shown up as quick as they did, I do believe things would have been very different. Don't know about you, but the closest police barracks to me is 10 miles from me, taking at least 10 minutes to get here if they aren't in the immediate area. As much as they'd like to think so, the police are simply not immediately responsible for your safety. They can prevent some crime, but honestly very little. There simply aren't enough of them to be everywhere a crime is happening when it happens. I read somewhere, and I'll try to find it, but I'm pretty busy this week so not sure if I'll get a chance to find it, but I read that the state of Texas has one of the lowest rates of violent crimes in the US. Funny thing is, they also have one of the highest number of people carrying weapons both concealed & open. Kentucky is also up there pretty good if I remember right. Perhaps if our legal system would take violent crime more seriously and actually punish the criminals, they would think twice before committing the sort of crimes that we see. Unfortunately, until that day comes (& I'm not holding my breath) I will take the necessary steps I have to in order protect my family & myself. When it comes right down to it, I am the only one that is truly responsible for our safety.
Good debate guys & gals, keep this friendly & all, I do enjoy reading & learning from others on this subject.

Q!!!

[hcs3]

alrighty, i'm back :)

before i begin, let me first say that i am NOT anti-guns. i do not wish to take the guns away from hunters or sport shooters anywhere. i think it's possible for some to misunderstand where i'm coming from. i do not own any guns, but have fired (and enjoyed doing so) various guns. from chicago police issue 9mm, shotguns, and .357 mags to hunting rifles. i have been hunting and have killed various animals (never found that fun or exciting). i do, however, own a bow-n-arrow for which i use for archery. with that cleared up....

The only case I can think of is the collector who has to go through many background checks to get licensed to own a fully auto gun. Aslo in the back of my head I think they are required to remove the firing pin, which renders the gun useless.

ok, things may have changed since my memory, but i know this for sure. roughly 15 years ago my uncle purchased an uzi. this is/was a fully auto uzi. he is not a gun collector. infact, this was his only gun. i don't know if he obtained it legally or not, but he had it. he was not afraid to show it to everyone, so i suppose he owned it legally. he is not involved in law enforcement to any degree. he did target shoot with it regurlary, once in front of me. it was definately fully auto. he was also able to purchase replacement ammo. i don't know if this was legal or not either, but he was never short on bullets. as far as removing the firing pin, what would be the purpose of a gun that cannot shoot? why own it?

Oh hail, hail...its the call of the left...a lot of words that sound great(and make great news headlines) but dig a little deeper and you find nothing.

you must be talking about our gun laws?

Since 1934 civilians have been required to obtain a special license from the U.S. Department of Treasury in order to possess automatic-fire weapons, and since 1986 importation or manufacture of these weapons for private use has been prohibited.

see above. if this uzi of my uncles was illegally obtained, it shows how little gun laws work. when an average joe can obtain a weapon of destruction such as an uzi and find ammo for it, something must be done.

In the past 50 years no civilian has EVER been killed by an automatic weapon.

i'm assuming you mean in the USA? i'm lazy, i'm not gonna research that, but i HIGHLY doubt your claim. if you'd like to do a search to prove your statement i'm all for reading it. but please make it a reputable, impartial source, not the NRA.

for the sake of arguement, i'll go along with no "civilian". "civilian" obviously leaves out any law enforcement officer. how many "non-civilian" (read FBI, CIA, ATF, US marshalls, coast guard, etc) have been killed by auto rifles?

now what about outside the USA? the war on guns is a world wide battle, not just the USA.

There are no semi-automatic(one shot per trigger pull) that are easly converted to full automatic.

i don't know enough about guns to refute this, but i can claim personal experience. my good buddy used to own a semi-auto rifle. i'm actually trying to call him to see what model exactly. legally, he obtained a hair triger (not sure what the technical term is, that's what i'm calling it) for this rifle. though it wasn't classified as an auto rifle 'cause it was still one shot per trigger pull, it did allow him to empty the magazine clip faster than a 1 shot per second ratio. a newbie like me was not able to obtain the quick fire like he was doing (there were a couple of us there, none of us could); but he had no problem getting it to fire similiar to an auto.

Criminals almost always use handguns

exactly why i'd like to seem them dissappear.

Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

pro-gun activists always reach for these numbers in their defense. in reality, they mean nothing. they cannot take into account all of the possibilities. for instance, rape. maybe some universities added "help phones" in multiple locations around the campus. this happened recently at stat universities of illinois. in the years following rape cases reported at the universities were dramatically lower. the phones themselves cannot be directly linked to the reduction (though it possibly did help) because it's possible public awareness amoungst females also was on the rise, or maybe fewer rapist attended the unveristies the following years, etc. now the totals for the universities obviously get piled into stats along with the rest of the states total. the NRA doesn't look into all the possibilties, they just know the rape cases went down. that is making a big assumption on their part. the same thing could be said for murders, etc. way too many factors come into play to be making assumptions.

Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any given year, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

LOL. with a comment as presumptious as that, i can think of no way to respond other than laughter.

Suing the gun manufactorts? Come on, that is just beyond my rational.

you said it, not me ;)

enough for now.

henry

[Kahuna Tuna]

hcs3, you stated, " this "right to bear arms" was during a time that guns were rifles. the rifles were unable to be concealed - unlike the handguns of today."

You could not be more wrong. When our Constitution and the amendments to it were written there were indeed handguns. The average person did not usually own anything but rifles but concealable pistols both large and small were available and no upper class gentleman would be caught dead without his set of dueling pistols in case his honor were ever questioned. It would have been just as easy in 1776 to pull a pistol from beneath ones coat and kill someone, the difference being that person would have been arrested, tried, and hanged within the week.

The second amendment isnt about recreational shooters, hunters, or even self protection, its about tyrany. Read it for yourself.

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Simple, brilliant , eloquent, and timeless.

Here are some other quotes to ponder:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt {1759-1806 British Statesman}

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
-- Charles A. Beard

"I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted. The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every American's guarantee of freedom."
-- President Harry S. Truman

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson of Virginia

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams of Massachusetts

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison of Virginia

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
-- George Mason of Virginia

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."
-- Patrick Henry, of Virginia

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
-- Thomas Paine of Pennsylvania

[hesaias]

Sorry
I just dont buy the story that guns deter crime. Gang members know the other guys are armed, and they confront them any way. Theives very often steal guns from places they rob. Some one care to look up a statistic on how many folks have been shot in thier own house, with thier own gun? Guns do not deter crime. Think of it this way. Just by the fact of how many guns were sold in the us last 10 years, the crime rate should have dropped dramaticly, but it didnt. It may have dropped some, but I think its just the way numbers go.
Hand guns were made to kill people. Dont even make me say Glock. As far as hunting, Gonzo hunting on full auto is far from sporting.
Still, the state of our fair country/world dictates we have guns, if we like, so, have away. I just wish folks would stop blowing smoke about it.

[Rick]

Henry ,
theirs no need to call your friend .any semi auto can be tweaked to make it fully automatic .the uzi is illegal,so is the Thompson ,the uzi takes a 9ml., any gun store carries them .

Kat,
I hope this topic isn't something you dwell on often .
this topic is a fact of life which sucks , And I'm afraid the only people who can make a dent in lawlessness is ....big brother .and I don't feel he wants to change at all .
Rick

[signu459]

Henry,

Sometime in the early 90's the laws changes as far a owning a fully auto weapon. I have a freind who is an avid gun collector who went on a buying spree just before the law went into effect. Everyone who owned a fully auto weapon was allowed to keep so long as it was registered and of course not a fellon. So your uncle in this case got the gun before the current law was in place. On another note my friend about a year after the law went into effect turned around and sold the auto guns to a licensed dealer for 3-5 times the price he paid for them. The law effectively ruined the market for the fully auto guns so the manufacturers stopped producing them, except for military and police use.

As far as removing the firing pin, I am not sure about that, as I stated before. However most people who own these weapons are collectors, and do not want to fire the weapons. Mostly they have them to look at or as an investment.

Hesaias,

Again any type of hunting with fully auto weapons is illegal- so your "gonzo" hunting statement carries no weight. To say that guns don't deter crimes is simply rediculous. We sell millions more condoms today than ever before and we still have STD's and teen pregnancy, does that mean condoms don't work? Here is a good example about guns detering crime- Several years ago a small newspaper around the San Fransico area in a moment of liberal briliance decided to print the names and addresses of all the registered gun owners in the area they served. Their good intentioned goal was to notify people that their friends or neighbors were evil gun owners. Sorry didn't work!! Soon afterwards police started to find copies of the paper in the posession of the crimials they arrested. In addition it was not hard to see that crime on the houses on the list went down and for those not on the list it went up. Basically all the morons at the paper did was paint a great big bullseye on every home in the area that was not on the list. - got that story from Paul Harvey he told it much better than I did.

[hcs3]

Again any type of hunting with fully auto weapons is illegal- so your "gonzo" hunting statement carries no weight.

c'mon sig, i know your not that naive. just because it is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. my good buddy with the semi-auto, for example. no hunting license at all. doesn't matter to him, as he isn't in it for the food. he favorite pastime is taking his now auto rifle into his cornfields and destroying every coyote he sees. rabbits, raccoons, opossums, doesn't matter. just so he can shoot it. rather morbid, huh? but he enjoys it.

We sell millions more condoms today than ever before and we still have STD's and teen pregnancy, does that mean condoms don't work?

i don't think the 2 can be compared. with one, a mistake means you've created a life. the other takes lives away.

got that story from Paul Harvey he told it much better than I did.

who is he?

henry

[hesaias]

Did Pauls story tell you that guns deter crime? I figure that the crime rate prolly went up. Even though the rate went down on the gun owners, over all, the fact of gun owner ship didnt help the over all rate.
I see your point, but still, the arguement is not whether guns work or not, but just because someone has one, makes little diff when crime time comes.

[johnny]

A few comments,

Give me a handgun.. heck even a shotgun... put your big bad german shepherd at the other end of the room and say DRAW! ... see who walks out of there unscratched. Or to go with a real-life scenario... we used to have a doberman pincher, we had a burglar break into the house one night... the dang dog was bothering him to be pet when my father came out (he had heard the window break) and said "SICK" then the dog attacked viciously, but if my father hadn't seen it or if the robber had a gun I would guarantee you it would be a different story.

In the new family house, when I was in H.S. we had a burglar break in. You'd better believe I grabbed the first gun I could find and load and even though it was only a .22 when I had it pointed at the burglar and said "get the hell outta here" he left. For the jehova (sp?) witnesses that kept letting themselves into our house I found the arrowed bow worked much better as a deterant as I really didn't want them to press charges but didn't know if they were psychos or "followers of god" (is there a difference sometimes).

If you take away the right to have guns.... criminals, gangs etc will still have them, but you won't have them to protect yourself. Does anyone have the numbers on the percentage of people arresting for assault/murder with illegal possesion of a firearm? I believe the number was 85% (if anyone could find actual numbers that would be great).

If you were a burglar and had the choice of breaking into two identical houses, with the same amount of people in them, the same thing to be stolen, would you break into the one with the "we belong to the NRA" sticker or the one with the "save the whales" sticker?

People seem to forget that a lot of people enjoy shooting guns at target ranges, not just animals. Sure there's always going to be the idiot that shoots anything that moves... sure he should be arrested, guns removed, but he should also have his license removed (after all cars kill more people than any other man made item), never allowed to drink or smoke or have caffeine (drugs that may have affected his "mind") etc.

If you want an idea as to how to protect yourself better from criminals, buy a nice semi-automatic weapon, remove the firing arm and leave one wherever a burglar may enter. I guarantee he'll grab it, check if it's loaded and try to use that against you. As long as you have a weapon that will work... you've got the upperhand as he sits there wondering why it won't fire.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Nick
ps. yes my initials are NRA
Nicholas Robert Allers

[Kat]

hartman: Allow me to quote the article I was referring to: "The Vietnam War (between 1963 and 1973) claimed 46,121 US soldiers’ lives. Guns at home were responsible for the deaths of 84,644 civilians in the same period." - J H Goldstein, Aggression and Crimes of Violence, Oxford 1986.

Now, is it just me, or isn't this appalling? Granted, this was a long time ago, but just because something happened a few decades ago, doesn't mean we still shouldn't discuss it, or more importantly, try to learn something from it.

hcs3, personally I agree with some of your statements. For instance, you cannot argue the fact that handguns are explicitly created for the sole reason to use against other human beings...

However, I feel I should point out that handguns were in existence at the time the constitution was written. I believe that the earliest of handguns were even in existence as early as the 1500's, if memory serves me correctly. Just FYI.

As to how to interpret the US constitution, that's a highly charged issue. You can interpret it any way you wish. However, I feel safe to say that we may all agree that the 'Founding Fathers' didn't always have the right idea, or that they were so very noble in thought and action. For the 'Founding Fathers' permitted legal slavery, and legal discrimination against ethnicities and women. Which things, to everyone's benefit, have been overturned and outlawed. So don't idealize these American heroes too much, or hold each word as golden: after all, they were only human after all, and human beings make mistakes.

Staceon, you can't in one breath condemn one set of statistics as manipulative of the truth, and then in the next breath claim your own highly biased statistics are the gospel. If you want everyone to play by a certain set of rules, you should respect those rules yourself.

Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any given year...

hcs3 is right, this is laughable... Not only do you base this statement on questionable and certainly biased statistics, but then you extrapolate and venture into speculation on what might have happened. Keep the fairy tales for your childrens' bedtime stories.

Kahuna Tuna, you can quote anyone you like. It doesn't prove anything though, other than some other people have agreed with you in this regard. Anyone can go out there and find a whole list of quotes that are in opposition to your stance. Facts, not opinions, should be what counts...

Rick, no, I don't dwell on this sort of thing too very often. Actually, how it cropped up originally was in a private discussion I was having (with a person not posting to this board), and I thought the link my friend provided me with was interesting enough to share with everyone here. That it swelled into a huge debate about guns is an interesting evolution of the original discussion about violence in general. Personally I found the section on child abuse (in the link on violence I provided) more disgusting and shocking than any of the gun-related factoids.

For instance (if you haven't checked out the link), I was disgusted to see that half to three-quarters of those committing abuse are fathers or father figures, and that fewer than 10 per cent are strangers. It means that the average protective mother should be less afraid of that wierd guy lurking around their childrens' playground than of their own husbands or other male family members. Now that's really scary, at least to me.

Now I gotta go get packing... I'm off for a two-week vacation...

[johnny]

where to start.....

"I was disgusted to see that half to three-quarters of those committing abuse are fathers or father figures, and that fewer than 10 per cent are strangers. It means that the average protective mother should be less afraid of that wierd guy lurking around their childrens' playground than of their own husbands or other male family members."

c'mon. Half of these were fathers or father figures... um yeah the world is made up of about 49% males. 45% of which are fathers or fatherly figures.

"fewer than 10% are strangers"... true, usually someone that breaks into your house is someone that you've met before... however that can include the kid that lives down the block who you've never spoken to or you're right in that it could include your own husband ... it's too generic of a statement as are most anti-gun statements.

From all the shows I've seen, the US was NOT a pleasant place to live during Vietnam... I'd imagine shootings vs. population living in the US was higher during that period.

<b>Incorrect statement in 3.... 2.... 1..... </b> "handguns are explicitly created for the sole reason to use against other human beings..."

As far as I ever knew from history books, the pistol was first created for women who were at that time not "strong enough" to use the larger rifles etc.... granted it quickly took on other purposes, just remember back than a pistol was still a good foot long.

"handguns were even in existence as early as the 1500's"

Most historians quote the year 1660.

"Keep the fairy tales for your childrens' bedtime stories."

Are you starting up already here? The thread's not even two pages long yet.

"you can quote anyone you like. It doesn't prove anything though, other than some other people have agreed with you in this regard."

How many people have to agree before something becomes a fact?

"That it swelled into a huge debate about guns is an interesting evolution of the original discussion about violence in general."

You expect to bring up the topic of gun control or how guns are responsible for crime and expect there not to be a heated debated? yeah right.

"Personally I found the section on child abuse (in the link on violence I provided) more disgusting and shocking than any of the gun-related factoids. "
I agree very very very very much.

Have a nice vacation, try not to think of this topic too much and enjoy the trip!

Nick

[Kahuna Tuna]

Kat, I can always continue to count on you to be a fountainhead of ignorance.
"Kahuna Tuna, you can quote anyone you like. It doesn't prove anything though, other than some other people have agreed with you in this regard. Anyone can go out there and find a whole list of quotes that are in opposition to your stance. Facts, not opinions, should be what counts... "
Didnt know I was supposed to be proving anything. The "facts" are we have a constitution in this country that allows us the right to bear arms among other certain unalienable rights, this is one of the many thing that makes the US the greatest country in the world. Sure you can find lots of other people both abroad and in this country that would love to scrap our constitution and you could quote them all day long, the people I have quoted are for the most part the people who wrote it. I dont have to "agree" with every part of our constitution but like it or not it is the very basis for our form of government and is not there to be tinkered with.

[Kat]

johnny, the pistol was first created for women who were at that time not "strong enough" to use the larger rifles etc

I've never heard that one before. Handguns, until the 1800's, weren't very accurate at any range that would make the gun in any productive way a good utility hunting weapon. What I've read is that handguns were invented primarily for use in battle and dueling.

Most historians quote the year 1660.

Untrue. Take a gander at this site: http://www.members.sia.net.au/dispater/handgonnes.htm. "Hand Cannons" were in use as early as the 1300's. Barrel pistols were in use as early as the 1400's. It wasn't until the 1500s that handguns began to more commonly resemble the pistol we recognize today.

How many people have to agree before something becomes a fact?

Well, as many people you want can agree on anything, but that doesn't make it any more true. Take all those people who took poison years ago because they thought a comet in the sky was an alien spaceship sent to collect their spirits and take them to some celestial temple. They all agreed on something, but that certainly doesn't make what they agreed upon right, or a fact. Just because some people agree about something doesn't make it so...

Kahuna Tuna: Didnt know I was supposed to be proving anything.

Your point, perhaps?

Cya. :)

[hartman]

Kat,

Sure on the whole anyone getting killed by accident or by crime is a bad thing. I searched on the web for that report you listed but was unable to find who is included in the stats.

Guns at home were responsible for the deaths of 84,644 civilians in the same period

What does this include? Every gun death or just gun accident, people murdered? Etc. I just don't know or can’t tell.

Of course gun deaths are bad, but the solution is not to remove them just enforcement that current law and increase punishment for missuses of them. If I were in change I would do the following

Get ride of all current state and federal gun laws

Create a few basic common sense laws like
- You must be 21 years of age to buy and own
- You must go to 1 week of training
- You must have a license to buy
- If you commit a crime with a gun 20 years min in prison mandatory
- If you have a gun with no license 20 years min in prison mandatory
- The gun owner is responsible for actions resulting from improper use. Unless this gun is stolen.

All the talk about what type, semi vs. auto is just a waste of time! what law-abiding citizen’s buy is their business since they are LAW ABIDING. The argument of “no need for this or that type of gun� again is focusing on the wrong problem. The fact that I can buy a .50 caliber “Hawkins� rifle will not affect crime at all, who is going to use a gun that costs over $8,000.00, weights something like 50lbs, is about 6 feet long and each round cost $10 to hold up a convenient store? No one, they will get a stolen or illegal cheap pistol. But this gun can punch a hole in a car engine, travel well over 5 miles and still be deadly. Most hunting rifles like the 30/06 are far more dangerous than the so-called “assault rifles�. Most criminals will not spend the $1,800.00 plus for a Colt A4M4 rifle (m16) when they can get an illegal pistol for $100.00. . The type of gun is pointless; most crime is committed with cheap handguns and not anything else. My point is that the type is totally irrelevant a gun is a gun, what is important is the punishment for committing a crime with a gun. Also most current “assault rifles� are easily converted from the legal “semi or one pull one round� into full-auto for about $20.

Also the talk about “will or won’t� lower crime is again a waste of time. Without getting into the “rights issue� Criminals will commit crime regardless if they have a gun or not, just having a gun will not make someone decide “What the hell let’s go on a crime spree�. Yes I admit that a gun gives more power to the criminal and may make them bolder but again he/she was going to do it anyway. What I want to make sure is that law-abiding citizens if they so chose have the right to defend themselves.

Something that people never discuss is that if you own a gun you must be willing to kill someone if the need arrives. I for example would not blink an eye about killing anyone who threatens body harm to my family if they leave me no option. When I went to gun school the main focus (outside of safety) was to burn into your mind that if you are buying this gun for defense you must be willing to kill anything you point the gun at. And unless you can say yes 100% of the time you should get a dog. I would like my wife to carry a pistol but I know she would never pull the trigger and that is why I will never let her carry one.

Also how many of the anti-gun people have actually gone to a gun course or even shot or held a gun or gone to a gun club to talk with members? I know from experience that once I learn the consequences of owning and gun and the responsibility of ownership I’m far more responsible than ever before. Most gun owners are well aware of the carnage that can be caused and are more concerned about the misuse than the anti-gun people. Since I believe criminals paint gun ownership with a bad brush I want to punish them far more harshly than they are today.

Take for example in Massachusetts there is a required law that mandates one year in prison for the possession of an un-registered handgun regardless if it is used in a crime. But on average about 1000 people a year are arrested with illegal guns and only about 5 have every served any time even though they are required by law. Does punishing legal guns owners sound like the solution?

Again let me state that anyone death via a gun is a sad thing but stuff happens and we live in a dangerous world.

Hartman

[Kahuna Tuna]

No Kat, one MAKES a point, which I indeed have. I could offer as much "proof" as I liked on the topic and I am sure you could offer as much "proof" backing your argument. My point, which you clearly missed(as is always the case with you when its something you dont want to hear), is that we have a 2nd amendment in this country, or are you saying we really dont and somehow I've just made it all up? Now why dont you run along to your greenpeace convention. Bye now.

[hcs3]

ok everybody, let's calm down. take a deep breath and relax. if your unable to respond in a civil manner, please don't respond.

thanks

henry

[signu459]

Originally posted by hcs3


c'mon sig, i know your not that naive. just because it is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. my good buddy with the semi-auto, for example. no hunting license at all. doesn't matter to him, as he isn't in it for the food. he favorite pastime is taking his now auto rifle into his cornfields and destroying every coyote he sees. rabbits, raccoons, opossums, doesn't matter. just so he can shoot it. rather morbid, huh? but he enjoys it.


Again proving that laws can't stop stupity, and that the people who are hurt by gun laws are law abiding. Next time he goes on one of his hunting sprees call the cops on him. I bet he will get in much more trouble over the fact that he is poching than hunting with an illegal weapon.

Yes very morbid

Paul Harvey does a new update that is nationaly sydicated three times a day. He has a very unique voice and starts his broadcast with "Now here's the rest of the Story"

See this link
http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/paul+harvey/1/*http://www.abcradio.com/radio/ph/index.shtml

[Rick]

Signu,


I think Paul Harvey's great, love the stuff he comes up with .


Gooooooood Day

Rick

[hcs3]

johnny said

Give me a handgun.. heck even a shotgun... put your big bad german shepherd at the other end of the room and say DRAW! ... see who walks out of there unscratched. Or to go with a real-life scenario... we used to have a doberman pincher, we had a burglar break into the house one night... the dang dog was bothering him to be pet when my father came out (he had heard the window break) and said "SICK" then the dog attacked viciously, but if my father hadn't seen it or if the robber had a gun I would guarantee you it would be a different story.

i hope your first scenerio is a joke. now, pertaining to your second scenerio, i'll quote myself... the best protection man could have is a well trained dog. your dog is obviously not well trained if it wants a stranger to pet it.

FACT a dog can hear, smell, and see better than humans. guns cannot do any of the above.

If you were a burglar and had the choice of breaking into two identical houses, with the same amount of people in them, the same thing to be stolen, would you break into the one with the "we belong to the NRA" sticker or the one with the "save the whales" sticker?

if i was a professional bugular, i wouldn't care about an NRA member. i would be able to break into his house without breaking windows, and kill him while he slept with his handgun nicely tucked under his pillow. that is, unless he had a well trained dog that was barking before i even evtered the house. in that case, the NRA member would have been awoke to possibly use his gun. however, me being the smart bugular i am, i would have fled the instant a dog started barking. to answer your question, only 2 things would stop me front entering a house. 1) a barking dog, 2) a sign that read "protected by ADT / Security Link".

kahuna said

I dont have to "agree" with every part of our constitution but like it or not it is the very basis for our form of government and is not there to be tinkered with.

i might be wrong, as my constitution test was many, many years ago, but i think your dead wrong. i believe our founding fathers realized that they could not possibly think of every situation or circumstance, as well as time would change ideals. therefore, the constituion could be / still is a work in progress. all you need to do is write another amendment to overturn a previous one. not so hard if you ask me ;)

you must remeber, there are no laws in the constitution, just ideas, values and guidelines for how our laws are written. we can change it as often as we'd like, and have laws that differ from the general standard that the constitution recognizes.

hartman

as a whole i really like what you had to say. well thought out. i even found myself agreeing with many things you had to say. but it also led me to another conclusion (uh-oh).

if the criminals are using the cheap handguns during their crimes, maybe we should abolish these? if gun collectors, hunters, and sport shooters are not using the $100 handguns, who'd be offended by the eleminatin of them? the criminals?

but getting back to the auto firing machines. do we really need these? OK, so maybe they are out of the reach financially for the everyday criminal, but i just can't see a reason to manufacture these guns for any other reason than to defend our country.

henry

[johnny]

hcs,

I agree with you on a few things, yes the security system sign would be better.

Yes a professional burglar could do all of that, but you're pretty much talking about a trained assasin. Most burglars are not "professionals" and end up killing people more when they get "caught in action" and get scared.

The dog was well trained in that we didn't want it to attach everyone that entered the house or bark at everyone that entered the house... it was to be a family pet, however we trained it to attack if commanded. It's a hard line as to how far to train a dog... should it attack people that enter at night without being commanded... what if your house visitor comes in or what if the dog doesn't recognize you in the dark (yeah they can still smell, but I'd still be cautious)

No I wasn't joking about the dog in the room. If the room is large enough to where I can raise the gun before the dog reaches me... he's a goner.

I didn't quite understand your first post... I thought you meant that you'd prefer a dog and no gun.... but I agree that I'd rather have the dog AND the gun.... as in the new family house... it doesn't have the large back yard the old house did (the doberman died before we moved) so we don't feel right getting a large dog, but instead have a west highland terrier. Rather than teaching it to SICK we taught it to bark at anyone that comes into the house. But I'll tell you the cockatiel we have is a MUCH MUCH better watchguard. He whistles anytime someone enters the yard and doesn't stop until they leave or enter the house. I'd bet on him before the dog ;)

kat,

hand cannons and pistols are a different thing completely... my dates could be very wrong I just did a search online and took from a couple of sources. Oh and I didn't say they were used for women to hunt with either.

who's to say that comet WAS NOT a spaceship? Something is considered a fact until it is disproved or until popular thought no longer supports it..... aka wasn't the world flat for a longer half of human civilization?

Nick

[horge]

Just a thought on the quote posted by KT:


Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thus:
People were to be allowed to bear arms, for the sake of allowing a well-regulated militia for each state.

I was always under the impression that at the time, the "militia" was all-volunteer, and cobbled together at need. If so, then the volunteers had better have their own weapons.

Since the states have gradually surrendered more and more of their independence to the federal body, and especially since the present-day state and federal "militia" are now ISSUED uniform firearms...

a citizenry individually bearing motley arms no longer serves the purpose of the Second Amendment: to allow a well-regulated militia-on-call, to preserve the "security of a free state".


Do you selectively focus on the second half of the statement and ignore the preamble?



----------
Think the US is gone to heck because of guns?
Though armed with full-auto, all the way to rocket launchers,
shooting people seems out of fashion for the worst criminals here:

Now they behead their victims.

[Kahuna Tuna]

hcs3, "i might be wrong, as my constitution test was many, many years ago, but i think your dead wrong. i believe our founding fathers realized that they could not possibly think of every situation or circumstance, as well as time would change ideals. therefore, the constituion could be / still is a work in progress. all you need to do is write another amendment to overturn a previous one. not so hard if you ask me"

No, you are absolutely correct about amending the constitution. On occasion I am wrong, but never dead wrong. ;) I stated " I dont have to "agree" with every part of our constitution but like it or not it is the very basis for our form of government and is not there to be tinkered with."

Tinker- "To work at or fiddle with something, often clumsily or ineffectually, with the aim of effecting repairs or improvements." - Websters

Our founding fathers were brilliant men and they did indeed realize their document was not meant to be static but could be modified as needed. Do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment to the constitution? How many times have you seen the majority of congress agree on anything? Have you ever heard the expression, "it would take an act of congress"? Very hard if you ask me. ;) We most certainly do not tinker with the constitution. If you feel the second amendment is outdated, voice your opinion, write your represenative, send a letter to the editor, you have the right to do this because of the 1st amendment. :)

Horge, you are confusing the militia with the US armed forces. Even back then they were two different bodies. There are militia groups today and we also have all the different branches of the armed forces. As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it is a two parter, and I ignore neither part. I focused on the second half because that is what we were talking about. Our forefathers saw a large standing army as a threat to liberty and therefore added the provision for a militia.

[Kat]

hartman: What does this include? Every gun death or just gun accident, people murdered? Etc. I just don't know or can’t tell.

I can't tell either. The article doesn't seem to list those small - yet so very important - differences between accident deaths, suicides, and homicides that involved the use of firearms. I personally would like to know what these differences are myself, as suicides involving firearms likely comprise a large % of that number that is quoted: a lot of people seem to like using guns to end their lives. Can't blame them either, at least it'd be quick, and if you really feel you gotta go, might as well make it fast and relatively painless... But that's another issue altogether.

Create a few basic common sense laws like...

I agree with you for the most part. Of course, banning people from owning a gun who have been convicted of a felony, and those suffering from mental disorders, would also be good ideas (& ones which I believe have already been implemented in many areas).

Also, my personal belief is that people seem to have little fear of punishment (jail) because it seems like when people committ a crime, they do so believing that the likelihood of getting caught and convicted must be small enough to warrant taking such a risk. Jail time doesn't seem to be that much of a deterrent in the face of today's revolving- door prisons. I personally believe that criminal misuse of a firearm should also warrant a mighty hefty fine. A dismayingly large % of people today seem to think with their wallets, not their heads, and if there was a $10,000 (or more) fine that went along with (or just by itself) criminal misuse of a firearm, I'm pretty willing to bet people will suddenly realize that the profitability of using a gun in the commission of a crime is nil. Which may not effect the crime rates any, but maybe it will lessen the likelihood that a firearm will be used in the commission of a crime. And maybe we'd get a really deadly item out of the hands of a criminal element that doesn't give one whit about human life.

"Something that people never discuss is that if you own a gun you must be willing to kill someone if the need arrives. I for example would not blink an eye about killing anyone who threatens body harm to my family if they leave me no option."

This is so very true. When it comes to your own personal safety, and the safety of those you care for, you can't be half-*** about it, or they'll be tracing your outline on the ground with white chalk. I can speak from personal experience on that one; had I not decided in a split-second to actively defend myself the paramedics would have at the very least been carting me off to the hospital instead of the guy who attacked me (it's a long story). I am lucky enough to be tall and strong enough to fight back against an average attacker, but many woman don't have the necessary physical strength to defend themselves in a life-and-death situation. I was lucky...

Anyhow, I personally don't like guns all that much, and probably would never use one. Even after having had a few nasty experiences over the course of my life. However I can see how a personal handgun may have a deterrent effect and, if necessary, be defensively used to protect ones' life. And I also would not personally hesitate to take extreme action to protect the physical well-being of either myself or any other human being, let alone those I cared for...

Wish me well. Tomorrow my 'vacation' takes me to the heart of mosquito, blackfly, and no-see-ums territory. Normally I don't mind donating blood, but not to the insect population... *sigh* ;)

[Doug1]

This is one of those arguments that its hard to declare a clear winner to. I think it was Twain that stated there a lies, damn lies and statistics
If you look hard enough you can find something to support whatever you believe in.
Personally I wish the world wasn't a wierd place full of violence and mayhem, but it is. The police can't be everywhere to protect everyone. Having been the victim of violent crime I am painfully aware of that fact. Now that I have grand children and have seen first hand the things that can happen, I made a choice and decided that no harm would come to my family. That is my right under law and yes i have a license to carry, been trained and the whole nine yards.Fortunatly since i made that decision years ago, the logic has never been pushed to the extreme, though its been tense a few times. In the last 15 yrs I havent been a victim vs twice before.
When I am sure that someone else can provide safety to my family, I may consider giving up my gun but till then I intend to excersize my legal rights. I and people like me aren't the problem.

[signu459]

Originally posted by horge
Just a thought on the quote posted by KT:


Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thus:
People were to be allowed to bear arms, for the sake of allowing a well-regulated militia for each state.

I was always under the impression that at the time, the "militia" was all-volunteer, and cobbled together at need. If so, then the volunteers had better have their own weapons.

Since the states have gradually surrendered more and more of their independence to the federal body, and especially since the present-day state and federal "militia" are now ISSUED uniform firearms...

a citizenry individually bearing motley arms no longer serves the purpose of the Second Amendment: to allow a well-regulated militia-on-call, to preserve the "security of a free state".


Do you selectively focus on the second half of the statement and ignore the preamble?



Horge,

I think you might be missing the bigger picture in this case. I will agree that there are no standing malitias in the States today. However as you described, a militia is a body men grouped to together to fight for a cause. A militia does not need to be constantly maintained, by definition it is to be spontaneously formed based on need or notice. The cause is not defined in the 2nd amendment. Also notice that in the 2nd amendment the only body that is limited is the federal government. The 2nd amendment specificly and porpousefully (IMO) allows States the right to form their own militia. Unfortunately you are correct in stating that our State and local gov have given up more and more power to the fed gov. It is with this in mind that a state sponsored militia becomes much more important. IMO the founding fathers wanted to protect the states and it's citizenry from an overpowering federal goverment. The very type of government that were atempting to escape. The fact that federal militias in our case the US Armed forces are issued firearms makes the private citizens weaponry even more important.

For those of you that tend to take things to extreams, don't think for one second that I feel we need to take up arms against our federal gov. I am only pointing out that the provision is there in the event we need to.

Two other thoughts.

Jews were very happy with Hitler early in his reign, that is until he took all their guns away. After which they could not fight back to save themselves or their property- History has taught us that time after time.

Without the 2nd amendment the 1st amendment means nothing.

[horge]

KT (and in parts, Tim):

I am quite aware of the distinct existence of a regular standing army then and now. That does not detract from my point was that the right to bear arms was obviously included to allow the quick raising of a militia.

It is therefore in the end more a State right, and therefore a right of the people (plural) of that State, rather than a right of the individual for the individual's protection.

If each State already has its own standing force, then a purported 'individual right' to bear arms serves no purpose stated or implied in the Second Amendment.

Say there is NO such standing force...

Would a rapidly cobbled-together militia serve any State against the might and technology of Federal troops?

Or would a standing force of trained professionals be better? If the latter, then either a standing state force must exist, else ALL citizens be trained as cutting-edge warriors, for the Second to work in the eventuality it seeks to prepare for. A mass of untrained citizens brandishing 12-ga.s', snub-noses, or even MP-5's and AR-15's will likely not cut it.

The Second was drafted for a purpose, to enable the protection of the independence of each State by force if necessary. If its prescription to that end is now obsolete, then the amendment needs ...amending to preserve its objective.



-**-**-**-

I rather prefer the argument of personal PROTECTION better than trotting out the Second Amendment, when defending personal gun ownership.

If the State/Superstate cannot provide your individual safety and well-being, despite the taxes and obedience to its laws that you render, then a solemn contract has been breached. Even though you can vote in a new leadership that can deliver both safety and well-being to the citizenry, you still have the right to protect yourself and your loved ones until that happy voting day.

The State has no moral right to tell you not to bear arms IF it's proven the only way you will ensure your safety.

Unfortunately, you have no moral right to bear arms if it can be proven that the widespread ownership of guns is what creates the state of danger in the first place.

Proof either way is what this thread started out groping for.



I was reacting to citation of the Second, which I feel has little relevance in spirit and in wording to the issue of 'personal' (singular) right to bear arms.




horge


PS: Tim, when you have the chance, send me a pic of the corn when it's up. I'm actually nostalgic for Indiana. After all it's where the HOOTERS gang inducted me to the concept of "humping"

....humping trains, that is.
:D

[obsidian73]

Anyone know the current statistics of how many people are killed each year do to drunk driving? And how many of those people were the drunk drivers?

[reptilicus]

hcs3,
You are 100% right in what you say. THe facts are that the more guns there are, the more people get shot and killed. It is absolutely undebatable that guns and the attitude of Americans towards guns is partly the reason the country is in such a shocking state as it is. Everyone is obsessed with having a gun because it is their right. No guns, no one gets shot. That simple. Loook at the rate of shootings in Australia from that graph. We have 80% less shootings than the US. Coincidence? I bloody well think not. The number since then has dropped even further due to tighter gun restrictions. And I know someone will come out and say some crap about how since no one has guns anymore everyone gets raped and pillaged and burgled 24/7. To that, I say GARBAGE!!! I live here, it is not the case. The philosphy that guns are a neccessity in today's society is exactly the philosphy the perpetuates this cycle of violence. Until this is realised you are going to continue to have school massacres and all the other nasty stuff that accompanies too many bloody guns. It's a black and white issue, plain and simple. Over here, some maniac decides to go on some rampage through a school with a knife. BIG DEAL!!! YOU CAN RUN AWAY!!!! You can't so easily escape an automatic machine gun. Some bloody gangs decide to have a fight, everyone pulls out a knife and a couple people get stabbed. THe the US, they'd all pull out guns and 3/4 of them would be shot dead. It's that bloody simple. The US is the only country which perpetuates the aforementioned philosophy of irresponsible gun ownership and the social well-being of the population will not improved until such time as people realise this, realise that guns are, as hcs3 put it, "implements of destruction" and NOTHING MORE, then the country is going to continue to slide downhill. Every time we here of another school massacre over here, you almost have to laugh. No, I am not some morbid hate-mongering foreigner, but you have to wonder at the stupidity of a nation which refuses to make a decision to protect it's own people from themselves when it is blindingly bloody obvious that once is neccessary. And the one law, as already stated, is NO GUNS!!!! FOR ANYBODY!!!! Stop worrying about all your bloody civil libertarian crap and think about the well-being of other people for a second and surely you must draw this conclusion.
Regards,
Tom

[Doug1]

What the press fails to mention when they sensationalize firearm tragedies is that mean while millions of law abiding owners of firearms did not go down to the schoolyard of fast food resteraunt and kill several people.
I find it interesting that so many of the vocal supporters of gun control are associated with the entertainment industry(with one notable exception). Billions are made cranking out films where violence is common place, even glorified along with every other symptom of moral decay.
Having grown up as a young man in the sixties, I too was once full of hope that groovy karma and good vibes would make the world a better place. Then reality set in. The world has a lot of bad and evil people in it, and governments dont seem to be able to deal with the problem. In alot of cases the social engineering experiments are making it worse. I abhor violence but I refuse to be a victim.

[obsidian73]

Good point Doug1. In accordance with that fact the dont report that in those countries the restrictions on what the media is allowed to put out. I.E. How many people are actually killed how they were killed, Who killed them, and the violence of just movies, CARTOONS! and the like. They dont have people over there like M & M and some of the other "Artists" putting out glorifications of murder, rape, pillage, arson, baby killing, ect.. Also no one has answered my question on drunk driving deaths. That is because WAY TO MUCH Money goes into it. More people die from alchohol than almost anything else. But the focus on smoking and guns. Interesting, However It is what the media wants. Have you noticed that a shooting death will get top headlines in ever news cast over any drunk driving death, abortion case, Cancer deaths, Aids deaths, and the list goes on? Why is that? The statistics also dont include the penalties in those countries for using those types of weapons. And also just for small petty crimes. In most of those countries you will find that the penalty for a small crime like stealing food ect. If caught is worse than someone raping a woman here. Sad I think. Bottem line, Everyone in this country wants to blame everyone else for than own screwups.

[obsidian73]

To Horge:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. """"""""That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"""""", laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Wouldnt that theorectically be impossible already if force was needed but even more if guns were taken away? That was one of the DRIVING Forces in the amendment.


alter or abloish it

[reptilicus]

he general argument from the pro-gun side seems to be that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "millions of law abiding citizens own guns." While this is definitely true, surely you must still agree that we must do everything we can to minimise the chance of someone getting killed by another person. I'm sure if neutron bombs or chlorine gas were legal to own, most people would not go around killing other people with them. However, it only takes one bad seed to ruin everything. The same is the case with guns. People cannot be trusted with them, so just get rid of them altogether. People kill people, correct. How do people kill people? With guns! Solution-take away the guns! A person may still wish to kill another person, but without his gun it makes this task a lot more difficult. He cannot just frive past in his car, shoot off a few rounds and kill someone. The facts are that there are many less murders in countries with less guns. The facts are simple, you can argue your civil libertarian garbage all you want but that is the facts, if you want to stop these massacres you must be tighter on gun control. The reason massacres get so much more attention than cancer or car deaths is because cancer deaths are natural, and car deaths are accidents. School massacres are not. A maniac with a gun can kill a lot of innocent people. Unless you can have EVERYONE who owns a gun acting in a responsible matter, then there is only one solution. BAN GUNS!!!!!
Regards,
Tom

[Kahuna Tuna]

The simple fact is that countries that have banned guns are the ones that either do not trust their own citizens or are afraid of them. With the recent exceptions of the UK and Australia, almost all of the countries that have banned firearms are the one with the most horrific record on human rights. They dont have to worry about citizens shooting each other, the government is all to happy to do the killing for them. I certainly hope that both the UK and Australian governments can be trusted not to go down the path to totaliarianism, because if they do their disarmed populaces will have little to do about it except watch. Cheers.

[reptilicus]

Well I could argue the catch-22 path that Dubya doesn't have to worry about killing people (even though he does, despite claiming to be a Christian, which is complete hypocrisy almost on par with his stupidity, but nevertheless a side issue) because the people are knocking off enough people for him. However, I won't do so.
Kahuna, I agree in part with that you say. Disarmed populations can have troubles with police. However, the United States is a "developed" nation like the Australia and the UK. I would hope that it would not be an issue. If it is really so that the people need guns to protect themselves from the government, then the country is in even more dire a situation than I thought. Most, if not all, of the examples you allude to are from "developing" nations, where totalitarianism is a big problem, largely beause of fragile democracies set up in haste and without much thought because a colonial power has decided to pull the plug on them. However, as you state, Australia and the UK are unarmed, in the UK the police don't carry guns, and there is a push to have the same laws in Australia. I can walk down the street in comparative safety, I know that the people I am walking past wil not have a gun. If someone tries to mug me, I can run away without the risk of getting shot. But again, this is a side issue, my point is that the US, being a developed nation and the world's self-appointed physical and moral policeman, should be able to trust it's population enough to disarm itself. It does nothing for world disarmament when the most powerful country is absolutely armed to the teeth, both the government and the civilians. Of course the Iraqis are not going to give back their weapons if they think that the US with all their firepower are just going to march in and tell them what to do. It is a case of "I'll put the gun down if you do", both in civilian and international affairs. I sincerely hope that the United States wakes up to this soon, as violence is the means by which sections of your community are sending the country spiralling into destrucion, hate, and fear. I can tell you, the UK has a lot of nutcases and extremist views as well, but the destruction they can cause is significantly minimised by a less-violent society and a simple lack of weapons. The sooner the US people realise this the better.
Regards,
Tom

[Q-ball]

Thousands of people a year are killed by cars, many driven by drunk drivers. Obviously we can't trust people with cars or alcohol, so perhaps we should ban both of them too? I'm sorry, that's just not a good argument in my book. I've seen more people killed than I care to think about in my 10 years as a firefighter, alot of them violently. One by gun, the rest by car. I don't agree that banning guns is the answer. Banning guns will simply limit ownership of guns to the military (I suppose they need them;)) and criminals who simply don't buy their guns legally anyhow. I recently saw a figure, and I'll try to find it tomorrow as I'm too tired right now, but it stated that .1% (that's 1 in 1000) of the crimes commited with guns (it might have been handgun specific, can't remember) was committed with a legally bought & registered gun. The rest were bought on the black market or stolen. So, if you ban law-abiding citizens from owning guns, who's gonna keep the criminals from getting them? We can't do that now as it is. Our government cannot guarantee my family's safety 100% of the time. Therefore it is my responsibility. I do hope that my guns will only be used for innocent paper targets their entire lives, but I'd much rather own one responsibly and never need it than need it that one instant & not have it available to me because someone else thinks it's just not necessary. I will agree that something has to be done though. Granted, accidents will happen, but I do think a stronger approach to user education would go a long way towards helping things. When I have the neices & nephew over at my house, the guns get locked up & away, removing any possibility of an accident with the kids. I do talk to them about it, what they should do if they see a gun somewhere it shouldn't be, who they should talk to. But the truth is, kids are gonna be kids, they're curious & if they find one they're gonna check it out. So keep it away from them. I believe stricter enforcement of the laws that are already on the books will also go a long ways towards helping with the problem. If you don't let a convicted felon out in 2 years, and keep him in jail for the 20 or 50 that he was originally sentenced, maybe he won't commit another crime? It does sadden me that our world is one in which I feel that a gun could be necessary, and I will gladly give mine up for a new hobby the very day someone else is willing to take the responsibility & guarantee my family's safety.

Q!!!

ps...thanks to all for keeping this debate level-headed, this is an easy subject to get very carried away with & I'm glad it's taken the course it has so far...

[reptilicus]

Q,
I can see the point where you are coming from, however.....
Over here, because so few guns are available, it is much harder for criminals to get guns. In the US, it would be easy for someone to break into a house and steal someone's gun. Over here, maybe one in every 100 or one in every 1000 (I don't know) people would have a gun. This makes it very hard for criminals to get a hold of guns in the first place.
Also, while you may be very responsible with your guns, that is not to say that everyone else is. Say, for example, your little nephew was over at his mate's house, and the owner of the house was not as responsible as you are. This could easily lead to a fatality, and a child is dead, despite the fact that no one meant any ill harm to anyone. Coupled with the danger of such wide availability of firearms to the general public be they law-abiding or criminal, to me it just does not make sense for everyone to be so heavily armed. Over here, the rule is no handguns, no automatic or semi-authomatic weapons. Perhaps stricter control over the types of weapons available is neccessary. A couple kids on a massacre at school would not be able to kill such large numbers of people if he could only fire one shot, and then have to reload. However, that one shot would be sufficient for family protection. Perhaps that could be an answer. But my point is that while the great majority of fun owners are responsible, the risk associated with those irresponsible minority is not sufficient to warrant things continuing to go the way they are. For the sake of protecting yourselves, something must be done.
Regards,
Tom

[Joez]

Say Tom, Why do you say George Bush is stupid?

I've seen people on this board call him village idiot, chimp, stupid, fascist etc.

Can you or anyone, point out some evidence that he's stupid?

We ask for evidence when someone says some salt crystals are better than others, or makes other claims. How about on this one?

What do you say Tom, and others?

Point out to me your evidence that he's stupid so I can learn from you.

Couldn't be academics; he didn't fail out like his last presidential opponent did.

So what is it?

Is it because he fumbles a word here and there? That doesn't make someone stupid does it?

Maybe he has a disability in which case you'd need to put him in a special category, but you wouldn't call him names for that, or would you?

I don't want to hear that you disagree with him or don't like him. That's evident, and I'm not interested.

C'mon folks, please list the reasons you and the popular media call him stupid!

[hcs3]

joez

how about a seperate thread?

thanks

henry

[signu459]

Originally posted by reptilicus
..... (even though he does, despite claiming to be a Christian, which is complete hypocrisy almost on par with his stupidity, but nevertheless a side issue)

Thanks Joe I was gonna say the same thing, seems on point to me. Thanks for beating me to it, one lees thing I will need to bring up later.

Just curious, since "dubya" is the villiage idiot as so stated. What does that make his opponents? After all politically he is running circles around them. Remember that tax cut that was never gonna get passed? What about his budget? School testing? Boy it is a sad state in America if an idiot is getting the better of his foe. :)

[hartman]

Tom,

With all due respect you need to learn to separate your opinion from the facts.

Dubya doesn't have to worry about killing people(even though he does, despite claiming to be a Christian, which is complete hypocrisy almost
on par with his stupidity, but nevertheless a side issue) because the people are knocking off enough people for him. However, I won't do so.

This is a load of horse dung, period.

1) In Texas the PEOPLE voted for the death penalty President Bush did not force his will on the public.
2) In Texas you must commit TWO capital crimes in the same event to get the death penalty.
3) In Texas juries are instructed in ALL death penalty cases to waive the sentence if they believe the defendant not mental competent.
4) Unlike Liberals when GWB was Governor he never overrode the will of the jury and the judgement of the Texas supreme court in cases involving the death penalty with clemency. He believe that it was not his position to be overriding the will of the people unless there was oblivious failures in the court system.

As for being a Christian, I don't recall anything in the Bible that say as death as punishment for crimes is not allowed? Many time in the Bible death was the punishments of crimes.

I would vote to stop the death penalty if I could be assured that the criminal would actual STAY in jail for life. But since liberals love to give murders and rapist second and third chances over and over again, the death penalty is the only sure way to insure they don't hurt anyone else.

Why is it that gun deaths bother you so much but not the fact that KNOW murders are release back into the public only to kill again and again? Where is the outage to protect the society for the better of the people???
Stop worrying about all your bloody civil libertarian crap and
think about the well-being of other people for a second and surely you must draw this
conclusion.

Hartman

[Q-ball]

Tom, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. What you're talking about with the neighbors is no different than my (future) child going for a ride with them, getting in a wreck & being killed in the car. Although, you did seem to skip my question on whether cars & alcohol should be banned as well, since they account for even more deaths yearly than all guns combined. Perhaps that's because you enjoy your car and the occasional adult beverage? Please don't take it as a flame, but I do see it as a double standard. If what you're looking for is to save citizens from themselves & their supposed stupidity, you're gonna have to take alot more than just guns out of their hands.

Q!!!

[horge]

Obsidian:

I suspect I have far more experience than you can when it comes to abolishing unfit governments via extralegal, popular means.

I know what it is like to stare down the barrel of a full-auto, or block a column of tanks, while unarmed. I know what it is like to have hot, sticky blood spraying on one's face, out from fresh holes in a young person who was moments ago giddy with excitement at her first protest action. Perhaps you do too, but you speak as one who does not.

Guns don't kill, people do.

Guns don't defend freedom either, people do.

In the comfortable world of principle, gun enthusiasts are too quick to embrace the first statement to dispute blame on the availablity of guns. Yet they will ignore the second statement, it seems, to argue the need for gun ownership to kill a supposedly imminent enemy.

Acquiring training for would-be warriors is at the very least as important as acquiring weapons for them, lest they hurt themselves in real conflict --let alone fail in their task of defense.
Meeting force with force requires far more than arms: there is logistics, communications, information gathering and a familiarity with combat situations and proven ways of dealing with them as individuals and as organized groups.

But if you hypothetically abandon sole resort to force-vs.-force...

A popular protest, even unarmed, can bring the most remorseless, well-armed government to its knees, at utmost need by winning over the very weapons and warriors the oppressor government wields.

Unless you've walked the walk, don't talk down to me about the need for personal arms to stop an abusive government in its tracks. The only time arms can help in such a struggle is when they're in the hands of people suffciently trained to use them as a defensive organization.





horge

[hesaias]

Why cant folks face the fact, that the road has a ditch on either side?
You can ride the "Guns for everyone, and crime will evaporate" group and fall in a ditch, but you can also wind up in the other ditch with "ban guns, guns are BAD".

The second amendment was to are the people to protect the country from other countrys, and to protect the people from the Govt. Thats a fact, and it cannot be disputed.
We have an Army, Navy, etc to protect us from other countries now, and I just dont see the people of this country waging a successful Coup. Horge has already pointed out the problems there.
We cannot ban guns. Too many people have them, or have access to them. Plain and simple. This is a unarguable fact.
However, more laws to restrict the gun trade is also a waste of time and effore because the laws on the books are not held to by the criminal element, or the judicial system. This is also a fact that cannot be disputed.
The only solution to this problem is to enforce the laws on the books, to the nth. Make the bad guys fear the reprocussions of gun play. Instill the "Values" folks talk so highly of in out young population, teach respect to the children, by example, and our problem will lessen. As far as this problem going away, it just isnt going to happen.
Our fair country is becoming a sesspool, and guns are not the reason, by a long shot.

[horge]

This thread started out trying to establish a link between widespread ownership of guns (legal or no), and the prevalence of violent crime.

Laws, Law enforcement, Weapon availability and Criminal attitude are the variables. Lotsa laws, and I'd like to think U.S. cops are among the brighter citizens, so you're left with the psycopathy of crime and the availability of guns.

Lotsa criminals running around, so you try to deny them guns.
Laws on the books already to that end, ya?

Lotsa loose guns lying around, so you try to deny them criminals.
Have you any laws for THAT?

You really can't legislate responsible, community-based parenting, or your parenting engine is a fear of prosecution and penalty, rather than paternal/maternal care and love. It takes a community to raise kids now. If you find yourself with less and less time to devote to raising your kids (yours, your neighbor's, etc.) ...

How can you call yourselves the land of the free?
Land of self-blinded, 9-5 thralls, doped on TV and consumerism?
:p

[signu459]

Originally posted by horge

Lotsa laws, and I'd like to think U.S. cops are among the brighter citizens, so you're left with the psycopathy of crime and the availability of guns.

I am not to sure about that Horge


Lotsa loose guns lying around, so you try to deny them criminals.
Have you any laws for THAT?

Yes there are many many laws to discourage our finest citizens from buying such weapons.

It is illegal to ....

sell guns without proper license
purchase or own a gun if you are a convicted felon
buy a gun without a criminal background check
buy a gun without registering it.

Simply put it is illegal to sell guns on the blackmarket in the US. However no amount of laws is going to stop or even put a dent in that activity. Fine make guns ilegal, the blackmarket will still exist and actually flourish. the only people who will be denied guns and protection will be the victims.


You really can't legislate responsible, community-based parenting, or your parenting engine is a fear of prosecution and penalty, rather than paternal/maternal care and love. It takes a community to raise kids now. If you find yourself with less and less time to devote to raising your kids (yours, your neighbor's, etc.) ...

Yes I agree, you can't legislate responsibility and parenting. I just have to ask... did you read Hillaries book? IMO it does not take a community to raise a child it takes two dedicted parents.


How can you call yourselves the land of the free?
Land of self-blinded, 9-5 thralls, doped on TV and consumerism?
:p

It actually is quite simple when you compare my great nation to 95% of the other nations in this world we clearly are the land of the free. We are the land of the free because we PROVIDE the free to the world. Without Americas presence today and over the last 60-70 years freedom may not have been as widespread as it is. we are the enforcers of freedom, we carry the big stick that makes the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Marcos go away. To say that we are all "self-blinded, 9-5 thralls, doped on TV and consumerism" is quite offensive and simply wrong. Are all Philippineos blood thisty savages that like to cut off peoples heads and collect shoes? I should think not.

[signu459]

Originally posted by reptilicus
But again, this is a side issue, my point is that the US, being a developed nation and the world's self-appointed physical and moral policeman, should be able to trust it's population enough to disarm itself. It does nothing for world disarmament when the most powerful country is absolutely armed to the teeth, both the government and the civilians. Of course the Iraqis are not going to give back their weapons if they think that the US with all their firepower are just going to march in and tell them what to do. It is a case of "I'll put the gun down if you do", both in civilian and international affairs. I sincerely hope that the United States wakes up to this soon, as violence is the means by which sections of your community are sending the country spiralling into destrucion, hate, and fear. I can tell you, the UK has a lot of nutcases and extremist views as well, but the destruction they can cause is significantly minimised by a less-violent society and a simple lack of weapons. The sooner the US people realise this the better.
Regards,
Tom

Tom,


In the 20's,30's and very early 40's America thought that way. We thought if we just protected ourselves all else would be fine, it was called imperialism. Then a very bad man named hitler came along and decied that he didn't like his neighbors too much. Pretty soon he attcked his neighbors countries like France Belgium, the UK Poland, Russia ect. At the same time Hirohito from Japan was waging war on countries in the pacific. The whole time America sat back and watched and did little to help even though the UK and France and Russia were begging for our assitance. During that time period the USA was ridiculed world wide for not helping. if it weren't for a stupid strategic mistake made by Japan the USA may have never entered the war. it wasn't until the USA entered the war that things for the Allies turned around. it was only because my country entered the war that most of us are not speaking German, Japanese or Italian. As a matter of fact your own Austrailia turned to the USA during WW2. Austraila gave use to the Americans Townsville in northern Queensland. Townsville provided the USA a base from which to fight eventually winning the battle of the Coral sea, which marked the end of pacific theater. Thereby ensuring Australias sovereignty.

Do you really think that we would be enjoying an unprecedented era of worldwide peace without the superior military might of the USA? The fact is that if we were not here there more than likely would have been another world war. The Sadams off the world would have ran rampet and free to weild power as they saw fit. But insteadt the military might of the USA has crushed the USSR and kept many others who thought of challenging in check. It is in the fear of US military might that freedom spreads world wide. We are not the "self appointed physical and moral" policeman. No we were invited to do so, by countries such as your own. The whole time my country men were spilling their blood to save your soil from invasion. We have spilled more blood and spent far more money in aid and on our military than I care to count, all in the name of ensuring worldwide freedom. All the while people like you sit and bash us with a smile of ignorance all over you face in the shadow of our protection.

[horge]

Originally posted by signu459


I am not to sure about that Horge

Unsure of the competence of law enforcers? Or unsure about the validity of calling out weapon availability and criminal psycopathy as the remaining variables to be addressed?



Yes there are many many laws to discourage our finest citizens from buying such weapons.

It is illegal to ....

sell guns without proper license
purchase or own a gun if you are a convicted felon
buy a gun without a criminal background check
buy a gun without registering it.

Simply put it is illegal to sell guns on the blackmarket in the US. However no amount of laws is going to stop or even put a dent in that activity. Fine make guns ilegal, the blackmarket will still exist and actually flourish. the only people who will be denied guns and protection will be the victims.

Precisely. Like I said, lotsa laws already on the book. And since law enforcement is as much a duty of common citizens as law enforcement professionals, you're back to the psycopathy of crime. Unless again, you're doubting the competence of your cops.


Yes I agree, you can't legislate responsibility and parenting. I just have to ask... did you read Hillaries book? IMO it does not take a community to raise a child it takes two dedicted parents.

If you're talking about H. Clinton, then no.
It IDEALLY should take two parents, but if that were a viable option, daycare and babysitting would not exist as institutions in your urban centres. Would you prefer a babysitter you already know to a stranger? Of course!

If you limit the child-raising game to two true parents, what then of those bereft of fit parents? Those unfortunate kids are 'supposedly' the raw material for criminals, and unless you --as members of your national community-- participate in providing them with decent parenting, they will get none.


It actually is quite simple when you compare my great nation to 95% of the other nations in this world we clearly are the land of the free. We are the land of the free because we PROVIDE the free to the world. Without Americas presence today and over the last 60-70 years freedom may not have been as widespread as it is. we are the enforcers of freedom, we carry the big stick that makes the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Marcos go away.

What you believe your great country renders to the world at large is an interesting topic as well :) , but is far removed from the domestic-crime-and-gun-ownership discussion. (My thoughts on Pax Americana are quite old on this Forum, and quite easily dug up.)

I was referring to the relevant form of 'freedom':

Freedom to provide parenting.

All from the supposition that a fair bit of criminality arises from poor parenting a generation earlier.

To say that we are all "self-blinded, 9-5 thralls, doped on TV and consumerism" is quite offensive and simply wrong. Are all Philippineos blood thisty savages that like to cut off peoples heads and collect shoes? I should think not.


I thought the challenge/question pertinent to the floated issue of free time for proper parenting (not just parenting of ALL children, but of fellow parents, BTW).

That you take offense saddens me, Tim.
I do apologize, and will now be less oblique.

Mere 9-5 thralls?
We all ought to be 24-hour thralls:
but thralls to ensuring the well-being of all generations.




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

[signu459]

Here we go into a quote fest- I hope this doesn't get to confusing???????? :confused: :confused:

Originally posted by horge


Unsure of the competence of law enforcers? Or unsure about the validity of calling out weapon availability and criminal psycopathy as the remaining variables to be addressed?


Rerfering only to the Competence of our wonderful law enforcement officers. I beleive that uou said that they were among the brighter citizens - I don't know if I would go that far. Unfortunately the pay for police as well as teachers in this country is miserable. As a result what you get are a collection of C students regulating everyone and teaching our future. This is not a bash on Cops or teachers but simply a statement of fact.


Precisely. Like I said, lotsa laws already on the book. And since law enforcement is as much a duty of common citizens as law enforcement professionals, you're back to the psycopathy of crime. Unless again, you're doubting the competence of your cops.


Actually You said
"Lotsa loose guns lying around, so you try to deny them criminals.
Have you any laws for THAT?"

Which led me to beleive that you were questioning weather or not the US had laws on the books to controll the ilegal sales of all the these loose guns laying around. Your previous statement of...

Lotsa criminals running around, so you try to deny them guns.
Laws on the books already to that end, ya?

followed by the question of "have you any laws for THAT?" led me to this conclusion. If you were trying to make a differnt point I guessed I missed it.


If you're talking about H. Clinton, then no.
It IDEALLY should take two parents, but if that were a viable option, daycare and babysitting would not exist as institutions in your urban centres. Would you prefer a babysitter you already know to a stranger? Of course!

If you limit the child-raising game to two true parents, what then of those bereft of fit parents? Those unfortunate kids are 'supposedly' the raw material for criminals, and unless you --as members of your national community-- participate in providing them with decent parenting, they will get none.

What you believe your great country renders to the world at large is an interesting topic as well :) , but is far removed from the domestic-crime-and-gun-ownership discussion. (My thoughts on Pax Americana are quite old on this Forum, and quite easily dug up.)

I was referring to the relevant form of 'freedom':

Freedom to provide parenting.

All from the supposition that a fair bit of criminality arises from poor parenting a generation earlier.

I thought the challenge/question pertinent to the floated issue of free time for proper parenting (not just parenting of ALL children, but of fellow parents, BTW).

That you take offense saddens me, Tim.
I do apologize, and will now be less oblique.

Mere 9-5 thralls?
We all ought to be 24-hour thralls:
but thralls to ensuring the well-being of all generations.


Yes to H. Clinton- it was a joke reffering to her "It takes a Village" book. I totally agree with you on this issue, and it is a tough one to get a good answer on. Yes we could offer up "daycare" or some other means of taking up the slack for the parents who don't make the grade. But that then brings up other issues, like exactly who is fit or unfit to be a parent? And who will be the judge to determine so. But the issue that really gets me are the "Fit" parents that ship their kids off to daycare anyhow. Parents who have a good family life, are secure financially and very capable of imprinting on their children strong moral and social values. But instead they are bucking the responsibility and shipping junior off to daycare, all in the name of the mighty dollar and "building a career". In the day and age of everything is for the children this seems to be a massive slap in the face to that very idea. It seems to me that nothing is more important that raising your child to be a fully rounded adult that benefits society, instead of becoming a criminal. But it is much easier to ship Jr. off to the day care, and let someone else try to imprint those values on your child along with 20 other kids during that day. For those parents that are hooked on drugs or abusive or mentally disabled or even some single parents- yes we should have a safety net of some sort. But that sad truth is that many of the people who should use it, do not do so because they don't know they should. After all it is just everyday life for them, thereby repeating the circle.

Horge I did not take offense directly at your statement. More than anything I am sick of the general idea that what you said for the most part is correct. Kim and I have decided to make sacrifices in our lives to ensure that our childs was secure. We choose to wait several years to get financially secure before we had a baby. We wanted to buy a house at first, but instead bought income property and lived in it while fixing it up. We waited until my career developed enough to support the whole family. And most importantly we decided that the most important job either of us had was raising our child. Not someone else, not day care not grandma, and not the neighborhood babysitter. We are going to invest our life and soul into making our child a succesful adult, and we are willing to take the risk of failure while doing so. Far to many poeple in our society very capable of doing so, but simply not willing.

What is the point of having a child, unless you are going to raise it yourself?

[horge]

Tim,

Yes, the full quote indeed ought to be:

"Lotsa criminals running around, so you try to deny them guns.
Laws on the books already to that end, ya?

Lotsa loose guns lying around, so you try to deny them criminals.
Have you any laws for THAT?
"

As you say, the first sentence suggests the supply of guns must be denied to criminals, and there are laws (ineffectual or no, hah!) that attempt to do that: cut off the supply of guns.

The second suggests cutting off the supply of criminals, which is what led to discussing supply sources for criminals like broken families or unparented kids.


Your closing statement:
"What is the point of having a child, unless you are going to raise it yourself?"

I wish to the Almighty that more took that sentiment to heart, all over the world, governments included. It's a tribute to humanity and love that ever-reduced time for either towards kids from their parents still trumps the violence and apathy that pop culture bombards them with, and the majority of kids turn out so well.

Now how about them cornfield pics?


horge




P.S.: All our prayers go out to Mr. Sobero, the US citizen held hostage and then supposedly beheaded by terrorists. Two of the hostages later released confirm that Sobero was taken away and did not rejoin the group. I still hope against all hope he is being held separately as part of some cruel bluff to gain negotiating leverage.

The fact that the Abu Sayyaf have such superior arms and equipment, despite a long-existing bunch of laws BANNING private gun-ownership in the Philippines, is bitterly instructive on how legislation alone cannot hope to work.

[Joez]

:(

[Joez]

Thanks Horge,

The arming of A.S. is a deliberate intervention by foreign groups and governments though; laws in books wouldn't stop that kind of acquisition. Why haven't governments been able to stop them over the years, and will there be a separate Muslim state down there?

[signu459]

Horge,

Email me your addy, snail mail that is. No digi cam for me yet. Not only will i send pics but will go one better and send the real thing!!!:eek1: :eek1:

I am sure I will violate some sort of ileagal importation code in the process!!

Heck you miss it that much come see it, I would love to see you again.

[horge]

Tim,

The Bureau of Customs,
and our Department of Food and Agriculture
would just love such a care package entering Philippine territory.
;)
I think I'll come back this Fall or the next.



Joez,

Tell me about it.
When a bunch of the Abu Sayyaf were killed, some two-plus years ago, an Egyptian, a Pakistani, and an Afghan were among them. Osama bin Laden's brothers-in-law(!!) operate somewhere in the southern Philippines, elusive and loaded with cash. When Libya paid ransom for those European hostages last year (US$14 Million, 'officially'), it was particularly bitter for us: Libya has always pipelined cash to terrorists here, but this time they got to do it openly and look like the good guy.

Mindanao held a self-determination referendum well over a decade ago--but only a mere two provinces decided to form an autonomy, while the rest opted to remain true Filipinos. The Muslim separatists were embarrassed, but resumed waging war to "liberate" ALL of Mindanao.


-

[KenDog]

Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician....0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one Doctor. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.


Sorry, just illustrating the absurdity by being absurd!

Ken

[horge]

Ken,

I don't think it's accidental gun deaths that are being focused on here :)

[KenDog]

Horge,

No, you are correct we are not talking about accidental deaths here. What we are talking about is civil liberties and the attempt to remove liberty from the masses in order to protect a few.

As I said in my previous post I was simply "illustrating the absurdity by being absurd" Far to many liberties have already been removed from the world based on poor assumptions and incorrect statistical relationships. (hence the above post). I was not speaking literally.

Hope all have a great day,

Ken.