Gun con-troll

“I hate to see you flounder, so I thought I would throw you a rope.

Correlation? ”

“Guns don't kill people, Poeple kill people. If there are no guns then there will more Knife homocide's. Then the Cops will come knocking on the door for your silverware. I take it is 75.9 per million households per year? If so, what's the number of Drunk driver deaths per million people per year? I bet it is close if not more then Guns. If true, then every car is a weapon and should be banned. Also what about Sexually transmitted diseases, how many per million households are killed a year ? 80 per million does not sound unreasonable to me, maybe we should ban Sex ? There are so many different ways of dying it is amazing that any of survive to 40 years old. My thought is we have become a "me" generation culture and nobody has any respect for their fellow man. This may be off the subject of guns per say. sorry for any innuendo.
Just a view”

“I’m not going over the whole thing chili but the figures I posted contradict the unsupported claim in #6. Claim #4 has been shown to be a lie based upon faulty data. See http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html for more on the Mary Rosh John Lott scandal.”

“yes Chili , the Cato institute, well known for portraying things in an inbiased way :o) - we can look at some of their environmental "studies" too.”

“and as for the guns don't kill, lets take that a stage further. WMDs don't kill, terrorists kill. So we should not try and restirct WMD ownership, we should only arrest terrorists.”

“I noticed a mistake in my table above. The homicide rate in France is 12.5 per million, not 22.6.”

“Sorry I am getting fired up here.
You guys are wasting your time arguing about something that is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is folks now-a-days will kill you for a dime, over an arguement, if you look at them funny, for religion, for land, for just about anything. and they will use anything from a Airplane to a GUN to a their F-cking hands. Getting rid of weapons will not stop people from killing people.
What ever happened to:
Treat thy neighbor as thy would treat thy self?
Thats the real issue.
If your going to blame stuff for the breakdown of society then start with the failing family unit, the lack of education, yada yada yada
It's not just guns.
Heck if you want you can put fertilizer and kerosene together in a ryder truck and kill hundreds at a time.”

“Snafu, logic is not allowed here. The only answer is to get rid of those evil things called firearms which have miraculously taken on a life and mind of their own and can actually plant evil thoughts in your head.
It's true--I once saw a gun leap out of a gun cabinet into a guy's hand and pull him out into the street to cause unbelievable mayhem. The gun was laughing hysterically the whole time.
By the way, concerning the stats, explain to me how "stabilized" equals "dropped".
I often wonder about the people who think more laws are the answer. No one can ever explain why we don't enforce the laws that are already on the books.”

“No-one says that guns commit crime, individuals do. But by making guns so prevailant in America you make it easier for them to commit crime. You also make crimes like murder and robbery more prevailant as, for an individual, a gun is the best way of persuading someone to do what you want them to, or indeed to kill them.
That's a direct cost of you having the freedom to get easy access to a gun. It's just a case of whether you think that this particular freedom is worth the cost it entails.”

“And I don't even think it's feasible to "get rid of those evil things called firearms," but I think there needs to be more debate on the issue, not influenced by the NRA and the huge amount it spends lobbying.”

“Your missing the point I made...
World peace "Imagine" that ?
Go ahead argue your brains out...
As long as you dont kill each other. sorry for butting in :-)
Tim”

“No I see your point Snafu. There are wider problems out there, and if these problems didn't exist then guns ownership would not even be an issue, as guns would never be used in anger. But while these problems do exist, and with no signs of solving them, then the easy availability of guns makes the situation worse.”

“PS I would not pay much mind to "STATISTICS" If I remember right in Stats class in college there where 3 basic types of Stats and depending on which way your wanted to perceive it to someone is the type you would use. So you can take the same set of numbers and arrange them to say what every you want. Good, in the middle or Bad. I think ALL our RIGHTS are worth keeping, No matter what it takes to keep the ALL.
Guns included !
Go back to the old days, an Eye for an Eye, then the murder STATS will drop !
Sorry I'm Butting in again..haha”

“Before you guys get all fired up, keep in mind I am probably the most "liberal" person on this board.

I was just throwing strat a link because he was floundering.

However, like most Constitutional Liberties, I believe there is some point where strict application of an Amendment must be balanced against the public good. I favor gun control laws. I firmly believe that our current system is effective and does not unduly oppress the intent of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Having said all that, I will also say that advocating even stricter control, up to and including an outright ban on all firearms, cannot find a rational basis in any of the statistics. I do not see such an overwhelming correlation between an outright ban and reduction in crime to lead me to believe we should take that extreme measure.

If we had enacted a firearm ban 100 years ago, we could have probably ensured that the "black market" would never have grown. However, I cannot fathom how we would ever get all the weapons off of the street at this point.

Everytime there is a public tragedy caused with a firearm, the panic button is pushed. I do not, for one second, believe Columbine and related tragedies are a result of the "availability" of firearms.

Those crimes resulted from a series of events, all intertwined, and none mutually exclusive.

I have represented several defendants who were accused (and some convicted) of aggravated assault with a firearm. Likewise, I have had a number of defendants charged with aggravated assault involving a weapon other than a firearm. Pool Cues, knives, brass knucks, two by fours....in a fit of passion or anger, the weapon of choice is usually the closest thing at hand. For those intent on causing damage, the complete absence of a firearm is not a barrier that cannot be overcome. Bombings, arson, vandalism all involve mass destruction without the use of a weapon.

I agree that some reasonable control is necessary. I am against unrestricted transfer. I think the Brady Bill was a good move and imposed the type of control that was critical. I am not too sure that more control is not warranted. However, to correlate evil intent and the willingness to cause mass destruction with the availability of weapons is just not supported by the facts. A statistic that reflects our homicide rate to be above another developed country based solely on the number of households that own weapons is totally without merit. It blatently overlooks the structure of our society that can, and do, contribute to an increase in violent homicides. What part does alcohol or drugs play in the rate? What part is attributable to mental defect? Are we at more risk in this country than we would be in Somalia because we have handguns on the street? Is the crime rate lower in Iran and Iraq because they have stricter gun control? Or is it a result of the fact they have far fewer liberties?

I don't agree with every opinion of the United States Supreme Court. However, I do respect each and every one of them to be well reasoned and fashioned upon the framework of the Contitution. The levels of control that are put in place and found to be Constitutionally sound is, IMHO, the level of control that we use.”

“True, in a sense, I agree.
As far as:
"then the easy availability of guns makes the situation worse."
It is 100 times harder for me to Obtain and buy my guns Legally then To go on the street and buy one. Yes that is a Screwed up part of the system. I don't know the answer. I just know I am an Law abiding Loyal American Citizen and I have done nothing to loose any of my rights and will fight to the death (including shooting someone) to keep them.”

“Well put!

oooopps forgot your a Lawyer, I would never shoot anyone, Except a few Terrorists running around free.

Love ya man!”

“Unfortunately, I just think America is a violent culture. One only look to our leadership...”

“Speaking of Love vs Guns.
Oh just wanted to share this:
Mohammed Ali was asked before the Indy 500 what he thought about the race. He said something along the lines "It is wonderful to see 400,000 people enjoying themselves peacefully"
God Bless America”

“explain to me how "stabilized" equals "dropped".
- StickmanWalking


You do see the major drop from 1993 to the point it stabilized in 2000, don't you? Does that help you?


chili - Would you agree that when the weapon at hand is a firearm, the results of an assault are likely to be more serious than when knives, pool cues or brass knuckles are used?”

“keep in mind I am probably the most "liberal" person on this board.
- chili36

I think the on-line quizes proved that I am.”

“Getting off subject.
Speaking of our Leadership, I had this idea, what if "We the People" had more involvement in the Government? Say something like this, Your all goona think I'm whacked on this one....
Say for every major elected offical postion in govt, there was a civil person along side of that elected person with the same power. So you pick someone (obviously back ground checks would be needed to make sure they are worthy) To be the Civil president and Civil Govenor bla bla bla...
Everything the elected official did would have to go thru the civil person too. If they dont agree or disagree equally it would be vetoed. The civil Person would only be in Office, say one year, then a new one would be brought in to avoid any corruption.
I know that sounds is pretty radical. It just popped in my head one day.”

“chili - Would you agree that when the weapon at hand is a firearm, the results of an assault are likely to be more serious than when knives, pool cues or brass knuckles are used?"
ViOLiN
12:17:21 PM
05/28/03

I think the liklihood of death is greater. However, short of homicide, I think the most serious injuries I have seen as a result of an attack were caused by a knife or a baseball bat.”

“Ban Baseball !”

“You liberals are funny!! hehehehe. A to the K.”

“You were being quite reasonable for a while there Snafu ;o) - see this is what I mean about a sensible debate.

The NRA has managed to move the whole issue to a point where it's claimed there's no problem, by being very economical with the truth and coming up with glib remarks.
Look at the very basic statistics, such as the murder rate - and if guns are not a factor in this then why are they involved with such regularity. There is an issue. Now instead of burying heads in the sand, why aren't people trying to come up with a way to improve the situation. Surely the status quo isn't as good as it gets.

And with Columbine, the key factor was the mental state of these kids. Of course they broke laws to get the guns, but the whole point of tighter gun laws is not to deal with specific cases, but to make it generally harder to get a gun if there is a chance it will be used in crime. The simple logic is that the less guns that are in circulation, the more difficult it becomes for a criminal or a disgruntled kid to get a gun. You also slightly increase the chance of them being caught violating a law and have the opportunity to stop one of these events before they happen. While guns are out there, and we can't change that fact, there will always be incidents that slip through the system.

Those in favour of the present system, or even freer gun ownership, will probably say something "funny".
But if they are happy with a murder rate many times higher than in the rest of the world - if they accept that there "freedom" to own a gun means that every few months a firearm will be used in a rampage - if they deem that the risk to children, though maybe not as great as crossing the road, is bearable - then by all means, don't look to improve things, simply pretend there's not a issue.
You could even stretch credibility further by claiming that guns actually cut crime. Sure they may stop a mugging, but they don't stop too many drive-bys.”

“This is one area where your culture is just different from ours, ynamiynami. Many of us realize that without arms, we wouldn’t have driven out our oppressors or maintained our form of government for long. I am viewed as ‘liberal’ but I am firmly against any form of gun ban or too stringent regulation because I know an armed citizenry is our last line of defense against foreign and domestic threats to liberty.

I don’t know why so many would delude themselves and believe the fantasy that widespread gun ownership isn’t dangerous and carries a high social cost. In my view, those very real costs are worthwhile.”

“I don't entirely disagree, ynami2, but my point is that the higher homicide rate is not solely a function of increased availability of firearms. Other factors affect those statistics as well.

Somewhere between the polar extremes (out right ban on the left and unrestricted ability to own and carry on the right) there is a "balance" point where the liberties are not constrained past the point of protecting the public good. Are we there yet? I don't think so, but as with any control, I think that it has to come in incremental levels until we find that equilibrium.

As with any law, I think the true question is "What level or contraint is necessary to protect the public interest without unduly restricting a protected Constitutional Right. I am entirely opposed to repealing any of the Bill of Rights as I think our entire framework of society is delicately balanced upon each and every one of the first Ten Amendments. The first departure from those liberties would terrify me as to the aspect of the last departure. I.E. if we can repeal the Second, how long will the First remain intact? Of course, we could argue the Eighth is mundane and archaic in today society. I am confident in the ability of the Supreme Court to carefully guard the balance of the public good and our liberties. To the extent gun control laws can pass Judicial review, I think they are are necessary to protect society from ourselves.”

“How do you feel about water guns? (I think i have a one tract mind...)”

“Sure Vio, I can see the history of America as being different, and independence came from being able to fight against the opressor (those bastards for wanting to tax you to pay for your own defence and stop you becoming French ;o). And I can see that guns will always be a part of America and American life. But I don't think claiming that there's no problem is the answer. I think the situation can be improved from the present.
The technology is there to allow tigher control of illegal guns while allowing law-abiding individials to own a weapon - some form of electronic lock is one good example of something that could be done. While the capability is there, it seems the will isn't, as any form of control is seen as a slippery slope toward an outright ban.
The whole debate seems to have been moved, and I think the NRA is largely responsible to this, to there being no real problem, and to try and turn it into a point of ridicule that someone is in favour of tighter gun control.
If you deny the problem exists your simply trying to stifle debate on the issues mentioned above.”

“Water guns actually reduce soakings ;oP”

“Super Soaker
.50 Caliber
3 litre clip
110 Foot LBS at the muzzle
Will level any dry person within 10 feet!!! :-)

Chili,
I Agree, Middle of the Road :-)”

“Also Vio, I would say that the view that a constitutional right to bear arms makes you any safer is an illusion. One irritating thing is the way the word Freedom is used here, like it's the only free place on earth. You are no less or more suseptable to threats to liberty than for example the British people. What makes for liberty is the willingness of the population to defend it, not the tools they have to do the job.”

“The root of the problem is folks now-a-days will kill you for a dime, over an arguement, if you..."
~snafu29

"now-a-days"?
When, in human history, did this phenomenom NOT exist?


Go back to the old days, an Eye for an Eye, then the murder STATS will drop !
~snaffy again - no, I'm not picking on you.

"Eye for an eye".
Alot of people luuuuuuv to quote that biblical verse, but they seldom complete it:
"But vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord."

In other words, the eye will cost an eye, but that's for God to impose - not us.

But you can't tell them Bible thumpers that...



Never forget this point... never:
If the Iraqi citizens were as well armed as American citizens, Saddam Hussein would not have been able to commit the atrocities he commited.

Our Founding Fathers knew what they meant when they allowed for we Americans to bear arms - thank God enough of us still get it. I'm able to sleep well at night knowing that my neighbors and I have the local law enforcement agencies out-gunned. Throw in the National Guard unit, too.

My county has 110,000 residents. We could raise a militia of at least 10,000 armed people - probably many more. Add that to Georgia's other 155 counties, and you've got quite a little army. What? 156,000 strong? (probably more like a quarter-million). Then, multiply by the 49 other states, and you get A FREAKIN' HEADACHE! (daaaam math!).

Nope. We'll NEVER lose our guns. There's not enough muscle out there to accomplish such a follifical notion - even if you throw in the bed wetters.

And don't think Hitler, et al, were ignorant of these stats...

In other words, within a few weeks, we - America - could raise a citizen army tens of millions strong. Tens of millions! What fool idiot would want to commence a guerrila war against such a large number of combatants?

Go back to my first statement of this post. I made a point - I was referring to the term "uniformatarianism" - which, in a nutshell, means "the past is the key to the present".

Did humans invade other humans in the past? Did they always succeed? If they FAILED to succeed, was it because the invadees proved to be too strong?

Two points ala summarati:
*As long as we're armed to the teeth, we can rest assured that a rogue general, sheriff, etc, will last all of two minutes against we the people.
*Ditto for foreign meanies.

g'day!”

“errrrm, the Iraqi people were armed to the teeth”

“Tools help.

Which gets back to the first post. Why is the NRA so selective in the arms it defends? Why don’t they secure our constitutional right to tanks, nukular bombs and long range bombers? What a buncha hypocrites.”

“How have tools helped Vio, after the revolution where widespread gun ownership has been beneficial to America?”

“Alot of valid points and big words. haha
Yes there is a HUGE violence problem in this country and Guns do play Partial role, along with many other factors.
As Chili said:
"Somewhere between the polar extremes (out right ban on the left and unrestricted ability to own and carry on the right) there is a "balance" point where the liberties are not constrained past the point of protecting the public good"
I think most of the folks in TT are obivously Very Good people and have concerns (obviously).
Too bad we couldn't make all the decisons, that could change things for the better. Maybe Chili will be Prez someday and we all can be his Cabinet....haha
Only I'm a conservative with a tad bit of Liberal...hee hee”

“I prefer no big government controll thank you very much! Small local government is not so bad. :) OWN ALL THE GUNS YOU WANT SO LONG AS IT DON'T INTERFER WITH MY LIFE AND HAPPINESS!”

“I think murder should be against the law.”

“Once again you seem to amaze me! How about we require a waiting period and registration before you can get WMD! Absurd comment! Gun control only keeps guns out of the hands of good citizens and gives the advantage to criminals! You can make all your bogus statistics and comments now! But I bet you wish you had a gun in your house when someone comes knocking through your door. If you are intelligent with how you keep and maintain your guns then accidents will not happen. If you are an idiot then yes you may have an accident for improperly handling your weapon. But then again you can chop your hand off with a knife and you could run over someone with a lawn mower, etc. Should we ban those things too! Sorry but I don't think you will be making any decisions for me anytime soon!!”

“Why can't well all get along ? :-)

I like everyone's point and counter point.
Just don't point your gun at me And I won't point my gun at you ;-)”

“"....raise a citizen army tens of millions strong..."???

That for the most part is a pipe dream.

It would be chaos!

Millions of out-of-shape undisciplined armed rabble do not an army make.

Balkanization would possibly set in with feuding warlords and armed bandits running amok.

The idea doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
It sounds like a bad Chuck Norris movie.”

“"errrrm, the Iraqi people were armed to the teeth"
~ynamiynami

Not even close.
"Waist"? maybe.
"Teeth"? nupe...”

“Ah UU, so your comparison between a lawn mower and a gun is valid, where as mine between a gun and a WMD isn't? I would say my comparison in that they are both something to designed to kill or act as a deterrant is far more vaild than yours.

"[Nuclear weapon] control only keeps [nuclear weapons] out of the hands of good [countries] and gives the advantage to [criminal states]" - hows that?

I'm asking to make decisions for you, I'm asking for there to be a rational debate. And if you read back a bit, you seem to make the same ill-judged comparisons with everyday objects that I said you would earlier.”

“Tom T obviously never saw that 70’s movie with a dozen or so armed kids fighting off a Soviet invasion of Colorado or something.”

“Little tommy boy, don't you know the U.S. army is largely republican. Republicans believe in the 2nd amendment. What makes you think the Army would turn on their own people who are just defending their God given right of self-defense?


If I were a criminal I'd be all for a ban on guns. That way it would be alot easier for me to break into your home and rape your wife at gun point. The sad thing is if you were to brandish your own weapon to come to her defense you'd be just as big a criminal as I.”

“True Story !!!
This Guy (Recently Fired) in my area was the biggest anti-gun fanatic here. We are mostly Pro-gunners including my boss. (she is a military daughter)...
Anyway, On September 12th, 2001. He asked me what would be a good gun for home defense, because he was going to the Local gun store and was thinking about buying a Gun!
Guess the threat was enough to quickly change his mind.”

“Is the "waiting period" really that unreasonable?

Do people actually wake up one morning and say "Gee, I think someone will try to break in and murder me tonight, I better go buy a gun"?

I don't think the waiting period is at the crux if the issue. I think it is the background check that is vital. If that can be done in 5 minutes, fine. If it takes a week, fine. I realize we cannot keep the felons from buying guns on the street, but I do think it is wise to keep it from being as easy as walking in purchasing over the counter.”

“The force field of another stupid social issue thread dragged me in but I'm going to escape and go home to run in the woods.

You're all right.”

“http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html" TARGET="_blank">Christian Science Monitor, the first example I found


I particularly liked the opening line

“With a gun culture that closely resembles that of the United States, Iraq is one of the most heavily armed societies in the world.””